BulletinAssociation Contributes to APEC Group’s Effort to Reduce Trade in Counterfeit Goods

Association News

EU Law Students Invited to Participate in Online ADR Competition

Earn Ethics CLE Credits at Your Desk with New E-Learning Program

Features

In the Marketplace: SHELL

Double Jeopardy in Trademark Opposition and Cancellation Actions

Law & Practice

ARGENTINAUnlawful Use of a Mark Does Not Per Se Merit Damages

BRAZILElectronic Filing System for Trademarks Launched

GERMANYCalculating Damages: When Are Infringers Obligated to Provide Profi t Information?

KOREAKorea to Allow Broader Goods and Services Descriptions

PERUSuperman Does Not Return

RUSSIANew Competition Law and Trademark Rights

UNITED KINGDOMShould Relative Examination of Trademark Applications Be Abolished?

UNITED STATESTTAB Sanctions Leo Stoller

VIETNAMEntry into Effect of New IP Law and Madrid Protocol

INTA Bulletin Board

Welcome New Members

The Voice of the International Trademark Association September 15, 2006 Vol. 61, No. 17

2

IN THIS ISSUE

On August 15 and 16, 2006, INTA partici-pated in the 23rd Meeting of the Intellectual Property Experts Group (IPEG) of the Asia-Pa-cifi c Economic Cooperation, held in Guadala-jara, Mexico. The event was attended by some 300 national and international IP experts and professionals

IPEG, among other things, is currently working to meet the objectives of the compre-hensive “APEC Anti-counterfeiting & Piracy Initiative,” agreed to by APEC economies in 2005. Pursuant to this initiative, the IPEG is fi -nalizing guidelines that focus on reducing trade in counterfeits, reducing online piracy, enhanc-ing the security of supply chains in order to keep counterfeits out and increasing public awareness about the problem of counterfeiting.

At the August meeting, INTA’s External Relations Coordinator for Anticounterfeiting Faisal Daudpota analyzed the “APEC Guide-lines on Reducing Trade in Counterfeits.” He highlighted INTA’s position regarding the destruction of goods that are determined to

6

be counterfeit through judicial or administrative proceedings. INTA urges national policy mak-ers to take steps to ensure that all such goods are destroyed, defi nitively removed from channels of commerce or disposed of with the rights holders’ consent where there is no health or safety risk.

Mr. Daudpota also discussed the role of free trade zones in transshipment of counterfeit goods. Free trade zones enable uncontrolled transship-ment or transit of goods, which creates oppor-tunities for counterfeiters to disguise the illegal origin of the counterfeits. To combat this, INTA advocates legal regimes that prohibit exportation of counterfeits.

Mexican IP Offi ce Hosts Seminar

In conjunction with the APEC event, the Mexican Institute of Intellectual Property (IMPI) organized a “Seminar on the Creation, Management, Use and Protection of Intellectual Property—An Inte-grated and Proactive IP Policy and Strategy.”

Attending on INTA’s behalf was Laura Cruz, the

11

Venezuela’s Withdrawal from the Andean Community: What Is the Impact on IP Rights?On April 22, 2006, the president of Venezu-ela announced the unilateral decision that Venezuela would withdraw from the Andean Community (CAN), an international organiza-tion that includes Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Venezuela had been a member of CAN (originally known as the Andean Pact) for 34 years.

Venezuela’s departure from CAN raises a number of questions with respect to IP rights, since decisions issued by the Andean Commu-nity govern IP rights in member countries. The discussion has focused on the applicability of CAN Decision 486. Questions have also been raised about Venezuela’s regulatory framework and internal legislation, including the outdated Industrial Property Act of 1955.

Background

IP matters in Venezuela were regulated solely by the Industrial Property Act of 1955 until

the Andean Community issued Decision 313 in 1992. That decision was later replaced by Decision 344 concerning the Common Regime in Industrial Property Matters, which remained in force until December 1, 2000, when Decision 486 became the applicable IP law. At that point, IP rights in Venezuela were governed by Decision 486 and the articles of the Industrial Property Act of 1955 that did not contravene Decision 486. Venezuela—like other members of the Andean Community—had an IP regulatory framework in line with interna-tional standards.

With Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Andean Community, the question now is what role, if any, does Decision 486 have in regulating IP rights in Venezuela.

Do Andean Community Decisions remain applicable in Venezuela?

Some experts think that the CAN decisions became

SEE APEC ON PAGE 2

SEE VENEZUELA ON PAGE 4VENEZUELA ON PAGE 4VENEZUELA

8

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878September 15, 20062

Association NewsAssociation NewsAssociation’s External Relations Coordinator for Latin America. The seminar was an opportunity for INTA to expand its relations with key government offi ces in the Latin America region and in particular to strengthen relations with IMPI. Mr. Daudpota spoke again at the seminar, addressing the economic importance of trademarks for developed and developing countries.

The seminar gathered a number of APEC panelists, who spoke about their national experiences on management, use and protec-tion of IP and IP’s impact on their economies. Kyung-Bae Yoon, director of International Application Division of the Korean Intel-lectual Property Offi ce, highlighted the role of technological in-novation in Korea’s economic growth strategy and the correlation between increase in patent application and long term economic growth: a 1 percent increase in patent applications in Korea is a 0.11 percent increase in economic growth rate.

Speaking on patent application developments in China, Ma Fang, dean of the State Intellectual Property Offi ce (SIPO), re-ported that by June 2006, SIPO had received a total of 3,011,899 patent applications. In 2005, the top ten countries in terms of the number of patent applications in China were: Japan (36,221), the United States (20,395), Switzerland (2,106), Italy (1,632), the United Kingdom (1,613) and Sweden (1,101). He added SIPO has shortened the examination period from 53 months in 2001 to 24 months in 2005, and that both the number and quality of patent applications examined have improved. In addition, the number of examiners has increased year to year. By the end of 2010, the number of examiners is expected to reach 5,120.

