BulletinInteractive Discussions Highlight Emerging Issues Forum Association News

INTA Launches Redesigned Website

A Peek at the 2006 Annual Meeting’s Educational Offerings

Member Spotlight

Kee Leng Tan

Features

Starbucks Trademark Victory in Russia

CURIOUS GEORGE and Other Marks Animate New Film

Law & Practice

BAHRAINIncrease in Official Fees

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDSRegistrar Determines a Corporate Name Is Not Proof of Trademark Ownership

CANADANew Protection Against Gray Market Goods

CHILENew Law Covers Sound Trademarks

COLOMBIAAffiliated Companies May Not Register Confusingly Similar Marks

EUROPEAN UNIONECJ Confirms Rejection of PICASSO Opposition to PICARO

GERMANYFederal Supreme Court Decision on Retailers’ Genuine Use of Trademarks

UNITED ARAB EMIRATESFees Increase

UNITED STATESPuerto Rico Secretary of State Confirms Statement of Use Requirement

INTA Bulletin Board

In MemoriamMatthildur Hardardóttir

The Voice of the International Trademark Association March 15, 2006 Vol. 61, No. 6

On February 2 and 3, 2006, a group of advanced trademark practitioners from seven countries met on the banks of the Savannah River in Savannah, Georgia, USA, for the Emerging Issues in Trademark Law Forum. Organized and co-chaired by Carole Klein of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Washing-ton, DC) and Thomas Brooke of Holland & Knight (Washington, DC), the meeting was an opportunity to gain insight into cutting-edge issues that affect trademark law, to share best practices in finding solutions to complex issues and to exchange ideas with experts and colleagues. It lived up to expectations and also gave attendees the chance to taste fried green tomatoes, she-crab soup and other “down home” cuisine from the

southeastern United States.The forum opened with “Ambushing Celebri-

ties,” a presentation that shared case studies high-lighting the potentially expensive consequences when brand building butts up against rights of publicity. “Trademark Is-sues in Secured Transac-tions and Bankruptcy” touched on financial deals and prompted such an animated audience discussion that questions spilled into time allotted for lunch. When the meeting resumed, catch-phrases such as “claw-back” and “bowing at the feet of governments” characterized the session on geographical indica-tions. That presentation also featured a smiling

potato hand puppet, courtesy of Patrick Kole from the Idaho Potato Commission (Eagle, Idaho, USA).

3

When Domain Names Steal the Spotlight

IN THIS ISSUE

8

More and more celebrities have found that their given names or stage names are being registered as domain names by unrelated third parties. To combat this epidemic of cybersquat-ting, celebrities have used proceedings under Section 4 of ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to seek transfer of these domain names to themselves. UDRP provides an administrative remedy geared toward clear cases of bad faith registra-tion and use of domain names that infringe trademark owners’ rights.

As must any complainant, celebrities must establish the following in order to get a domain name transferred:

(1) Respondent’s domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to complain-ant’s trademark;

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and

(3) Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

To use UDRP, a celebrity must first establish trademark rights in his or her name by showing that the name is famous and exclusively associated with the celebrity. This may be an obstacle for celebrities known by names that are also common words or for lesser-known celebrities, especially since personal names are not traditionally viewed as trademarks. In Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan (WIPO Case No. D2000-0596), well-known musi-cian Sting was unable to establish trademark rights in his stage name because the word “sting” is com-mon in the English language and has a number of dictionary definitions. In addition, the WIPO panel

SEE DOMAIN NAMES ON PAGE 6

11

SEE EMERGING ISSUES ON PAGE 2

Savannah Belles Ferry. The ferry offers an alternative to the Tallmadge Bride as a link between Savannah and Hutchinson Island. Pictured is the Susie King Taylor, named for a freed slave and Civil War nurse who opened one of Savannah’s first schools for African-American children.

4

5

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 20062 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 3

Association NewsEmerging Issues CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

Mr. Kole spoke about the Commission’s efforts to promote and protect the Idaho Potato. The day wrapped up with “Cross-Border Litigation,” which schooled attendees on the many complications and solutions in handling trademark, domain name and other IP disputes from various countries.

At the following cocktail reception, speakers and attendees alike noted that the forum’s small size (60 or so attendees) spurred more active participation than is typically found at larger meetings.

“This is an excellent opportunity to learn about speakers’ views on the development of trademark law and practice in the years to come and to participate in intense discussions among attendees on

the new challenges trademark owners will be confronted with in the near future,” said Luiz Henrique O. do Amaral of Dannemann, Siemsen, Bigler & Ipanema Moreira (Rio de Janeiro), and one of the presenters in the day’s last session.

The next day offered a variety of subjects, from “Trademarks and Corporate Governance,” which expertly examined the new fi ling requirements for IP valuations, to “International Malprac-tice,” which cautioned on advising clients on trademark matters in jurisdictions where one is not licensed or a resident. In “Public Policy and Challenging Products,” the speakers reviewed legislation and presented the challenges of developing and protecting new trademarks in the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries.

Perhaps the most spirited discussion of the conference took place during the “Fair Use or Foul Play?” presentation, which examined the distinction between fair use and nominative use of trademarks as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

“I really liked the discussion on fair use in the online context,” explained J. Scott Evans of Adams Evans (Charlotte, North Caro-lina, USA). “The debate between the panelist and the audience showed the divergent views on what is probably the most complex issue facing trademark law today.” Other attendees agreed with Mr. Evans’s comments.

“The ‘fair use’ session on Friday was particularly lively, with several attendees having been involved in cases under discussion and expressing different views on their implications for future

cases,” said Frank Hiscox of White & Case (Palo Alto, California, USA). Mr. Hiscox also enjoyed the conference’s location and size. “I found the smaller size of this particular forum encouraged more active participation than usual, so that dialogue and debate ensued to help enhance the discussion. All in all, a small show but a good one.”

By: Ken Taylor, Marksmen, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

Patrick J. Kole, Idaho Potato Commission, Eagle, Idaho, USA.

