RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/FRA/1
7August 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3346)
Original: French/English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
France1
Thepresent document reproduces thequestions puttothedelegation ofFrance andtheresponses
given inthereview oflegislation ontrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs at
theCouncil 'smeeting of11-15 November 1996.2
_______________
I. REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION CONCERNING PRIORITY RIGHTS3
Doesyourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
1. French courts havesolecompetence torecognize thevalidity ofapriority rightclaimed.
2. Subjecttoparagraph1above,theInstitutNationaldelaPropriétéIndustrielle(NationalIndustrial
Property Institute) would accept aclaim toaright ofpriority based onprior filing ofatrademark
application inanyWTO Member evenifitisacountry applying thetransitional period provided for
intheTRIPS Agreement.
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. PleaseexplainwhetherFranceprovidesfortheacceptanceofapplicationstoregisteratrademark
based onanintent tousethemarkconsistent withTRIPS Article 15.3. Please explain therequirements
andconditions thatareplaced onparties wishing toregister andmaintain applications ofamarkbased
onanintent tousethemark.
TheTRIPS Agreement doesnotimpose theobligation ofactual useofamark asacondition
forfiling anapplication forregistration. InFrance, thefiling ofanapplication forregistration
1Asregards lawsandregulations relevant totheareas under review asnotified byFrance under Article 63.2 ofthe
Agreement ,referenceismade todocument sIP/N/1/F RA/1; IP/N/1/F RA/I/1 andAdd.1; IP/N/1/F RA/T/1; IP/N/1/F RA/G/1-5;
andIP/N/1/FRA/O/1.
2Theminutes ofthismeeting arecontained indocument IP/C/M/11.
3Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of11-15 November 1996, Members agreed torespond tothisquestion inthe
context ofthepresent review (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 43).IP/Q2/FRA/1
Page2
(Article L713-1 oftheIntellectual Property Code) doesnothavetobepreceded byuseandisnot
conditional upon intent touse.
2. Article L712-1 oftheFrench Intellectual Property Codeprovides atenyeartermfortrademarks
beginning onthefiling dateoftheapplication, rather thanfromthedatetheregistration isgranted .
Please explain howthisprovision complies withtheobligation ofTRIPS Article 18thatWTO Members
provide atermofprotection ofnotlessthanseven years forregistered trademarks.
Article 18oftheTRIPS Agreement doesnotstipulate thatthetermofprotection should begin
onregistration. Itimposes aminimum termofprotection ofseven years.
InFrance, trademark lawisapplicable asfrom thefiling date(Article L712-1, Intellectual
Property Code). Thetermofprotection oftenyears from thefiling dateistherefore inconformity
withArticle 18.
[Follow-up question from theUnited States]
What istheaverage pendency toregistration oftrademark applications intheFrench Industrial
Property Office?
Assuming thatthere isnothing irregular about theapplication fortrademark registration, the
average pendency toregistration intheFrench Industrial Property Office (INPI) issixmonths.
3. Please explain whether apresumption oflikelihood ofconfusion isprovided intheFrench law
inthedetermination ofconfusing similarity involving identical marks thatareusedonidentical goods,
asrequired byTRIPS Article 16.1. Ifso,please provide anindication ofthebasisforthispresumption.
Pursuant toArticle L713-2 oftheIntellectual Property Code, marks relating toasignand
goodsidenticaltoapreviouslyregisteredmarkwithoutaccountbeingtakenofthelikelihoodofconfusion
arecancelled bythecourts orrefused registration bytheFrench authorities through opposition
proceedings. There istherefore noneedtoprovide forapresumption ofconfusion.
[Follow-up question from theUnited States]
Where aregistered trademark isusedontheidentical goods forwhich itisregistered bysomeone
other thantheregistrant oritslicensee, willtheFrench courts impose apresumption ofconfusion that
mustbeovercome bytheuser?