APEC CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

INTA invites law schools in the European Union to participate in the Association’s fi rst Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Online Competition. No-fee applications are now being accepted for the competition, which will take place April 9 – 20, 2007.

Each law school team consists of two or three students plus one student mediator. The competition is limited to 12 teams—entries will be accepted on a fi rst-come, fi rst-served basis. Distinguished professionals from INTA’s ADR Committee will evaluate the teams’ performance and award prizes valued at more than USD 7,000 to the most effective advocate teams and most effective mediators. Winners will be announced on May 28, 2007.

ADR includes various confl ict management and dispute resolu-tion processes, including arbitration, mediation and a combination of mediation and arbitration (referred to as “med-arb”). Mediation is a nonbinding process that allows parties in a dispute to work through a “neutral” to reach a settlement. Arbitration is a process in which the dispute is referred to one or more neutrals for a fi nal, binding decision. Mediation-arbitration is a combination process in which the neutral acts fi rst as a mediator and then, if mediation fails, as an arbitrator.

Negotiation, mediation and advocacy skills will be challenged as students attempt to resolve two hypothetical trademark law disputes. Each advocate team will act in the role of legal represen-tative to a client in the problem, and the mediator will attempt to facilitate a resolution of the dispute. Faculty coaches will help the

EU Law Students Invited to Participate in Online ADR Competitionadvocate teams and the mediator to prepare for their roles in the competition. INTA will provide coaches from the ADR Commit-tee if no faculty coach is available.

The competition will consist of two mediation rounds—the fi rst round is April 9 – 13 and the second is April 16 – 20, 2007. Opposing teams will be paired by random selection; the mediator will be randomly selected from the candidate pool and assigned to the pair of teams. The mediator will be from a different law school than either of the assigned teams.

The online format enables students from the 25 EU member countries to participate without the expense of travel and lodging.

“INTA hopes,” says Executive Director Alan C. Drewsen, “that this pioneering ADR Online Competition will give law students in Europe an early exposure to ADR concepts and procedures that they will utilize in their practices in the years to come.” “We are very enthusiastic about this initiative,” adds Ann Eng, INTA’s di-rector of education. “We hope to expand it worldwide eventually.”

For full details, offi cial rules and an entry form, visit www.inta.org/adr/competition. The deadline to regis-ter is October 1, 2006. For more information, email adrcompetition@inta.org.

By: Joan T. Pinaire, Realogy Corporation, Parsippany, New Jersey, USA

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)is a forum composed of 21 member economies. It was established in 1989 in response to the growing interdependence among Asia-Pacific economies, with a goal to advance the region’s economic dynamism and sense of community.

Member economies:

AustraliaBrunei DarussalamCanadaChilePeople’s Republic of ChinaHong Kong, SARIndonesiaJapanRepublic of KoreaMalaysiaMexico

See also www.apec.org

For more inforamation, contact Ms. Cruz at lcruz@inta.org or Mr. Daudpota at fdaudpota@inta.org.

New ZealandPapua New GuineaPeruPhilippinesRussiaSingaporeChinese TaipeiThailandUnited StatesVietnam

www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 17 3

Like other lawyers, trademark practitioners face a number of ethi-cal issues every day. The rapid pace of technological change has given rise to such concerns as the applicability of the work product and attorney-client privileges to electronic data and communica-tions, and the appropriate scope of electronic discovery. As a result, it has become more diffi cult for trademark practitioners to apply ethical codes.

From October 22 to November 4, 2006, INTA will offer a computer-based e-learning program that enables attorneys to earn continuing legal education (CLE) credits by completing the course, “Legal Ethics and Professionalism for Trademark Practi-tioners.” Consisting of two segments that focus on issues directly related to trademark law, the course includes a review of the American Bar Association (ABA) Code and Rules of Professional Conduct and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Offi ce (USPTO) Code of Responsibility.

The program is chaired by Jeanne Hamburg, a partner at the New York City offi ce of Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. Ms. Hamburg, who has participated as a project team member in two of INTA’s other e-learning programs, is particularly excited about this one. “Traditionally, it is a challenge for intellectual property attorneys to satisfy their ethics CLE course requirements,” she explains. “This program offers trademark practitioners the op-portunity to do so in a convenient fashion, with course content that is topical and immediately relevant to their practices. It includes such cutting-edge discussions as the scope of the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that address e-discovery and their applicability to the trademark litigator.” And, Ms. Hamburg notes, “As with INTA’s other e-learning programs, ‘Trademark Basics,’ ‘TTAB Basics’ and ‘Madrid Protocol Basics,’ participants will be able to earn CLE credits in the convenience of their homes or offi ces. I encourage those trademark attorneys seek-ing ethics CLE credits to enroll in this course.”

The fi rst segment, “Introduction to the Ethical Guidelines and the Ethics of Searching and Clearing Marks,” focuses on client relations. Included are such topics as lawyer advertising, client interviewing and duties to old and new clients and corporate affi liates of clients. Trademark searching issues, including client confl ict questions, will be examined though interactive hypotheti-cals. Topics will be discussed within the context of U.S.-state-based standards of professional conduct, including the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the old ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, the USPTO Code of Personal Responsibility and U.S. laws governing domestic and international business transac-tions. Using these model rules and codes as the baseline, the seg-ment will help practitioners determine whether a confl ict exists.

The second segment, “Ethical Issues in Advocacy and Litiga-tion,” will present situations that may arise in working with and representing clients, particularly in contentious matters involving trademarks. Topics include meritorious claims and investigations in the context of relevant model rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the application of the attorney-client and work product privileges to new technologies, including metadata; emerg-ing issues in e-discovery; the duty of candor to the court during discovery and at trial; and the attorney’s duty to assess whether insurance covers the client’s exposure for trademark infringement.

