of TRIPS Sample Clauses

of TRIPS. The WIPO provisions set out factors to determine what constitutes a well-known mark. These are non-exhaustive and are to serve only as guidelines not requirements. In addition, the guidelines establish that the scope of protection for a well-known mark against conflicting marks, business identifiers, and domain names shall be determined from at least the time the mark becomes well known in the country where protection is being sought, and that bad faith should be considered in balancing the interests of the parties involved when assessing possible infringement of well-known marks. The guidelines also stipulate for the conditions under which a mark is deemed to be in conflict with a well-known mark in respect of identical or similar goods and/or services. The provisions also cover conflicts with regard to dissimilar goods and services. However, in these cases, knowledge of the public at large can be required (i.e. a truly famous mark).

of TRIPS. Since Articles VIII and IX GATS concern any service-related restrictive practice, they also cover such practices in cases where acquisition, use and exploitation of IPRs are involved. Such cases may occur in many service industries, in particular 73 Panel Report Japan-Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper of March 31, 1998, WT/DS44/R; see also Xxxxx, Competition Law and the WTO-Report: “Japan-Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper”, Eur. Comp. L. Rev. 1999, 9. 74 See Drexl, Trade-Related Restraints of Competition – The Competition Policy Approach, in Za¨ ch (ed.), Towards WTO-Competition Rules, Berne 1999, 225, 242 et seq. [hereinafter Za¨ ch]. 75 As regards future inclusion of competition rules, see Section 6.2 below. 76 See the text of Articles VIII, IX GATS, under 3.2.1 b) (i) above. 566 Competition in the context of de facto or de jure standardization and interconnection. The Agreement on Telecommunications Services expressly points to the risks of misuse of information obtained from competitors and, conversely, the risks of undue withholding of essential information.77 Obviously, in both situations, intellectual property, in particular trade secret protection (Article 39 of TRIPS), but also patent and copyright protection may raise particular problems.

of TRIPS. The Lisbon Agreement requires a greater and closer connection between the product and the region of origin for the protection of a product by means of an AO, thus eliminating from its scope the protection of products which connection to the region of origin is weaker. Therefore, the definition provided in the Portuguese legislation is consistent with that provided for in Article 2 of Lisbon Agreement. However, we believe that it would be appropriate, in accordance with UE Regulation 510/2006 as well as in the Portuguese legislation, to also consider as AO certain traditional geographical or non geographical names designating a product originating in a region or specific place. We think that this will allow the modernization and the widening of this definition. We therefore consider that the Lisbon Agreement could become more comprehensive, so as to include geographical indications, provided for in various national systems, that also meet certain strict requirements – such as those in the Portuguese legislation. This would prevent discrimination against indications that also meet certain strict requirements and that, therefore, should also be given international protection afforded by the Lisbon Agreement.

of TRIPS. 63. It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that the answer to the third question in Case C-392/98 must be that Article 50 of TRIPs leaves to the Contracting Parties, within the framework of their own legal systems, the task of specifying whether the right to sue under general provisions of national law concerning wrongful acts, in particular unlawful competition, in order to protect an industrial design against copying is to be classified as an ‘intellectual property right’ within the meaning of Article 50(1) of TRIPs.”