Inaccordance withtheIntellectual Property Code, twocases must bedistinguished:
(1) According toArticle L713-2, where anidentical mark isusedonidentical goods,
noriskofconfusion isrequired inorder toprohibit suchuse.Thus there isnoneed
toestablish apresumption ofconfusion.
(2) Ontheother hand, according toArticle L713-3, where asimilar mark isusedon
identical goods, itisfortheholder oftherightinthemark toprove riskofconfusion.IP/Q2/FRA/1
Page3
4. Please explain howunregistered well-known marks areprotected inFrance, asrequired by
TRIPS Articles 16.2and16.3.
FrancehasbeenamemberoftheUnionoftheParisConventionsince7July1884and,therefore,
since thatdatehasapplied Article 6bisofthatConvention, asembodied inArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
Inthisconnection, Article L711-4a oftheIntellectual Property Code provides thatasign
prejudicing "(...) anearlier mark thathasbeenregistered orthatiswell-known within themeaning
ofArticle 6bisoftheParis Convention fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property" cannot beregistered
asamark.
Article L714-3 provides forthenullity ofsuchmarks.
Withrespect toArticle 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement, theIntellectual Property Code contains
asimilar provision. Article L713-5 oftheCode provides that:
"Anyone whousesamark enjoying repute forgoods orservices thatarenotsimilar
tothose designated intheregistration shallbeliable under civillawifsuchuseislikely
tocause prejudice totheowner ofthemark orifsuchuseconstitutes unjustified
exploitation ofthemark.
Theprovisions oftheforegoing paragraph shallapply totheuseofawell-known mark
within themeaning ofArticle 6bisoftheParis Convention fortheProtection of
Industrial Property referred toabove."
[Follow-up question from theUnited States]
Cantheowner ofanunregistered well-known mark bring anaction inFrench courts against
theuseofsuchmark?
Yes,theowner ofanunregistered well-known mark canbring anaction inthecourts against
theuserofthatmark, inparticular onthebasis ofArticle L714-3 oftheIntellectual Property Code.
5. Article L716-8 oftheFrench Intellectual Property Code provides trademark owners an
opportunity toapply tothecustoms authorities forenforcement andallows forcustoms detentions of
suspect goods fortenworking days. Please explain whether thetrademark owner isafforded an
opportunity toseekcustoms detention ofsuspected counterfeit goods foranadditional tenworking days
inaccordance withTRIPS Article 55.
Thisquestion relates tothe"Civil andAdministrative Procedures andRemedies" section of
theTRIPS Agreement, scheduled forreview inNovember 1997.
6. Article L714-5 oftheFrench Intellectual Property Code permits theproprietor ofatrademark
topresent "good reasons" forcontinued registration despite non-use ofatrademark. Please explain
thetypes ofcircumstances thatwould besufficient tosatisfy thisprovision, including, where relevant,
results ofadministrative orjudicial decisions addressing thisissue.
Article 19.1oftheTRIPS Agreement provides that:
"Ifuseisrequired tomaintain aregistration, theregistration maybecancelled only
afteranuninterrupted period ofatleastthree years ofnon-use, unless valid reasonsIP/Q2/FRA/1
Page4
based ontheexistence ofobstacles tosuchuseareshown bythetrademark owner.
Circumstances arising independently ofthewilloftheowner ofthetrademark which
constitute anobstacle totheuseofthetrademark, suchasimport restrictions onor
other government requirements forgoods orservices protected bythetrademark, shall
berecognized asvalid reasons fornon-use."
Conversely, Article L714-5 oftheIntellectual Property Code permits theowner ofatrademark
toavoid forfeiture ofthetrademark fornon-use during aperiod offiveyears byinvoking goodreasons,
i.e.adejureordefacto obstacle which cannot beattributed totheowner 'sfaultornegligence.
Thefollowing excuses arerecognized aslegitimate:
- major difficulties inprocuring rawmaterials;
- time-period required inorder toobtain authorization toplacetheproduct onthemarket.