Earn Ethics CLE Credits at Your Desk with New E-Learning Program

The computer-based format of the course allows participants to move through the material at their own pace, providing ample opportunities for self-assessment and requiring some interactive participation via group discussion message boards. The online discussion topics and questions are provided by INTA’s experts. Participants are expected to read through the online postings and to post at least one response themselves in order to qualify for CLE.

“We are excited to offer this practical, timely and convenient course and expect to have a large number of participants,” Ms. Hamburg says. “And, going forward, if anyone has suggestions for future e-learning courses, they should feel free to contact INTA or me, as we want to continue to provide value to the members of INTA.”

For more details and registration information, please visit www.inta.org.

By: Randy M. Friedberg, Olshan Grundman Frome Rosenzweig & Wo-losky LLP, New York, New York

Topics covered include:

• Application of privilege to new technologies, including metadata

• Emerging issues in electronic discovery

• Attorney’s duty to assess whether insurance coverage limits a client’s exposure to infringement claims

Order Additional Print Copies of the 2006-2007

INTA Membership Directory

Don’t miss your chance to order additional print copies of the Directory using one of two convenient methods:

1. Through our online Publications Catalog at www.inta.org

or

2. Using the order form found inside every print copy of the directory

Supplies are limited! Order now!

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878September 15, 20064

FeaturesFeaturesVenezuela CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

inapplicable in Venezuela when it withdrew from the Community. Under this view, CAN Decisions 486, 345 and 351(covering IP, including plant varieties and copyright) would be set aside and re-placed by internal instruments, such as the Industrial Property Act of 1955, the Copyright Act of 1993 and the Native Peoples and Communities Act. Also remaining in force would be the WTO TRIPs Agreements and WIPO Conventions ratifi ed by Venezuela. (Venezuela remains a member of the WIPO and has ratifi ed the Paris Convention.)

Other experts assert that, since the Andean Community deci-sions were introduced into Venezuelan regulations pursuant to Ar-ticle 153 of the 1999 Constitution, the CAN decisions have been incorporated into the Venezuelan legal system. That article states in part that “norms adopted under the framework of the integra-tion agreement are deemed an integral part of the current legal framework and apply directly and with preference over internal laws.” Under this view, CAN regulations will be enforceable until a new set of acts covering IP rights is enacted.

How are IP rights affected?

If CAN Decision 486 is no longer applicable, what does it mean for IP matters in Venezuela to be governed solely by the Industrial Property Act of 1955? A return to the 1955 Act would mean a return to IP laws that are quite different from the laws IP own-ers have become accustomed to in recent times. For example, trademarks must be renewed every 15 years under the 1955 Act, as opposed to every 10 years under Decision 486. The 1955 Act does not protect collective marks and certifi cation marks. The Nice Classifi cation might be inapplicable, replaced by the 1955 Act’s completely outdated national classifi cation system. Also, there might be substantial changes to opposition proceedings.

Trademarks are not the only IP rights that would be affected. CAN Decisions 486 and 345 protect integrated circuits, plant vari-eties and industrial designs—but the 1955 Act provides no protec-

tion for such technologies. Likewise, the duration of patents would be reduced from the international standard of 20 years to 10 years. There would be other changes to the patent system as well.

Changes in the copyright area would not be as signifi cant, since Venezuelan and Andean regulations are complementary and were issued during the same period (Venezuela’s copyright law was enacted in 1993, copyright regulations were passed in 1995 and amended in 1997, and CAN Decision 351 governing copyright was enacted in 1994). Not applying Decision 351 in Venezuela would not radically impact legal institutions or rights holders.

Is there an offi cial position?

Venezuela’s withdrawal from CAN has important economic, social and legal implications. However, there has been no clear offi cial statement about the implications of withdrawal on IP rights.

An interpretation recourse has been fi led before the Constitu-tional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice to analyze Article 153 of the Venezuelan Constitution. The inter-pretation of Article 153 may determine whether Decision 486 continues to apply in Venezuela.

For its part, the Patent and Trademark Offi ce has continued issuing Industrial Property Offi cial Gazettes based on the terms and Industrial Property Offi cial Gazettes based on the terms and Industrial Property Offi cial Gazettesperiods established in Decision 486.

Unfortunately, at this time there can be no defi nitive conclusion about whether the CAN decisions apply. For the time being, the facts and arguments set forth above will continue to be discussed and analyzed in an effort to defi ne IP rights in Venezuela.

For more information, contact Laura Cruz, INTA’s Coordinator for External Relations, Latin America, at lcruz@inta.org.

By: Claudette Bridges, Montoya, Kociecki & Asociados; Patricia Hoet-Limbourg, Hoet Pelaez Castillo & Duque; Mariana Montiel, Araque Reyna Sosa Viso & Pittier; Jacqueline Moreau Aymard, Torrez Plaz & Araujo; Maria Nebreda, Hoet Pelaez Castillo & Duque; all of Caracas

Legal Ethics and Professionalism for Trademark Practitioners E-Learning Program (with CLE)

October 22 – November 4, 2006

This convenient, interactive course is geared specifi cally to trademark lawyers and designed to be relevant to issues such as client confl icts, communications and trademark clearance.

Top reasons to register:

• Get practical tips on dealing with ethics issues arising from searching and clearing trademarks, as well as advocacy and litigation of trademark claims

• Obtain quality ethics education and fulfi ll your ethics CLE requirement at your convenience

• Gain knowledge on your own time schedule from your home or offi ce

Visit the Education & Training section of www.inta.org/go/legalethics to register and for more information.

Third Global Congress onCombating Counterfeiting and PiracyShared Challenges – Common Goals

Mark your calendar

Tuesday 30 January – Wednesday 31 January 2007

International Conference Center, Geneva, Switzerland

Registration details will be available soon on the Congress website atwww.ccapcongress.net.

Other inquiries about the Congress and its Steering Group can be sent tojoseph.clark@ccapcongress.net.

