Einde inhoudsopgave
Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks and the Protocol Relating to that Agreement
Rule 18ter Final Disposition on Status of a Mark in a Designated Contracting Party
Geldend
Geldend vanaf 01-02-2020
- Bronpublicatie:
02-10-2018, Trb. 2021, 37 (uitgifte: 26-03-2021, kamerstukken/regelingnummer: -)
- Inwerkingtreding
01-02-2020
- Bronpublicatie inwerkingtreding:
02-10-2018, Trb. 2021, 37 (uitgifte: 26-03-2021, kamerstukken/regelingnummer: -)
- Vakgebied(en)
Intellectuele-eigendomsrecht / Modellen- en merkenrecht
1.
[Statement of Grant of Protection Where No Notification of Provisional Refusal Has Been Communicated]1) When, before the expiry of the period applicable under Article 5(2)(a), (b) or (c) of the Protocol, all procedures before an Office have been completed and there is no ground for that Office to refuse protection, that Office shall, as soon as possible and before the expiry of that period, send to the International Bu reau a statement to the effect that protection is granted to the mark that is the subject of the international registration in the Contracting Party concerned2).
2.
[Statement of Grant of Protection Following a Provisional Refusal] Except where it sends a statement under paragraph (3), an Office which has communicated a notification of provisional refusal shall, once all procedures before the said Office relating to the protection of the mark have been completed, send to the International Bureau either
- (i)
a statement to the effect that the provisional refusal is withdrawn and that protection of the mark is granted, in the Contracting Party concerned, for all goods and services for which protection has been requested, or
- (ii)
a statement indicating the goods and services for which protection of the mark is granted in the Contracting Party concerned.
3.
[Confirmation of Total Provisional Refusal] An Office which has sent to the International Bureau a notification of a total provisional refusal shall, once all procedures before the said Office relating to the protection of the mark have been completed and the Office has decided to confirm refusal of the protection of the mark in the Contracting Party concerned for all goods and services, send to the International Bureau a statement to that effect.
4.
[Further Decision] Where a notification of provisional refusal has not been sent within the applicable time limit under Article 5(2) of the Protocol, or, where following the sending of a statement under paragraph (1), (2) or (3), a further decision, taken by the Office or other authority, affects the protection of the mark, the Office shall, to the extent that it is aware of that decision, without prejudice to Rule 19, send to the International Bureau a further statement indicating the status of the mark and, where applicable, the goods and services for which the mark is protected in the Contracting Party concerned3).
5.
[Recording, Information to the Holder and Transmittal of Copies] The International Bureau shall record any statement received under this Rule in the International Register, inform the holder accordingly and, where the statement was communicated, or can be reproduced, in the form of a specific document, transmit a copy of that document to the holder.
Voetnoten
In adopting this provision, the Assembly of the Madrid Union understood that a statement of grant of protection could concern several international registrations and take the form of a list, communicated electronically or on paper, that permits identification of these international registrations.
In adopting paragraphs (1) and (2) of this rule, the Assembly of the Madrid Union understood that where Rule 34(3) applies, the grant of protection will be subject to the payment of the second part of the fee.
Interpretative statement endorsed by the Assembly of the Madrid Union:‘The reference in Rule 18ter(4) to a further decision that affects the protection of the mark includes also the case where that further decision is taken by the Office, for example in the case of restitutio in integrum, notwithstanding the fact that the Office has already stated that the procedures before the Office have been completed.’