7. Please explain whether Article 2ofLawNo.94-665 restricts theuseofmarks thatdonotutilize
theFrench language. Ifrestrictions ontheuseofnon-French language marks areimposed, please
explain howthese restrictions areconsistent withTRIPS Article 20,which provides thattheuseofa
trademark shallnotbeunjustifiably encumbered byspecial requirements, suchasuseinaspecial form.
Article 2ofLawNo.94-665 of4August 1994 ontheuseoftheFrench language provides
that"wording andmarking registered withthetrademark" mustbetranslated soastobe"asreadable,
audible andintelligible asthepresentation inforeign languages". Thecircular issued toimplement
thisLawspecifies thatonlythewording andmarking describing thegoods orservices concerned must
betranslated, evenifregistered within atrademark. Ontheother hand, there isnosuchobligation
inthecaseofthetrademark itself.
8. Please explain whether registrations oftrademarks forwines orspirits which contain orconsist
ofageographical indication arerefused orinvalidated withrespect tosuchwines orspirits nothaving
thisorigin, andhowthispractice isconsidered consistent withTRIPS Article 23.2.
Atrademark which contains orconsists ofageographical indication forwines orspirits not
having thisorigin maynotberegistered ormaybeinvalidated pursuant toArticle L711-3 ofthe
Intellectual Property Code, which provides:
"The following maynotbeadopted asamark oranelement ofamark:
(a) signs excluded byArticle 6teroftheParis Convention fortheProtection of
Industrial Property of20March 1883, asrevised;
(b) signs contrary topublic policy ormorality orwhose useisforbidden bylaw;
(c) signs liable tomislead thepublic, particularly asregards thenature, quality
orgeographical origin ofthegoods orservices."IP/Q2/FRA/1
Page5
IntheBillforthetransposition oftheTRIPS Agreement currently before Parliament, theFrench
authorities haveproposed, intheIntellectual Property Code, astrengthening ofthisprotection expressly
relating toArticle 23.2.4
9. Please explain whether trademarks existing prior totheentryintoforceoftheWTO Agreement
areprotected against appropriation fromactions incident torecognition ofageographical indication.
Ifnot,please explain howthispractice isconsistent withTRIPS Article 24.5.
TherelationshipbetweentrademarksandgeographicalindicationsisgovernedbybothCommunity
provisions andFrench provisions, namely under Articles 14.2and14.3ofCouncil Regulation 2081/92
of14July1992ontheprotection ofgeographical indications anddesignations oforigin foragricultural
products andfoodstuffs5,andArticle L115-5, paragraph 4,ofLaw93-949 of26July1993 onthe
Consumer Code.
These provisions establish, inparticular, thattheuseofatrademark registered ingood faith
before thedateoffiling oftheapplication forregistration ofageographical indication maycontinue
notwithstanding theregistration ofthegeographical indication, where thetrademark isnotliable to
nullity orforfeiture owing toariskofmisleading theconsumer.
10. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected inFrance, inparticular:
- theformorforms ofintellectual property usedtoprotect thedesign
(e.g., patent, copyright, suigeneris);
- theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection
(e.g., whether designs mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters ofthese concepts),
andabriefdescription oftheregistration orgranting procedure;
- thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided;
- thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including
adescription oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial use
isrequired); and
- whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
Systems ofprotection
Industrial designs maybeprotected bycopyright (Intellectual Property Code, Book I),aswell
asbythelawrelating todesigns, where anapplication hasbeenfiled(Intellectual Property Code,
Book V).Thetwotypes ofprotection maybecumulative. Designs theformofwhich isinseparable
from thefunctionality maybeprotected onlybypatent (patent rights anddesign rights arenot
cumulative).
4Theamendment has,subsequent toitsadoption, beennotified byFrance under Article 63.2anddistributed asdocument
IP/N/1/FRA/I/1/Add.1.
5Document IP/N/1/EEC/G/1.IP/Q2/FRA/1
Page6
Requirements forprotection
Copyrightprotectionarisesfromthefactofcreationalone,withoutformalityoffiling(Intellectual
Property Code, Article L111-1). Thecriterion isthatoforiginality, i.e.thestamp oftheauthor 's
personality.