(Left to right) Jeffrey M. Becker, Haynes & Boone (Dallas, Texas, USA); Michael Smith, Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York City); Luiz Henrique O. do Amaral, Dannemann, Siemsen, Bigler & Ipanema Moreira (Rio de Janeiro); Carrollanne Lindley, Kilburn & Strode (London).

INTA’S 128TH ANNUAL MEETINGMAY 6–10, 2006

TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA

Don’t miss the most important and exciting event in trademark law!

This year’s Annual Meeting includes many educational and networking opportunities, as well as:

• A keynote speech by National Hockey League Commissioner Gary B. Bettman

• Skill-building workshops, industry breakouts, educational sessions and table topics on the hottest trademark issues

• The Exhibition Hall, featuring more than 80 service providers

• The INTA Gala, an entertaining way to kick off the Annual Meeting with business associates

• Many opportunities to earn CLE credit

Register before March 17, 2006, to receive the Early Bird Discount. Visit www.inta.org to register and take advantage of everything INTA’s Annual Meeting has to offer.

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 20062 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 3

INTA Launches Redesigned WebsiteOn March 3, INTA launched its redesigned website, offering a modern look, easier navigation and new user tools and features.

The redesign process began in April 2005. INTA’s new Strategic Plan called for more online content, and it became apparent that the structure of the old website could not handle the volume of information. In addition, many users had trouble finding what they needed. INTA commenced the redesign with primary goals of making the vast amount of content on the site more easily acces-sible and providing each user with a valuable experience.

Content was reorganized into three main topics that reflect INTA’s activities and services: Information & Publishing, Edu-cation & Training and Policy Development & Advocacy. The redesign team focused on how members and other frequent users view the site.

“The new website was designed to reflect how the INTA mem-bership views the Association, and the 2004 Membership Survey was very helpful, as was input from the Membership Services Committee,” said Daryl G. Grecich, INTA Director of Marketing and Communications.

To improve the navigation and organization of the site, INTA made most content available within three clicks of the mouse so that users no longer have to search through pages of information to find what they need. INTA’s separate Members Only Site was eliminated, and now the content accessible only to members can be viewed throughout the site, once a member supplies their user-name and password. This will make navigation easier and will give INTA members a broader exposure to all INTA’s resources and to the outstanding work of its volunteers.

The new homepage of the site is less cluttered, so that important items stand out. Dynamic menus enable users to jump right to the section they need. The bottom half of the page highlights the most important current information from the different departments of the Association.

Another benefit of the new site is its shopping cart feature. Users can now move throughout the site, registering for meetings and/or

purchasing publications, and then complete all of the transactions with the click of a button. Within the next year, INTA member-ship renewal will also be available using the shopping cart.

Future enhancements will include a Country Portals database that links all country-specific information found on the INTA site, Really Simple Syndication (RSS), which enables automatic updates on new content added to the site, and easier submission of job bank ads and exhibition and sponsorship applications.

INTA staff members have worked hard to provide members with a useful and effective new site. Those people include:

Redesign TeamElaine Czach, Website ManagerDaryl Grecich, Director of Marketing & CommunicationsColin Olkowski, Web Developer

Special Thanks to:Edison Diaz, Network & Systems CoordinatorKatie Frichtel, Graphic Designer & Production CoordinatorDavid Goldstein, Network/Systems AdministratorJustin Hajny, Marketing CoordinatorLiz Hanellin, Senior Publications EditorMegan Hauer, Information Resources SpecialistJohn Morales, Associate Editor, The Trademark Reporter®

Randi Mustello, Publications DirectorLena Popeko, Database AdministratorMelissa Quinn, Exhibitions & Sponsorship CoordinatorAndriy Shevtsov, Web DeveloperLyonel Yu, Membership Coordinator

We welcome your comments and questions about the site at: redesign@inta.org.

By: Elaine Czach, Web Manager

A Peek at the 2006 Annual Meeting’s Educational OfferingsThe 2006 Annual Meeting project team, led by co-chairs Kim-bley L. Muller of Shell Oil Company (Houston, Texas, USA) and Cynthia Rowden of Bereskin & Parr (Toronto), has been diligently planning the 128th Annual Meeting in Toronto. They have assembled 35 sessions and workshops and over 150 table topics that will appeal to all trademark professionals, regardless of their experience, location or whether they practice in-house or at a law firm. “We have litigation programs, sessions on international prosecution and enforcement issues, and hot topic sessions that cover both geographic areas and perennial favorite subjects such as the Internet,” said Ms. Rowden. “We have tried hard to put panels together that offer an international perspective on many important aspects of trademark law.”

The comprehensive lineup of programming, which covers the entire lifecycle of a trademark—from conception, creation, adoption, protection and enhancement to enforcement, including

topics such as infringement, passing off, counterfeiting and dilu-tion—is too extensive to describe in detail. But here’s a peek at a few examples of the many sessions that will take place.

In terms of trademark conception, creation and adoption, the pharmaceutical industry faces one of the most rigorous challenges when naming a new product. Pharmaceutical companies must take into consideration both regulatory issues and the constant battle between the marketing department’s desire to adopt an easy-to-remember name and the trademark lawyers’ interest in adopting a unique and conceptually strong mark. In that regard, the session “Pharmaceutical Industry—Name that Drug” will discuss those and other topics of interest to people involved in the naming of pharmaceuticals. A number of seminars will focus on similar topics related to other industries. For example, “Travel/Hotel Industries—Co-Branding and Alliances” will discuss benefits and

SEE ANNUAL MEETING ON PAGE 6

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 20064 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 5

Member SpotlightKee Leng Tan

Kee Leng Tan founded the intellectual property law firm K. L. Tan & Associates in Singapore in 1988. Her practice focuses on filing, prosecuting and registering trademarks in Singapore and other countries, as well as managing trademark portfolios and handling other trademark protection issues.

Ms. Tan was recently awarded Singapore’s Pingat Bakti Masayarakat (PBM), a public service medal instituted in 1976. The PBM is awarded to those who render commendable service to Singapore or distinguish themselves in areas such as the arts, sports or industry. PBM recipients are encouraged to wear the medal at national and other important functions and are also entitled to use the letters “PBM” after their names. Ms. Tan was awarded the PBM in recognition of her contribution to the community as a volunteer for the Singapore YWCA, where for six years she served as president. She is currently a member of the YWCA board.

