Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
appear on the product. It would include also the use of a false indication in
advertising or on business documents.
The only sanction referred to in Art 10(1) is seizure of the goods concerned but
no further civil or criminal sanctions are envisaged. Also the obligation to seize
goods on importation only applies to the extent that such a measure has been
adopted under national law.
2.07
Under Art 10(2), any
2.08
producer, manufacturer, or merchant whether a natural person or legal entity, engaged
in the production or manufacture of or trade in such goods and established either in the
locality falsely indicated as the source, or in the region where such locality is situated, or
in the country falsely indicated, or in the country where the false indication of source is
used, shall in any case be deemed an interested party.
(c) Repression of unfair competition
Article 10 bis also affords protection against false or misleading indications of
source as a means of repressing unfair competition. Article 10 bis (2) defines as
an act of unfair competition 'any act of competition contrary to honest practices
in industrial or commercial matters'.
2.09
The ECJ, in its various trade marks determinations has observed that the
requirement to act in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commer-
cial matters 'constitutes in substance the expression of a duty to act fairly in
relation to the legitimate interests of the trade mark proprietor'. 2
2.10
2. Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive
Indications of Source of Goods 1891 3
(a) Seizure of goods bearing a false or misleading indication
The original form of the Paris Convention prohibited the use of false GIs. A
number of signatory nations proposed a more comprehensive form of regu-
lation for what was considered to be a significant intellectual property abuse.
The 1891 Madrid Agreement concerning the protection of geographical
indications was their response. Article 1(1) provided that all goods 'bearing a
2.11
2
See Case C-63/97 Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v Deenik [1999] ECR I-905 at [61], Case C-100/02 Gerolsteiner
Brunnen GmbH & Co v Putsch GmbH [2004] ECR I-691 at [24], Case C-245/02 Anheuser-Busch Inc v
Budejovicky Budvar np [2004] I-10989 at [82], Case 228/03 Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy [2005] ECR
I-2337 at [41] and Case C-17/06 Céline SARL v Céline SA [2007] ECR I-7041 at [33].
3
The Madrid Agreement was adopted in 1891 and revised at Washington (1911), The Hague (1925), London
(1934), and Lisbon (1958). It was supplemented by the Additional Act of Stockholm (1967), and as of
September, 2013 had 36 contracting parties.
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search