ObjectivesThe Global Congress has become a key international forum for shaping practical strategiesto meet the shared challenges posed by the worldwide trade in counterfeit and piratedproducts that threatens economic development, consumers’ health and safety, and goodgovernance. The Third Global Congress aims to build on the process that began withthe First Global Congress in Brussels in 2004, bringing together top government andprivate sector representatives to pool their experience, enhance international coordinationand cooperation and seek more effective solutions in pursuit of their common goals ofcombating counterfeiting and piracy.

ParticipantsGovernment ministers and policy-makers, business leaders, senior law enforcementofficials, judges, stakeholders from non-governmental organizations and industry groupswill be invited. Attendance will be limited to allow for maximum interaction and dialogueamong participants.

Date

Venue

In cooperation with

�Global Business LeadersAlliance Against Counterfeiting

� International Chamber ofCommerce – BASCAP

� International SecurityManagement Association

� International TrademarkAssociation

Convened by

�World IntellectualProperty Organization(WIPO)

� Interpol

�World CustomsOrganization (WCO)T

hir

d G

lob

al

Co

ng

ress

Information

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878September 15, 20066

FeaturesFeaturesIn the Marketplace: SHELLFrom a small London shop to one of the world’s largest corpora-tions, for more than 100 years the word SHELL and the “Pecten” emblem in distinctive red and yellow colors have identifi ed the SHELL brand.

In 1833 Marcus Samuel opened his small shop in London, selling antiques, curios and seashells to the Victorian public. The business grew steadily, but the catalyst for the company’s future success came in 1892 when Marcus’s son Samuel recognized a huge opportunity to export oil for lamps and cooking to the Far East.

Shortly afterward, Samuel formed the “Shell” Transport and Trading Company. The fi rst logo (1901) was a mussel shell, but by 1904 a scallop shell or “Pecten” emblem had been introduced to give a visual manifestation to the corporate and brand name.

Meanwhile, the company Royal Dutch had been formed in the Netherlands to develop oil fi elds in Asia. It soon became obvious that the competing Dutch and British companies would do better working together, so in 1907 the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of companies was created to incorporate their operations worldwide. It was the latter’s brand name and symbol that became the short form name (SHELL) and the visible emblem of the new Royal Dutch/Shell Group. And so it has remained ever since.

The early twentieth century was an exciting time for the oil industry, as the mass production of cars had opened up a vast new market, and in 1919, when Alcock and Brown made the fi rst non-stop fl ight across the Atlantic, the plane was powered by SHELL fuel. Throughout the following years Shell’s oil output and sales increased dramatically, to the point where Shell supplied almost one-seventh of the world’s oil products.

The 1980s saw Shell invest in advanced technology to explore

solutions to environmental concerns, and as a result Shell began to sell unleaded petrol, subsequently gaining a worldwide leadership position.

Fundamental changes have occurred in the last 100 years to the Shell Group, the most recent being the unifi cation, in July 2005, of the parent companies of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport under a single parent company, Royal Dutch Shell plc.

The Shell emblem itself has changed very little over the years; in fact, the current emblem created by the great designer Raymond Loewy in 1971 still stands the test of time as one of the world’s most recognized symbols.

By: Asa LeFustec, CPA LP, St. Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands

Join your colleagues in Rome, Italy, to learn the best practices to protect product configuration in Europe and globally!

Receive valuable information on developing an effective global strategy to protect product confi guration, with guidance from leading European trademark professionals.

Top reasons to register:

• Develop an effective global strategy to protect product confi guration, with guidance from experts in the fi eld

• Network with colleagues from around the world

• Learn directly from the World Customs Organization how Customs detects and treats counterfeit goods

Visit the Education & Training section at www.inta.org/go/rome to register and for more information.

IP Rights Enforcement: Protecting Product Configuration in Europe and Beyond

December 4 – 5, 2006Rome, Italy

www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 17 7

Double Jeopardy in Trademark Opposition and Cancellation ActionsPending an important appeal decision expected in late 2006, UK Registry opposition decisions must be taken to have res judicata effects. This rule, which should have a profound effect on UK practice (and which is apparently at odds with the law on Commu-nity trade mark oppositions), stems from two recent English High Court cases.

The fi rst, Hormel Foods Corp. v. Antilles Landscape Investments NV, concerned the trademark SPAM. [2005] EWHC 13 (Ch). NV, concerned the trademark SPAM. [2005] EWHC 13 (Ch). NVMark owner Hormel brought invalidity proceedings in the UK Registry against the later-registered trademark SPAMBUSTER. When those proceedings failed, Hormel started a new cancellation action in the High Court. The new action alleged both invalidity and revocation grounds. It was dismissed. Since Hormel had previ-ously challenged the validity of the SPAMBUSTER mark before the Registry, cause of action estoppel was held to bar Hormel from the subsequent challenge. Even though revocation grounds had not previously been argued, the bar was held to extend to the revocation claim as well as the invalidity claim, since, on the facts, revocation could have been argued the fi rst time around.

As if this were not uncomfortable enough for prior-rights own-ers, the recent case of Special Effects Limited v. L’Oreal SA, [2006] EWHC 481 (Ch), took the Hormel decision one stage further. Hormel decision one stage further. HormelIn Special Effects, the English court (the Chancellor) applied the Special Effects, the English court (the Chancellor) applied the Special EffectsHormel case and the Hormel logic in determining that the same Hormel logic in determining that the same Hormelresult must apply where a party that fails in UK Registry opposi-tion proceedings later raises invalidity as a defense to an infringe-ment claim.

The case involved the mark SPECIAL EFFECTS, for hair and beauty products. L’Oreal opposed registration, based on distinc-tiveness and on earlier unregistered rights (as user of the mark SPECIAL FX). The opposition proved unsuccessful. Once the mark was registered, the owner turned the tables and sued L’Oreal for infringement. Confronted with L’Oreal’s counterclaim based on invalidity, it contended that the counterclaim was barred.

The court found against L’Oreal. It determined that UK opposi-tion proceedings are, like UK Registry proceedings for cancella-tion, capable of giving rise to res judicata.