Ms. Tan recently became chair of INTA’s Treaty Analysis Committee (TAC), which evaluates treaty developments relating to trademarks and unfair competition, advances and advocates INTA policy positions, drafts proposed treaty language and ad-vocates proposals to government officials. As TAC chair, Ms. Tan works with the TAC vice-chair and three subcommittee chairs to implement the TAC’s mission and subcommittee objectives, and she tries to have fun while doing it!

How many years have you been practicing in the trademark field?About 25 years—I started practicing in the trade-mark field in 1980.

Why and how did you begin working in the trademark field?I entered the trademark profession by accident. I qualified as a barrister in England, and after my call to the bar in Singapore, my first position was in the intellectual property department of a large law firm, handling the filing and prosecution of trademark applications. I recall many occasions on which I had to enforce search and seizure orders on hostile defendants and had to convince them that they had to comply with court orders. I have remained in this field ever since—I enjoy working in trademark law and cannot imagine practicing in any other area.

How long have you been involved with INTA activities?I have been involved with INTA activities since 1997. I have always been involved in the Treaty Analysis Committee, having started first as a mem-ber of the ASEAN subcommittee, then chair of the

Kee Leng TanK. L. Tan & Associates Singapore

ASEAN subcommittee, then vice-chair of TAC and now chair of TAC. I was also involved in the prepa-ration of the International Opposition Guide and was a member of the Leadership Meeting Task Force.

What INTA activity or committee you have par-ticularly enjoyed working on, and why?I enjoy working and interacting with INTA mem-bers from all over the world in the achievement of the committee’s objectives and projects. It is reward-ing to find that our efforts and participation have made a difference. During my term as chair of the ASEAN subcommittee, we established contact with the government working group. Since then, INTA has been invited to that group’s meetings, and we have been able to provide assistance in their work.

Do you have any favorite trademarks? If so, which ones?Having worked in the trademark field for many years, I appreciate all trademarks. One of the earlier trademarks that I came across and like is KLIM (the brand name of an instant milk). It is creative, being the reversal of “milk.”

If you were not practicing law, what would you be doing?I would probably develop social enterprises that help women to improve themselves, or turn my hobbies into businesses—perhaps running a book shop with a café selling homemade cakes and cookies, running a cooking school or cooking classes. My current hobby is designing and creating jewelry from semi-precious stones and crystals, which are sold to raise funds for charity.

What is the best aspect of your practice?The best aspect of my practice is the opportunity to meet and work with trademark professionals from different countries and traveling to different coun-tries, which gives an international perspective to my practice. Further, and much more rewarding, is that many of the professionals I have met and worked with have become friends.

Are there any particular areas on which you think INTA should focus in the future?I think that INTA has covered most areas and has achieved a lot since I first became involved in the committees. It is difficult to think of any area which INTA has not already covered, but perhaps INTA could focus on areas involving trademark licensing and leadership training.

By: Kelly J. Garrone, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, New Jersey, USA

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 20064 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 5

FeaturesStarbucks Trademark Victory in RussiaStarbucks Corporation, of Seattle, Washington, USA, recently claimed an important victory regarding the use and registration of its STARBUCKS trademark in the Russian Federation.

In 1997, Starbucks Corporation registered the trademark STARBUCKS COFFEE in the Russian Federation in Classes 30, 32 and 42. The mark was not used in Russia in association with the operation of coffee shops; however, STARBUCKS brand coffee apparently was sold in a small cafe in Moscow.

In September 2002, a Russian company believed to be affili-ated with Sergey Zuikov, a Russian national known for registering well-known trademarks of others, brought an action in the Russian Trademarks Office (Rospatent) to have the STARBUCKS COF-FEE registration cancelled for non-use. The action was for the most part successful, and in spring 2004 the STARBUCKS COF-FEE registration was cancelled for goods in Class 32 and services in Class 42. The registration was maintained for goods in Class 30 (coffee and coffee drinks).

Shortly afterwards Starbucks LLC, a Russian legal entity also believed to be affiliated with Mr. Zuikov, obtained in its name a registration for the trademark STARBUCKS in Russia, which included not only the famous STARBUCKS word mark but also the STARBUCKS logo. Starbucks LLC then began to offer STARBUCKS franchises and announced plans to set up a chain of STARBUCKS coffee shops throughout Russia. It also approached Starbucks Corporation with an offer to sell the registered trade-mark rights for approximately US $600,000.

Starbucks LLC also appealed the Rospatent decision that main-tained the validity of the STARBUCKS COFFEE registration for goods in Class 30. However, the appeal was rejected on the basis that Starbucks Corporation had successfully shown use of the mark with the Class 30 goods. In rendering its decision, the court made

some notable comments regarding Starbucks LLC’s conduct and ap-peared to recognize that the action had been initiated in bad faith.

With a view to defending its trademark rights in Russia, Star-bucks Corporation brought an action to cancel the STARBUCKS trademark registration obtained by Starbucks LLC. Although Starbucks LLC offered to make some modifications to the STAR-BUCKS logo, Rospatent nevertheless ruled in favor of Starbucks Corporation, and the “pirated” registration was cancelled on the grounds that: (1) it was likely to cause confusion as to the manu-facturer of the goods, contrary to Article 6(2)(1) of the Russian Trademark Law No. 3520-1 (Trademark Law); (2) it was confus-ingly similar to the primary component of the Starbucks corporate name, the rights to which had arisen prior to the “pirated” mark’s registration date, contrary to Trademark Law Article 7(2)(1); and (3) it reproduced the STARBUCKS logo, in violation of Starbucks Corporation’s copyright.

Starbucks LLC launched an appeal and succeeded in obtaining an injunction preventing the cancellation of the registration pend-ing the appeal’s outcome. However, the Arbitration Court upheld the Rospatent decision, and the pirated STARBUCKS registration was cancelled on November 16, 2005. This cleared the way for Starbucks Corporation to obtain registrations for its STARBUCKS trademarks in the Russian Federation and to provide the Russian market with its coffee houses and branded coffee products.