With respect todesigns, Article L511-3 oftheIntellectual Property Code indicates thatthe
criterion isthatofnovelty (designs must "differ from similar articles" andreveal acreative effort).
Thenovelty ofaregistered design isnotdestroyed bypublicity priortothefiling, where such
publicity isbytheowner (Intellectual Property Code, Article L511-6).
Theappreciation ofnovelty andoriginality results from acomparison between, ontheone
hand, thecreated design and,ontheother, thedesigns having anearlier dateofcreation. Thelatter
arecalled priority designs ("antériorités" ).They aretimeless, universal andmust beallofapiece
(inother words theycannot becombined).
Term ofprotection
Inthecaseofcopyright, thetermofprotection runsfortheauthor 'slifeand50years after
hisdeath (thepostmortem termshould shortly beraised to70years).
Thefiling ofadesign confers protection for25years fromitsdate,renewable once(foratotal
termof50years: Intellectual Property Code, Article L513-1).
Nature oftherights conferred
Inthecaseofrightsrelatingtodesigns,ArticleL511-1oftheIntellectualPropertyCodeprovides
"thatthecreator ofadesign orhissuccessors intitleshallhavetheexclusive righttoexploit, sellor
havesoldsuchdesign under theconditions laiddown inthisBook" [Book V-Industrial Designs].
Nature ofremedies
Thisquestion refers tothe"Civil andAdministrative Procedures andRemedies" section of
theTRIPS Agreement, which isscheduled forreview inNovember 1997.
Exceptions torights granted
Theexceptions provided inthecaseofcopyright under Article L122-5 oftheIntellectual
Property Code areinprinciple applicable, although hardly adapted toworks ofapplied art.No
exceptions areprovided forbythelawrelating todesigns.
11. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Article L512-2, paragraph 2,oftheIntellectual Property Code provides that"Inthecaseof
designs relating toindustries thatfrequently renew theform andpresentation oftheirgoods, filing
maybeeffected inasimplified form (...)".IP/Q2/FRA/1
Page7
Articles R512-3 andR512-46oftheIntellectual Property Code, reproduced below, laydown
theconditions forsimplified filing.
"Article R512-3. Filing comprises:
"1. Adeclaration offiling established under theconditions laiddown intheOrder
mentioned inArticle R514-5, giving inparticular:
(a) theidentity oftheapplicant;
(b) thenumber ofdesigns concerned and,foreachofthem, anindication
ofitssubject matter andthenumber andtitleofthegraphic or
photographic reproductions involved;
(c) where appropriate, anindication thatthepublication ofthefiling should
bepostponed, thattherightofpriority attached toanearlier foreign
filing isclaimed, orthatacertificate ofguarantee hasbeenissued
pursuant tothelawof13April 1908.
"2. Agraphic orphotographic reproduction ofthedesigns, submitted inaccordance
withtheabove-mentioned Order; thisreproduction maybeaccompanied byabrief
description.
Thedescription ismade exclusively fordocumentary purposes. Itsfinalcontent
shall, ifnecessary, bedefinitively drafted bytheNational Industrial Property Institute.
"3. Proof ofpayment oftheprescribed fees.
"4. Power ofattorney ofanyauthorized agent, ifoneisappointed, unless heis
anindustrial property legalconsultant.
Asingle application cannot concern more than100reproductions ofdesigns.
"Article R512-4. Thesimplified filing provided forinArticle L512-2,
paragraph 5,comprises thedocuments andinformation setoutinArticle R512-3.
However, untiltherenunciation ofpostponement provided forinArticle R512-11,
thegraphic orphotographic reproductions ofdesigns arenotsubject tothepresentation
requirements laiddown inthesecond paragraph ofArticle R512-3 andfiling shall
beaccompanied byproof ofpayment ofafeeregardless ofthenumber of
reproductions."
6Theletter "R"indicates thatthisistheregulatory partoftheCode, asopposed totheletter "L", which corresponds
tothelegislative part.