At a time when UK opposition procedures seem destined to become more signifi cant, in light of proposals to abandon exami-nation on relative grounds (see “Should Relative Examination of Trademark Applications Be Abolished?” on page 10), the Special Effects case indicates that the way in which oppositions are con-Effects case indicates that the way in which oppositions are con-Effectsducted is critical. Although such proceedings may seem informal, arguments and evidence need to be handled with the greatest care to avoid adverse outcomes that come back to haunt the opponent. There may well be cases where it is right to defer attack on a later mark until the cancellation stage, when greater time and attention can be given to the matter or additional evidence or arguments may become available. There may also be a case for tactical with-drawal of certain oppositions.

The Special Effects decision is under appeal, and the outcome of Special Effects decision is under appeal, and the outcome of Special Effectsthis is important. Some commentators consider the emphasis that Hormel and Hormel and Hormel Special Effects place on the public interest in fi nality of Special Effects place on the public interest in fi nality of Special Effectsproceedings to be contrary to a wider view of the public interest in the fi eld of trademark practice. In particular, the decisions are

inconsistent with a view of opposition proceedings as a relatively contained, inexpensive means of settling trademark disputes.

This wider view seems alive and well in the context of Com-munity trade mark (CTM) oppositions. These operate outside the confi nes of the English common law, and along more pragmatic lines. The CTM regulation lays down specifi c rules that will in practice prevent certain repeat attempts at invalidity claims. But there is no general rule against having more than a go at it. Before the European Court of First Instance, OHIM recently argued for a distinction between its rulings in opposition and cancellation actions. Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH v Offi ce for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Case T-275/03. In a 2001 decision of OHIM’s the Internal Market, Case T-275/03. In a 2001 decision of OHIM’s the Internal MarketOpposition Division, it was noted that the CTM opposition pro-cess can be seen as a “swift, expeditious and low-cost procedure.” Budejovicky Budvar, várodni podnik v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Deci-sion No. 1645/2001 (OHIM Opposition Division July 9, 2001). According to the decision, it “is generally accepted that, if the opponent fails in his attempt, he can nevertheless fi le a cancellation action before the Cancellation Division or bring a counter claim in an infringement action before a national court.”

The UK courts have taken a decisive step towards preventing successive actions in trademark litigation. In contrast, OHIM has maintained the established position that the aim of opposition proceedings is to provide parties with a quick, informal process that can be challenged, if necessary, in another context, such as an infringement action. Whether the distinction between UK and European practice will continue depends upon the outcome of the Special Effects appeal later this year.Special Effects appeal later this year.Special Effects

By: Guy Heath, Nabarro Nathanson, London

October Roundtables

Topic: Creative Solutions for Trademark DisputesOctober 2 – 13, 2006 | Various U.S. cities

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

Trademark Administrators Roundtable

Topic: Working Smarter – Taming the Time Management Beast

October 16 – 27, 2006 | Various U.S. cities

Visit the Education & Training section at www.inta.org/go/education to register and for more information.

UNITED STATES

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878September 15, 20068

Law and PracticeLaw and Practice

In its recently published Noblesse decision, dated October 6, 2005 (Docket No. I ZR 322/02), the German Federal Supreme Court commented on the calculation of damages for trademark infringe-ment where the infringing party used its own trademark alongside the infringed trademark. The defendant had added to a product that he distributed under his own trademark a further designation, to which the plaintiff held trademark rights.

The Federal Supreme Court confi rmed that the owner of the infringed trademark was free to choose between specifi c dam-ages (lost profi ts) and abstract damages (based on a hypothetical license or on infringer’s profi ts) when calculating the damages to be claimed.

The plaintiff is entitled only to the share of the infringer’s profi t that is based on the use of plaintiff ’s trademark. Thus, the surren-der of all profi ts generated by the impermissibly labeled products is out of the question, because in many cases the product’s economic success is not exclusively, or even predominantly, based on the use of the third party’s trademark. This is especially the case if the infringer’s own trademark is used in addition to the third-party trademark.

GERMANY

Calculating Damages: When Are Infringers Obligated to Provide Profit Information?If the trademark infringer’s profi ts are only partly based on the

trademark infringement, the damage can be estimated in the form of a percentage of the infringer’s profi t.

If only a rough estimate of the profi ts is established, the trademark infringer usually is not expected to disclose its internal business information, because the damages can be estimated on the basis of sales and, if need be, the estimated profi ts. Accordingly, in this case, the infringer did not need to provide a detailed rendering of accounts.

The infringer must disclose detailed profi t calculations only in two cases: (1) where the trademark owner asserts that the infring-er’s profi ts are based almost exclusively on the impermissible use of the trademark (e.g., in case of the use of a prestigious trademark or a three-dimensional trademark) or (2) where the infringer asserts that there was no profi t or very minor profi t from the impermis-sibly labeled products.

Contributor: Martin Viefhues, Linklaters, Cologne; Verifi er: Carl-Richard Haarmann, Boehmert & Boehmert, Munich

On July 1, 2006, Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property entered into effect. The IP Law is Vietnam’s fi rst comprehensive intellectu-al property legislation and covers trademarks, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, integrated circuit designs, trade names, geographi-cal indications and plant varieties. The entry into effect of the new IP Law took place against the backdrop of the signing of the U.S.–Vietnam Bilateral/WTO Market Access Agreement on May 31, 2006. It is expected that Vietnam will enter the WTO later this year.

Highlights of the IP Law include new, clearer provisions on the protection of well-known marks. Notably, Article 75 sets forth eight criteria for determining whether a trademark is well known. These criteria include, inter alia, the number of countries in which the trademark is registered, and the approximate number of “rel-evant consumers” that know about the trademark through the pur-chase or use of goods or services under the trademark or through advertising. Recognition and protection of well-known marks are important in Vietnam, because Vietnam uses a fi rst-to-fi le system, many companies’ trademarks are vulnerable to cancellation for non-use and well-known trademarks often are copied to be used with dissimilar goods and services.