Although Russian courts are not bound to follow earlier court decisions, the STARBUCKS case nevertheless indicates that Russian courts are making progress in prohibiting bad faith trademark regis-trations despite the absence of specific legislation to this effect.

By: Susan J. Keri, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Toronto; Verifier: Dmitry Semenov, Gowlings International, Moscow

The movie Curious George isn’t monkeying around when it comes to product placement. The new animated movie has a barrelful of brands, from DOLE bananas to VOLKSWAGEN vehicles.

First introduced to children through storybooks over 65 years ago, the impetuous monkey famous for his curiosity is being brought to the big screen by Universal Studios, which acquired the rights to CURIOUS GEORGE from publisher Houghton Mifflin in 1997. Stephanie Sperber, executive vice president of partnerships at Universal Studios, explains that while it is generally difficult to do real-world product placements in animated movies, Curious George was an ideal film for product placement because of its realis-tic city setting. “Curious George is not a fantasy with a capital ‘F.’ It takes place close to the real world, so it does lend itself to product placement more than most animated movies,” she says.

In the film, George travels from the jungle to the big city aboard a cargo ship filled with fruit and vegetable crates featuring the DOLE logo. In turn, Dole Food Company Inc. is promoting the movie with Curious George movie stickers placed on 100 million DOLE bananas in U.S. grocery stores.

George’s human companion, the Man in the Yellow Hat, drives a VOLKSWAGEN TOUAREG vehicle in the film. “We took the TOUAREG and adapted that car design to suit the needs of the film,” says Ms. Sperber, noting that the filmmakers needed a

pickup-truck-type vehicle that could carry George and his “mag-nificator” device, which in one scene George uses to project a King Kong–like image of himself onto a building.

The USPS brand also appears in the film on mailboxes and on the uniform of a mail carrier. The United States Postal Service recently licensed CURIOUS GEORGE from Universal Studios for its Favorite Children’s Book Animals commemorative postage stamps.

SEE CURIOUS GEORGE ON PAGE 11

CURIOUS GEORGE and Other Marks Animate New Film

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 20066 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 7

Featuresheld that the respondent had bona fide use of the wording before the registration and was not trading on the musician’s goodwill. Contrary to that decision, in Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com” (WIPO Case No. D2000-0847), although the panel recognized that the term “madonna” is a com-mon word in the English dictionary, it did not conclude that the respondent had adopted and used the term in good faith based on its common dictionary meaning. Respondent could not offer any reason for adopting the mark other than the celebrity associa-tion and did not try to tie the domain name to any of the word’s dictionary meanings.

A celebrity complainant may establish common-law trademark rights as a basis for filing a UDRP complaint; his or her name need not be the subject of a trademark registration. In Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd (WIPO Case No. D2000-0210), Helen Folsade Adu known as SADE v. Quantum Computer Services, Inc. (WIPO Case No. D2000-0794) and Celine Dion and Sony Music

Domain Names CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

Entertainment (Canada) Inc. v. Jeff Burgar operating or carrying on business as Celine Dion Club (WIPO Case No. D2000-1838), the panel recognized the complainants’ common-law trademark rights acquired through each person’s career. Panelists looked to career-related activities such as movie performances, entertainment publications and television shows, musical tours and appearances, and the sale of records.

In some instances, a mere allegation of fame is not enough to establish trademark rights in a name. Celebrities should not automatically assume that their names are so famous that there is no need to submit evidence to support allegations of fame. This is particularly true for those celebrities who do not have worldwide fame on the level of, say, Julia Roberts or Morgan Freeman. In the case of Janine Turner v. Mercedita Kyamko (WIPO Case No. D2004-1036), although the panel ultimately acknowledged Janine Turner’s trademark rights in her name, it was not a clear-cut deci-sion because the actress’s name was not so well known. Fortunately for the complainant, who did not submit any evidence of fame, the panel took it upon itself to conduct a simple Internet search and concluded that there was sufficient evidence of her fame to justify common-law trademark rights in her name.

Once trademark rights are established, it is fairly easy for the complainant to show that the domain name is identical or con-fusingly similar to his or her trademark. In the comparison, the domain name’s gTLD or .com extensions are not viewed as distin-guishing elements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico (Case No. D2000-0477).

In general, in order to demonstrate a legitimate interest in a domain name, the respondent must show the following:

“(1) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparation to use, the domain name... in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; or

(2) the Respondent... has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(3) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commer-cial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

Domain Name Law and Practice: An International Handbook (Torsten Bettinger, ed., Oxford 2005).

To establish such a legitimate interest, the respondent must show substantive use of the domain name. Sumner v. Urvan. In Sumner, the respondent showed clear use of the “sting” name be-fore notice of the dispute and also showed that he had not traded on the musician Sting’s goodwill. The respondent had registered the “sting” name as his “UserName” and “Screen Name” for a global Internet gaming service. In addition, he showed evidence that he had started preparations to establish a website at the URL http://www.sting.com. Even in view of the preparations for the proposed website, the panel did not find that the respondent’s use was substantial enough to be recognized as a legitimate interest in

SEE DOMAIN NAMES ON NEXT PAGE

risks associated with co-branding, a popular method of enhancing trademarks’ commercial value and strength in those industries.

With litigation an important part of trademark professionals’ lives, “MAXXXIMUM EXPOSURE—Moonshine, Major League and Preliminary Injunction Madness!” will be a must-see event for many attendees. The two-day program will feature a mock U.S. District Court argument for a preliminary injunction in a dispute over the mark MAXXX between a Toronto-based sports drink company and a New York-based spirits company.

Discussions about trademark dilution will also be prominent in the educational programs. From BOSS cigarettes to BENZ under-wear, dilution often can be a bigger threat to the distinctiveness of a trademark than infringement. “It may be a bigger problem in that it can in some jurisdictions be harder to prove dilution and more evidence may be required, and therefore it may be more costly than an action for infringement,” said Frederick Mostert, of Richemont (London). Mr. Mostert is moderating the session “International Dilution Protection—Harmony or Confusion?”

The Annual Meeting will also offer programs concerning legal ethics. “Ethical Borders—If It Doesn’t Feel Good, Maybe You Shouldn’t Do It!” will include a discussion about the roles and responsibilities of lawyers, clients and non-attorney professionals. Best practices and ethical considerations for attorneys who employ outside investigators will be the focus of “Sleuthing Morality—The Bounds of Ethical Investigations.”

In addition, the 2006 Annual Meeting will continue the popular breakfast and lunch table topics. “Both the workshops and table topic sessions offer a chance to meet and discuss trademark matters in small, interactive venues,” said Ms. Rowden.

The programs discussed are just a sample of the many educational offerings at the 2006 Annual Meeting. For detailed information about all sessions and workshops, visit the daily schedule pages at: www.inta.org

By Gunjan Paharia, ZeusIP, New Delhi

Annual Meeting CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 20066 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 7

the mark. It concluded that although the respondent had made preparations to start a website, the respondent did not provide any evidence that his proposed website would be used in connection with a bona fi de offering of goods or services.

The respondent’s bad faith can be established in a number of ways, such as by looking closely at an alleged legitimate interest or by examining the respondent’s intent or past conduct. Bad faith often has been found underlying seemingly legitimate activity such as fan club sites dedicated to celebrities. While a noncommercial fan site would not support a bad faith argument, any showing of an attempt by the respondent to make a commercial gain—fi nan-cially or otherwise—from such a site has been recognized as bad faith. Soliciting donations to support the website has been viewed as an attempt by the respondent for commercial gain. RAI Radio-televisione Italiana S.P.A. v. Alessandro Pescetelli (WIPO Case No. D2002-0716) and Universal City Studios, Inc. v. David Burns and Adam-12 Dot Com (WIPO Case No. D2001-0784). In Universal, the panel recognized that the respondent’s failure to make a profi t was “not suffi cient to remove the commercial return of the activi-ties conducted on the Respondent’s website.”

As indicated above, the respondent’s intent and past conduct may also reveal the respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. In Ciccone v. Parisi, the panel found that the respondent had intended to trade upon the singer’s name because, although “madonna” had other dictionary meanings, the respon-

Domain Names CONTINUED FROM PAGE 6

dent failed to offer any alternative explanation for his adoption of the name and never tried to tie his use of the word to any of the dictionary meanings of the word. In that case, not even a dis-claimer on the website lessened the respondent’s bad faith, because disclaimers often are ignored by Internet users and the disclaimer did nothing to dispel the initial confusion that the respondent caused.

In many cases, the respondent’s past conduct supports a fi nding of bad faith, such as in Morgan Freeman v. Mightly LLC (WIPO Case No. D2005-0263) and Larry King v. Alberta Hot Rods (WIPO Case No. D2005-0570). In Morgan Freeman, the respondent’s pattern of registering more than 400 domain names featuring celebrity names was evidence of the respondent’s bad faith. In Larry King, the panel found bad faith on the part of the respondent because, even after a previous fi nding of bad faith in another, unrelated case, the respondent continued to register the names of celebrities.

To reclaim third-party domain names that attempt to capitalize on their fame, celebrities must be prepared to demonstrate both the strength of their own fame and the third party’s bad faith. But through use of UDRP, celebrities can protect their given names and stage names on the Internet in a cost-effective and decisive manner.

By: Benita Collier, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, Washington, DC

Visit INTA’s continually expanding website for valuable information and reference materials available exclusively to members, including:

Practitioner’s Guide to the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol, a searchable database of practical information providing guidance on the application of local practice and procedure in obtaining, maintaining, licensing and enforcing registrations obtained through the Madrid system.

International Opposition Guide (IOG), a searchable database that allows comparative analysis of the availability and feasibility of trademark opposition in 130 jurisdictions worldwide.

Country Guides, a searchable database of current information on trademark fi ling, prosecution, registration and maintenance in more than 90 jurisdictions.

Trademark Matters, an online news service that brings together the latest trademark news and case law information from more than 4,000 sources.

Trade Dress Image Library, a searchable database of images and case summaries compiled from various trade dress infringement cases.

To access these and other valuable members-only information, including The Trademark Reporter® and the INTA Bulletin, visit www.inta.org.

INTA’s Members Only Information

Essential Trademark Information

To access these and other references, including The Trademark Reporter® and the INTA Bulletin, visit www.inta.org and log on using your user I.D. and password. Don’t know them? You can request them by emailing customerservice@inta.org.

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 20068 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 9

Law and Practice

BAHRAIN

Increase in Official FeesOfficial fees for trademark matters have substantially increased in compliance with Ministerial Decision No. 4/2005, dated December 26, 2005, by the Bahraini Ministry of Industry and Commerce.

Source: Circular of January 21, 2006, Abu-Setta & Partners, Manama, Bahrain; Verifier: Nader Qumsieh, NJQ & Associates, Amman, Jordan

On January 17, 2006, the British Virgin Islands (BVI) Registrar of Corporate Affairs, in her capacity as Registrar of Trade Marks, determined that incorporating a company in the BVI with a name similar to or derivative of a trademark does not provide a sufficient rationale to successfully oppose the registration of the mark.

The Registrar’s decision was in response to an application made by The Royal British Virgin Islands Yacht Club (appli-cant) in November 2004 to register the trademark BVI WA-TERSPORTS CENTRE. The applicant disclaimed the right to exclusive use of the geographical name BVI and indicated that it had been using the trademark for three years before the date of the application. In February 2005, The (British Virgin Islands) Watersports Centres Limited (opponent), a company incorpo-rated in the BVI in September 2004, commenced opposition proceedings on the basis that it was incorporated for the purpose of operating water sports centers and had opened such a center under the name BVI WATERSPORTS CENTRE on October 7, 2004.

The Registrar found that incorporation of a company with the same name as a trademark only proved that on the incorporation date there was no other company with an identical name. It did not, however, prove ownership of or exclusive entitlement to use that name. The Registrar found that the opponent had not used the name prior to its incorporation, whereas the applicant had proven use from July 2003. The applicant was therefore entitled to have the trademark registered.