In regard to enforcement, the IP Law contains many improve-ments, including a provision that in cases where it is impossible to ascertain the level of damages caused by an infringement (includ-ing infringements of trademarks, patents or copyrights), the court may award damages ranging from VND 5 million (USD 300) to VND 500 million (USD 30,000). This provision will allow judges to impose damages that have a deterrent effect. In the past, judges

VIETNAM

Entry into Effect of New IP Law and Madrid Protocolwere hamstrung by regulations that did not allow signifi cant dam-ages awards in such cases.

In connection with the entry into effect of the IP Law, the Gov-ernment is preparing to issue a number of implementing decrees, including a general IP decree, an IP rights enforcement decree and a copyright decree. Draft decrees have been circulated for com-ment. Highlights of the most recent drafts are:

• Provisions regarding the registration of trademarks through the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol, as well as provi-sions on PCT patent applications

• Further provisions on the protection of well-known marks across all classes of goods and services

• Detailed tests for establishing infringement of trademarks and geographical indications

• Clear provisions on petitions and appeals relating to IP registration decisions, including petitions and appeals to the director of the National Offi ce of Intellectual Property and the minister of science and technology and, as fi nal recourse, appeals to the relevant administrative court

• Provisions on the disposition of goods seized in enforcement actions

In another noteworthy development, the Madrid Protocol entered into effect in Vietnam on July 11, 2006.

Contributor: Thomas J. Treutler, Law Offi ces of Thomas J. Treutler, Santa Ana, California, USA; Verifi er: Le Tung, Gia Viet Co. Ltd. Intellectual Prop-erty Company, Hanoi, Vietnam

www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 17 9

The Korean Trademark Act and regulations will soon be amended to achieve further harmonization with global standards. The amendments are expected to become effective January 1, 2007, pending further government review. In particular, the below changes relate to a main source of recent complaint among trade-mark applicants: the need for broader descriptions for designated goods and services.

Although the Korea Intellectual Property Offi ce (KIPO) has already adopted the International Classifi cation of Goods and Services (Nice Classifi cation), it still enforces strict local goods and services specifi cation requirements barring “broad or vague” descriptions (e.g., class or subclass headings). Thus, in order to avoid rejections, the designated goods or services often needed to be specifi ed on a detailed, item-by-item basis. However, KIPO is planning to accept broader descriptions, under the following timeline.

• From January 1, 2007, KIPO will accept broader descriptions designating similar goods or services in the same class (e.g., subclass headings such as “cosmetics” in Class 3 and “statio-nery” in Class 16).

• After September 2008, KIPO will accept broader descriptions in the same class even if they are not considered to be similar under current KIPO practice (e.g., “clothing” will cover “sports clothing” as well as “suits and coats” or “dress shirts,” even though “sports clothing” is not considered similar to general clothing under current standards).

KOREA

Korea to Allow Broader Goods and Services Descriptions• As a fi nal step (for which no target date has been announced),

KIPO plans to accept even broader descriptions that cover dissimilar goods or services in several classes (e.g., “chemical preparations” will be allowed as a description for chemical preparations for industrial and/or photographic purposes under Class 1 and for medical purposes under Class 5).

Another major change relates to “retail or wholesale services.” Under current practice, such services cannot be claimed as services per se; instead, the KIPO position has been that the applicant must per se; instead, the KIPO position has been that the applicant must per sedesignate the specifi c goods to be sold. Thus, applicants in the retail or wholesale business generally were required to designate “retail agency services” or “retail mediating services.”

In order to address the problem, KIPO plans to allow retail or wholesale services descriptions starting on January 1, 2007, citing the Ninth Edition of the Nice Classifi cation system. However, such sales services must still be specifi ed with the goods sold (e.g., “retail services” would not be accepted, but “retail services for jewelry” would be allowed).

Since the above issues have been the source of recent complaints by trademark applicants in Korea, the amendments are expected to facilitate trademark prosecution.

Contributor: J.J. Kim, Kim & Chang, Seoul; Verifi er: Joonghyo Kim, Choice Kim Intellectual Property Law, Seoul

UNITED STATES

TTAB Sanctions Leo StollerOn July 14, 2006, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a letter ruling sanctioning Leo Stoller, proprietor of Renta-mark.com and other companies, for his conduct before the TTAB.

From June 2005 through May 2006, Stoller, either individu-ally or on behalf of companies he controls, fi led more than 1,800 requests for extensions of time to fi le oppositions against applica-tions for various marks. Stoller also sent letters to the mark ap-plicants, demanding money to settle the cases, requesting a further extension of time and telling them that if he did not hear from them he would assume that they had consented to an additional 90-day extension and would fi le a “stipulated consent” to such an extension.

The TTAB determined that Stoller “fi led the extension requests for improper purposes, namely, to harass the applicants to pay [Stoller] to avoid litigation or to license one of the marks in which [Stoller] asserts a baseless claim of rights.”

Citing Stoller’s unprecedented multiple requests for extensions of time to oppose registrations, no showing of a colorable claim of damage justifying extension requests and a “pattern of misconduct

and abuse of the TTAB’s processes,” the TTAB imposed several sanctions on Stoller.

First, the Board vacated every grant of a request for extension of time Stoller fi led between November 2005 and the date of the order; as a result, any oppositions he fi led during those exten-sion periods were dismissed. Second, the Board prohibited Stoller from fi ling any extension requests for two years, whether or not he was represented by an attorney. Finally, the TTAB permanently banned Stoller from fi ling extension requests pro se, requiring that pro se, requiring that pro sehe retain counsel to fi le on his behalf. The TTAB also said that it would consider additional sanctions if Stoller “committed further improprieties in proceedings before the TTAB.”

In a press release, Stoller indicated that he has appealed the TTAB’s ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and asked for an emergency stay of the sanctions.