The decision is subject to appeal, but it has global significance as there are more than 700,000 companies registered in the BVI which carry out their business in Asia, Europe, Latin America and North America.

The Registrar has been known to refuse to incorporate a company where it is clear that the entity’s proposed name is overly similar to an internationally known trademark; however, to avoid potential trademark infringement, it would be prudent for global trademark owners to consider: (1) registering their trademarks; and (2) incorporating a company with a similar name in the BVI.

Contributor: Jamal S. Smith, Harney Westwood & Riegels, Tortola, Brit-ish Virgin Islands; Verifier: Jacqueline Daley-Aspinall, Appleby Spurling Hunter, Tortola, British Virgin Islands

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS

Registrar Determines a Corporate Name Is Not Proof of Trademark Ownership The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Kraft Canada

Inc. v. Euro Excellence Inc. (2005 CAF 427) has confirmed that intellectual property rights holders may rely on copyright protection of works used on product packaging to inhibit importation of gray market goods into Canada.

Kraft Canada and two European confection manufacturers brought proceedings against a former Canadian distributor for copyright infringement of artistic works appearing on the packaging of genuine confections. The defendant obtained the goods from an unnamed European source.

The subject copyrights had been registered in Canada, and Kraft Canada was granted the exclusive right to reproduce the works in association with the sale of the confectionery products. Notice was given to the defendant of the copyrights and licenses, but the defen-dant continued to sell the products.

Kraft Canada sought to enjoin the defendant from distributing the products in packaging that bore the works. The Court found in-fringement by commercial importation and distribution of the works in Canada, pursuant to Canadian Copyright Act Section 27(2), and the defendant was enjoined from distributing products displaying the works.

Copyright protection of works on product packaging provides brand owners a method other than trademark protection to stop importation of gray market goods. Using trademarks to block gray market goods may not provide effective remedies in some situations, such as where the same entity owns the trademark rights in both Canada and the country of origin.

When gray market issues arise in Canada, consideration should be given to assigning or exclusively licensing copyrights in artistic works appearing on label designs and packaging to an entity other than the goods’ foreign manufacturer, in addition to relying on existing remedies under trademark law or otherwise.

Contributors: Geneviève M. Prévost and Brian P. Isaac, Smart & Biggar/Featherstonhaugh, Toronto; Verifier: Daphne L. Maravei, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

CANADA

New Protection Against Gray Market Goods

April U.S. Roundtables

Developments in Fraud Upon theU.S. Patent and Trademark Office

April 10 – 21, 2006 | Various U.S. cities

Held in multiple U.S. cities, these roundtables are designed to fit into your busy schedule.

Visit www.inta.org to register and for more information.

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 20068 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 9

CANADA

New Protection Against Gray Market Goods

CHILE

New Law Covers Sound TrademarksWith the publication of the Regulations to Industrial Property Law No. 19.039 on December 1, 2005, the modifi cations provided by Law No. 19.996 came into full force in Chile. Law No. 19.996, which introduced several modifi cations to the previous Industrial Property Law, was published in the Chilean Offi cial Newspaper on March 11, 2005. The recent modifi cation establishes new defi nitions and expressly provides new intellectual property protection for industrial drawings, integrated circuits, geographical indications, origin denomina-tions, trade secrets and sound marks.

The prior law defi ned trademarks as all visible, new and characteristic signs devoted to distinguishing products, services and commercial or industrial establishments. Since trade-marks had to be visible, sound trademarks were automatically excluded from protection. While the new law does not specifi -cally provide for protection of sound trademarks, the new defi nition of a trademark implicitly covers them. Specifi cally, a trademark is now defi ned as all signs able to be graphically represented and capable of distinguishing products, services and industrial or commercial establishments in the market. This new defi nition allows for the possibility of registering sound trademarks. Since sound marks can be graphically represented, trademark applications for sound marks should be accepted by the Chilean Trademark Offi ce.

No special application forms exist for sound marks; how-ever, applicants will be required to provide a recording of the sound trademark. In addition, the sound must have a title that will allow it to be distinguished from other sound trademarks fi led later.

The Chilean Trademark Offi ce has not yet determined how sound marks will be published for opposition. It seems likely that musical staff notation would be published in the Chilean Offi cial Newspaper in order to comply with the publication requirement.

So far, only a few sound trademark applications have been fi led with the Chilean Trademark Offi ce. It will be several more months before further information about how such marks will be handled will be available.

Contributor: Luis I. Olmedo, Marinovic & Gutierrez Abogados, Santiago, Chile; Verifi er: Fernando Garcia, Cary & Cia Ltda., Santiago, Chile

By Resolution 31258 dated November 25, 2005, the Trademark Offi ce issued its position regarding the registration of the same or confusingly similar trademarks by different companies within the same family of companies—that is, affi liated companies.

In its decision, the Trademark Offi ce denied the registration of the trademark MOBIL DTE OIL BB, applied for by Exxon Mobil Corpo-ration, holding that it was confusingly similar to MOBIL trademarks owned by Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, another company within the same group. The Trademark Offi ce made its decision despite the fact that there was a subordinate link between the different companies and they shared the same purpose. In doing so, it noted that each company was independent of the other and as such could acquire its own obliga-tions and develop its own aims. Consequently, the trademark owner would have to license the trademark to other companies of the group if it wished to allow those companies to use similar or identical marks.

Thus, trademark owners should ensure that different affi liated com-panies within a group do not attempt to register the same or confusingly similar marks in Colombia.

Contributor: Margarita Castellanos, Alvaro Castellanos M. & Co., Bogotá, Colombia; Verifi er: Luz Helena Adarve Gómez, Cardenas & Cardenas, Bogotá, Colombia

COLOMBIA

Affiliated Companies May Not Register Confusingly Similar Marks

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Fees Increase

INTA’s e-learning programs available for CLE credit this June!

Access practical trademark information conveniently from your home or offi ce and receive CLE credit with INTA’s popular e-learning programs.

Trademark Basics E-Learning ProgramJune 5 – 30, 2006Provides an effi cient way to understand trademark concepts in four comprehensive parts: trademark fundamentals; clearing and registering trademarks; policing and enforcing trademarks; and counseling and transactional issues.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) Basics E-Learning ProgramJune 12 – 30, 2006Prepare yourself to successfully advocate before the TTAB in three practical sections: overview of TTAB proceedings and strategic considerations; pre-trial procedures for inter partes proceedings; and trial practice and settlement.

And remember, to provide the easiest way for you to receive relevant trademark information at your convenience, INTA also offers these programs continuously, all year round. For all of INTA’s e-learning information and to register, visit www.inta.org today!

The legalization fees at the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs have dramatically increased as of February 1, 2006. This decision covers all kinds of documents, including powers of attorney, company certifi cates and memorandums of association.

Source: Circular of February 6, 2006, Abu-Setta & Partners, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Verifi er: Hoda Barakat, Al Tamimi & Co., Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 200610 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 11

Law and Practice

On January 12, 2006, the Court of Justice of the European Community (ECJ) dismissed Succession Picasso’s appeal seeking annulment of a Court of First Instance (CFI) judgment. This was the latest in a series of Picasso appeals from OHIM’s refusal of an opposition against DaimlerChrysler AG’s application for PICARO for “vehicles and parts thereof, omnibuses.” The opposition was based on the Community trade mark registration for PICASSO, which also covered goods in Class 12, namely, “vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water, motor cars, motor coaches, trucks, vans, caravans, trailers.” The opposition was refused because there was no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (C-361/04 P).

In its decision, the ECJ referred to its prevailing case law confirming that assessment of likelihood of confusion depends, in particular, on the recognition of the trademark in the market, the association that can be made with the used or registered mark and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods or services. Furthermore, global appreciation of the visual, phonetic

EUROPEAN UNION

ECJ Confirms Rejection of PICASSO Opposition to PICAROor conceptual similarity of the marks in question must be based on the overall impression given by the marks.

The ECJ held that visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity may be counteracted if the meaning of at least one of the marks is clear and specific such that it can be grasped immediately by the relevant public. The court held that in the present case, PICASSO had a clear and specific meaning for the relevant public as the name of the famous painter Pablo Picasso.

Taking into account that the mark PICASSO cannot be consid-ered to have a highly distinctive character with respect to motor ve-hicles and that the average consumer, in view of the nature of such goods and, importantly, their price and their highly technological character, is particularly attentive when choosing between different goods, the ECJ concluded there was no likelihood of confusion between PICARO and PICASSO.

Contributor: Karin Thanbichler-Brandl, Bardehle Pagenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler, Munich; Verifier: Dr. Wolfgang Festl-Wietek, Viering, Jentschura & Partner, Munich

UNITED STATES

Puerto Rico Secretary of State Confirms Statement of Use RequirementOn November 14, 2005, Puerto Rico’s Secretary of State an-nounced that, consistent with the Puerto Rico Supreme Court decision in Arribas & Assocs., Inc. v. Santa Clara C. por A., 2005 TSPR 143 (INTA Bulletin, Vol. 61, No. 5, March 1, 2006), the Secretary of State’s office will begin to enforce strict compliance with a statutory requirement that a trademark in an intent-to-use application must actually be used and have its statement of use filed within five years from the application date. Puerto Rico Sec-retary of State Circular Letter No. 2005-DE002. The requirement applies both prospectively and retrospectively. Thus, all existing trademark registrations are automatically deemed to be canceled if the statement of use was not filed within five years from the date of application.

Under Puerto Rico law, a trademark registration can be granted based solely upon intent to use the trademark. Such a registration, however, requires that a statement of use be made within five years from the application’s filing date. For either an intent-to-use or an actual-use registration, a renewal must be filed within ten years.

This announcement reverses the prior practice of the Puerto Rico Trademark Office, which previously would accept a statement of use after the five-year time limit provided the statement was submitted before the renewal date. Any trademark registrations based upon an intent-to-use application should be reviewed to determine compliance with this requirement.

Contributor: Samuel F. Pamias-Portalatin, Hoglund & Pamias, P.S.C., San Juan, Puerto Rico; Verifier: Alejandro Cacho, Alejandro J. Cacho Law Offices, San Juan, Puerto Rico

INTA HAS A NEW WEBSITE!

www.inta.org

INTA has redesigned its website to make it even easier to access trademark information. The improved site offers:

• A new clean, modern and international design

• Improved navigation

• More members-only information, more readily available

It’s the preeminent source of trademark knowledge on the Internet!

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878March 15, 200610 www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 6 11

INTA Bulletin BoardBarbara Berdou has left Webber Wentzel Bowens and started Berdou Attorneys in South Africa. She was re-cently joined by Helen Burt.

Michelle Kaiser Bray and Stephanie Hale have joined the Intellectual Property Group of Baker & Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Both were formerly with Sommer Barnard, where Ms. Bray was chair of the Intel-lectual Property Practice and Ms. Hale was an associate.

Mary Katherine Morgan Merlino, formerly of Glaxo-SmithKline, has rejoined Cozen O’Connor as senior trademark paralegal in their Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, office.

Bill C. Panagos has joined the Bloomfield Hills, Michi-gan, USA, office of Rader, Fishman & Grauer.

The “INTA Bulletin Board” announces job changes or other significant career news about individuals who belong to INTA organizations. To submit an item for consideration, send a brief message to bulletin@inta.org.

Since acquiring the rights to CURIOUS GEORGE, Universal Studios has reportedly licensed the monkey character to more than 100 vendors worldwide. In con-nection with the film, Universal Studios has updated the storybook CURIOUS GEORGE image—for instance, by adding eyes. High-end department stores and spe-cialty boutiques will continue to carry the traditional CURIOUS GEORGE image, including on PUCHI pet accessory bags selling for $265 each, while Wal-Mart, Target and similar outlets will offer clothing, games and toys featuring the new CURIOUS GEORGE image.

Source: Los Angeles Times, “Real Monkeying Around,” February 5, 2006; Washington Post, “A ‘Curious’ Promo Strategy for Monkey Cartoon,” February 8, 2006. Contributor: Tarah S. Grant, Hogan & Hartson LLP, McLean, Virginia, USA.