Contributor: Kevin W. Grierson, Willcox & Savage P.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Verifi er: Sharona Ghodsian, Citron & Deutsch, Los Angeles, California

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878September 15, 200610

Law and PracticeLaw and PracticeRUSSIA

New Competition Law and Trademark RightsOn July 27, 2006, a new Competition Act (dated July 26, 2006) was offi cially published in Russia. The Act will become effective on the 91st day of its publication and will cancel the previous statute, known as the Federal Act “On Competition and on the Limitation of Monopolis-tic Activity on Commodities Market,” dated March 22, 1991.

Article 14 of the Competition Act prohibits unfair competition and qualifi es as such the following acts that may affect trademark owners’ rights:

• Misleading consumers with respect to the nature, method and place of production, characteristics or quality of goods or their manufacturer; and

• Sale, exchange or any other form of marketing of products accompanied by unauthorized use of a third party’s intellectual property, including trade-marks.

The Federal Antimonopoly Agency is entitled to issue orders aimed to stop acts of unfair competition and impose penalties.

The Competition Act also prohibits unfair acquisition and use of exclusive rights, including trademark rights. The Federal Antimonopoly Agency has the power to hear complaints of unfair acquisition and use. If that agency determines that the acquisition and use consti-tute unfair competition, the complaining party can for-ward the decision to the Russian Patent and Trademark Offi ce, which will revoke the legal protection granted to the trademark in breach.

Contributor: Oxana Pishvanova, Trademark Attorney, Salans, Moscow; Verifi er: Elena Filatova, Senior Corporate Lawyer, BDO Unicon Inc., Moscow

UNITED KINGDOM

Should Relative Examination of Trademark Applications Be Abolished?Currently, the UK Trade Marks Registry will not allow UK trademark appli-cations to proceed if there are any earlier identical or similar marks covering identical or similar goods or services (an examination on relative grounds). Such earlier marks can be UK marks or Community trade marks (CTMs).

The Registry has issued a consultation paper on whether it should continue examining applications on relative grounds. The reason for this is that it is now easier to obtain a CTM than a UK trademark because CTM applications are examined on absolute grounds only (that is that they are distinctive, etc). A CTM can proceed to registration despite earlier confl ict-ing marks if no proprietor of such earlier marks takes steps to oppose it. Therefore, there is no level playing fi eld, as UK trademarks applications are rejected because of confl icting marks, but identical CTMs can proceed to advertisement and, if not opposed, to registration.

Few respondents to the paper were in favor of maintaining the status quo or simply “tweaking” the present system. The Registry itself had favored a move to conducting an offi cial search of the Community, international and UK registers for confl icting earlier marks, solely for information purposes, and conveying the results to the applicant only. However, the responses to the consultation persuaded the Registry to adopt the more user-friendly ap-proach of notifying, in addition to the applicant, owners of earlier-registered marks identifi ed in the offi cial search of a new application.

The Registry believes that this way forward will benefi t owners of existing trademarks and applicants by enabling potential confl icts to be dealt with at an early stage.

The next step is for the Registry to draft the amending legislation and put in place the necessary administrative mechanisms. There is expected to be a further public consultation, with the aim of ceasing examination of UK trademark applications on relative grounds by October 2007.

Contributor: Christopher Benson, Taylor Wessing, London; Verifi er: Janice Trebble, Saunders & Dolleymore, Watford

PERU

Superman Does Not ReturnOn August 9, 2006, the National Institute for Defense of Free Competi-tion and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) took legal action against a gas station in Lima where counterfeit DVDs of the movie Super-man Returns were being given away to customers who purchased a certain quantity of gas. The same movie had recently opened in Lima movie the-aters. INDECOPI found that the gas station did not have any authorization to commercialize the movie in a DVD format.

During the investigation, INDECOPI verifi ed that the business was giving away counterfeit DVDs of Superman Returns and had a poster with the image of the movie character that indicated: “With your purchase, free DVD of Superman Returns.” According to the copyright law, violators could be sanctioned with fi nes of up to 180 UIT (approximately USD 180,000), plus a temporary or complete shutdown of the business, depending on the specifi cs of the case.

Contributor: Oscar Mago, OMC Abogados & Consultores, Lima; Verifi er: Gonzalo Ferrero Diez Canseco, Ferrero, Lema, Solari & Santiváñez, Lima

BRAZIL

Electronic Filing System for Trademarks LaunchedFurther to “PTO to Require Online Trademark Filing” in the INTA Bulletin Vol. 61 No. 8 (April 15, 2006), INTA Bulletin Vol. 61 No. 8 (April 15, 2006), INTA Bulletinthe Trademarks Department of the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Offi ce (Instituto Nacional da PropriedadeIndustrial, or INPI) launched its new electronic fi ling system on September 1, 2006.

Use of the system will be optional for a 30-day transi-tion period, during which the agency will continue to ac-cept paper fi lings. Afterwards, all trademark-related fi lings will have to be made electronically.

Contributor: Walter W. Palmer, Pinheiro Palmer Advogados, Rio de Janeiro; Verifi er: Rodrigo Borges Carneiro, Dannemann, Siemsen, Bigler & Ipanema Morreira, Rio de Janeiro

www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 17 11

INTA Bulletin BoardTomoko Nakjima has joined the Washington D.C. fi rm of Rader, Fishman and Tomoko Nakjima has joined the Washington D.C. fi rm of Rader, Fishman and Tomoko NakjimaGrauer as an associate.