In a recently published decision, the German Federal Supreme Court held that for a retail enterprise distributing a multitude of different goods, trademark rights do not remain valid when the enterprise’s only use of the mark registered for those goods (and corresponding to its company name) is use for display in shop windows and in its branch stores’ salesrooms (NORMA – I ZB 10/03).

The Federal Supreme Court supported the Federal Patent Court’s deci-sion that there was no genuine use of the word mark NORMA (DD 647 137) for “pieces of clothing, footwear and headpieces.” In its findings, the Court confirmed that use of a trademark registered for goods is proper only when such use corresponds with the main function of the mark, namely, to guarantee the identity of the goods’ origin by making it pos-sible to distinguish the goods from other goods of a different origin.

Such a proper use of the mark for the registered goods was not estab-lished. The mark owner used the sign NORMA—identical to his com-pany name—for his entire assortment of goods, without specific reference to individual goods. Attached to these goods were the marks of the manu-facturers in some cases and other marks of the retailer in other cases. Some goods were distributed without any marks. Under these circumstances, the Court ruled that use of the trademark NORMA could at best refer to the enterprise’s services, but not to the goods for the purposes of distinguish-ing their origin from goods of other origins. This ruling also applied to placing the trademark on shopping bags and tags on shop boards, as well as to advertising in newspapers and on hand-out leaflets.

Contributor: Dr. Henning Hartwig, Bardehle Pagenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler, Munich; Verifier: Dr. Carl-Richard Haarmann, Boehmert & Boehmert, Munich

GERMANY

Federal Supreme Court Decision on Retailers’ Genuine Use of Trademarks

In MemoriamMatthildur Hardardóttir, of AM Praxis in Reykjavík, Iceland, died in fall 2005.

Clarification“Beijing Landlord of Fake Brands Retailers Found Jointly Liable,” a China Law & Practice article in the February 15, 2006 Bulletin (Vol. 61, No. 4), stated that a lawsuit was filed by the Quality Brands Protection Committee (QBPC). In fact, the suit was filed by mem-bers of the QBPC, not the QBPC itself.

INTA Roundtable

Recent Decisions and Developments in German Trade Mark Law

Speaker: Ms. Marianne Grabrucker

Presiding Judge of the German Federal Patent Court

April 20, 2006 | 5:30 p.m.

Host: Kador & PartnerCorneliusstrasse 15

80469 Münchenwww.kadorpartner.de

For registration details, please contact Ms. Barbara Regensburger

mail@intellectualproperty.edu

GERMANY

CURIOUS GEORGE CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5

International Trademark Association655 Third Avenue, 10th FloorNew York, NY 10017 USA+1-212-768-9887 • f: +1-212-768-7796www.inta.org • info@inta.org

March 18, 2006Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Final National CompetitionWashington, DC, USA

March 20, 2006Workshop: In-House Trademark Counsel’s Workshop (For Regular Member and non-member in-house counsel only) Chicago, Illinois, USA

April 10 – 21, 2006Roundtable: Developments in Fraud Upon the U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeVarious U.S. Cities

May 6 – 10, 2006128th Annual MeetingToronto, Ontario, Canada

June 1 – 30, 2006E-Learning: Madrid Protocol 101 Anywhere via the Internet

September 17 – 20, 2006Trademark Administrators ConferenceArlington, Virginia, USA

INTA BULLETIN COMMITTEETo contact a member of the INTA Bulletin Committee, send an email to the managing editor at bulletin@inta.org.

ChairMary DeLongis, Nautica Enterprises, Inc.

Vice ChairKay Rickelman, Spoor & Fisher

Feature Articles: Member Benefits & ServicesPatrick Gallagher, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.

Feature Articles: Policy & PracticeBrian Winterfeldt, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP

Law & Practice: AmericasJanice Housey, Roberts, Mlotkowski & Hobbes, P.C.

Law & Practice: Asia-PacificLindsay Esler, Deacons

Law & Practice: Europe and Central AsiaClaus Eckhartt, Bardehle Pagenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler

Law & Practice: Middle East and AfricaStephen Goldberg, Spoor & Fisher

STAFFExecutive DirectorAlan C. Drewsen, International Trademark Association

Director, Publishing Randi Mustello, International Trademark Association

Managing Editor, INTA BulletinJames F. Bush, International Trademark Association

Associate Editor, INTA BulletinJoel L. Bromberg, International Trademark Association

Designer Katie Frichtel, International Trademark Association

OFFICERS & COUNSELPresidentPaul W. Reidl, E. & J. Gallo Winery

President ElectDee Ann Weldon-Wilson, Exxon Mobil Corporation

Vice PresidentRhonda Steele, Mars, Incorporated

Vice PresidentRichard Heath, Unilever P.L.C.

TreasurerHeather C. Steinmeyer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

SecretaryGerhard R. Bauer, Daimler-Chrysler AG

Counsel:David H. Bernstein, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

INTA Department Email AddressesExecutive Director: executivedirector@inta.orgAdministration & Finance: adminfinance@inta.org Customer Service: customerservice@inta.orgPrograms: meetings@inta.orgINTA Bulletin: bulletin@inta.orgJob Bank: jobbank@inta.orgMembership: membership@inta.orgPublications: publications@inta.orgPublic Policy: tmaffairs@inta.orgPublic Relations: publicrelations@inta.orgRoundtables: roundtables@inta.orgSponsorship & Exhibitions: sponsorship@inta.orgThe Trademark Reporter®: tmr@inta.org

© 2006 International Trademark Association

Mark Your Calendars

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of items carried in this

newsletter, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or

interest. The INTA Bulletin primarily relies on members of the INTA Bulletin Committee

and INTA staff for content but also accepts submissions from others. The INTA Bulletin

Editorial Board reserves the right to make, in its sole discretion, editorial changes to

any item offered to it for publication.

Additional Details About INTA’s EventsFor a full description and to register, visit www.inta.org.

Exhibitions and SponsorshipTo inquire about sponsorship or exhibition opportunities for INTA’s events, visit www.inta.org.

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDNEW YORK, NY

PERMIT NO 4666

USPS APPROVED POLY FSM881