Alan S. Wernick has joined Welsh & Katz, Ltd.’s Chicago offi ce as a principal.Alan S. Wernick has joined Welsh & Katz, Ltd.’s Chicago offi ce as a principal.Alan S. Wernick

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

Welcome New MembersAlmeida Advogados, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd, Lane Cove, NSW, Australia; Cabinet Chaillot, Lane Cove, NSW, Australia; Cabinet Chaillot, Lane Cove, NSW, Australia; Colombes, France; Cervantes, Aguilar-Alvarez y Sainz, S.C., Mexico City DF, Mexico; Charac-Mexico City DF, Mexico; Charac-Mexico City DF, Mexico;ter Arts LLC, Wilton, CT, USA; CIBR – Central de Inteligencia do Brasil Ltda., Sao Paulo, Brazil; Culligan International Co., Northbrook, IL, USA; Dolores Hanna, Chicago, IL, USA; DSM Intellectual Property, Geleen, Netherlands; FastTrack International Patent & Trademark Offi ce, Taipei City, Taiwan; Gaggini Anwälte & Co., City, Taiwan; Gaggini Anwälte & Co., City, Taiwan; Zurich, Switzerland; GMAC,Zurich, Switzerland; GMAC,Zurich, Switzerland; South-fi eld, MI, USA; Joli-Coeur, LaCasse, Geoffrion, Jette, St-Pierre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Kavinoky Cook LLP, Buffalo, NY, USA; Keegan & Com-pany LLC, Rye, NY, USA; Lacoms Ltd., Hanoi, Vietnam; Morrow, Tomp-kins, Trueblood & Fittipaldi, Norristown, PA, USA; Obregon & Asociados, Managua, Nicaragua; Sapena & Asociados, Asuncion, Paraguay; Sichuan Asuncion, Paraguay; Sichuan Asuncion, Paraguay;Yibin Wuliangye Group Co. Ltd, Yibin, Sichuan, China; Sony Electronics Inc., San Diego, CA, USA; Thomas J. Hoffmann,San Diego, CA, USA; Thomas J. Hoffmann,San Diego, CA, USA; Seattle, WA, USA; Tru-man Hoyle Lawyers, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Vetter & White,Sydney, NSW, Australia; Vetter & White,Sydney, NSW, Australia; Providence, RI, USA; White O’Connor Curry LLP, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Williamson-Dickie Mfg. Co., Fort Worth, TX, USA

INTA E-LEARNING PROGRAMS AVAILABLE FOR CLE CREDIT THIS OCTOBER!INTA’s customized Internet-based courses are a great way to gain trademark knowledge!

Madrid Protocol Basics E-Learning Program (With CLE) – October 2 – 28, 2006Review current fi ling requirements, learn practical tips from experienced fi lers and receive the most current fi ling strat-egies for the global brand on your own time and with the help of expert facilitators.

Trademark Basics E-Learning Program (With CLE) – October 2 – 28, 2006Learn trademark basics in four comprehensive parts – trademark fundamentals; searching, clearing and registering trademarks; policing and enforcing trademarks; and counseling and transactional issues.

TTAB E-Learning Program (With CLE) – October 9 – 28, 2006Prepare for the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in three practical sections – overview of TTAB proceedings and strategic considerations; pre-trial procedures for inter partes proceedings; and trial practice and settlement.

Legal Ethics and Professionalism E-Learning Program (With CLE) – October 22 – November 4, 2006This convenient, interactive course is geared specifi cally to trademark lawyers and designed to be relevant to issues such as client confl icts, communications and trademark clearance.

Visit the Education & Training section at www.inta.org/go/elearning to learn more about the convenience of all our e-learning courses. And remember, INTA also offers the Trademark Basics E-Learning and TTAB E-Learn-ing programs continuously year-round.

ARGENTINA

Unlawful Use of a Mark Does Not Per Se Merit DamagesIn a May 2, 2006, decision that may signal a new trend in awarding damages, the Federal Court of Appeals refused to award damages for trademark infringement in a case that involved the unauthorized use of software licenses.

In Microsoft Corporation et al. v. Paraná S.A. de Seguros, the appellate court held that the unlawful use Seguros, the appellate court held that the unlawful use Segurosof a mark does not per se cause damages. This holding per se cause damages. This holding per seseems to deviate from earlier decisions, which had held that there is a presumption of damages whenever a trademark infringement occurs, particularly where the alleged infringer acted with malice. Responding to the plaintiff ’s appeal against the amount of damages award-ed for the infringement of software licenses, which the plaintiff considered insuffi cient and lacking in deterrent effect, the court held that the TRIPS Agreement calls for compensation, not deterrence.

The Federal Court of Appeals went on to say, “[The plaintiff ] asks rhetorically whether with this compensa-tion it will be forced to sue every infringer, and I am afraid that—with this type of legislation—the correct answer is yes.”

Contributor: Raquel Flanzbaum, Bruchou, Fernández Made-ro, Lombardi & Mitrani, Buenos Aires; Verifi er: Iván Alfredo Poli, Korski & Co., Buenos Aires

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

October 2 – 28, 2006E-Learning: Trademark Basics (with CLE) and Madrid Protocol Basics (with CLE)Anywhere via the Internet

October 2 – 13, 2006Roundtable: Creative Solutions for Trademark DisputesVarious U.S. cities

October 9 – 28, 2006E-Learning: TTAB Basics (with CLE)Anywhere via the Internet

October 16 – 27, 2006Roundtable: Working Smarter—Taming the Time Management BeastFor trademark administrators and paralegalsVarious U.S. cities

October 22 – November 4, 2006E-Learning: Legal Ethics and Professionalism for Trademark Practitioners (with CLE)Anywhere via the Internet

November 8 – 11, 2006Leadership MeetingPhoenix, Arizona, USA

December 4 – 5, 2006IP Rights Enforcement: Protecting Product Configuration in Europe and BeyondRome, Italy

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 Benefi ts & ServicesPatrick Gallagher, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.

Feature Articles: Policy & PracticePatricia Wilczynski Brozek, Wilczynski Brozek Law

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

Law & Practice: Asia-Pacifi cLindsay 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, Monkeys with Crayons Designs

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

CounselDavid H. Bernstein, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

INTA Department Email AddressesExecutive Director: executivedirector@inta.orgAdministration & Finance: adminfi nance@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®The Trademark Reporter®The 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 specifi c 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