[[{"type":"media","fid":"4576","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"height":118,"width":255,"class":"media-image wp-image-2453 alignnone"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4582","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"height":477,"width":947,"class":"media-image alignnone size-full wp-image-2487"}}]]   The mini seminar will be held in German. Paralegals have vastly different responsibilities around the globe. Join us for a discussion on

• an update from the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) as well as
• the role and challenges of a paralegal working outside your country at another office and how to use this to enhance your career
• the challenges and views on running a trademark portfolio in-house
• what you need to know about preliminary injunction proceedings (PI’s) in trademark cases in Germany

This Roundtable has been developed specifically for and attendance is directed to: Paralegals (Patentanwaltsfachangestellte/r, Rechtsanwaltsfachangestellte/r, Markensachbearbeiter/in), Trademark Administrators (TMAs) Moderators Susanne Ferstl, (TMA), Freelance Paralegal, Munich (Germany) Alexandra Dellmeier, (Attorney at Law), LexDellmeier IP Law Firm, Munich (Germany)   Speakers

• Martin Sebele, Trademark Department at the DPMA, Munich (Germany)
• Natalie Oei, Head of Trademark Administration/Paralegal, Noerr LLP, Munich (Germany)
• Christina Maier, Paralegal, Kuhnen & Wacker Patent- und Rechtsanwaltsbüro, Freising (Germany)
• Claudia Meindel, Head of Intellectual Property Department, Euro-Triumph GmbH, Munich (Germany)
• Stephan N. Schneller, Attorney at Law, Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbH, Munich (Germany)

  Schedule 12:00 pm: Arrival of the participants and small lunch and snacks 12:30 pm - 12:40 pm: Welcome by Barbara Preißner, Head of the Trademark Department at the DPMA 12:40 pm - 12:50 pm: Introduction of Speakers and Topics by Moderators 12:50 pm - 1:30 pm: Speaker: Martin Sebele, DPMA

• Update from the DPMA – Changes and Update on Classification

1:30 pm - 1:40 pm: Q & A 1:40 pm - 2:20 pm: Speakers: Natalie Oei and Christina Maier, Paralegals

• Paralegal Secondment – working in another office in another country.
• How to prepare when working in another country and cross-cultural differences.
• A “win-win” situation - personal and employer benefits.

2:20 pm – 2:40: Q & A and Short break 2:40 pm - 3:10 pm: Speaker: Claudia Meindel, Head of Intellectual Property Department, Euro-Triumph GmbH

• Trademarks: Legal and Corporate Practice from an in-house counsel’s point of view

3:10 pm - 3:20 pm: Q & A 3:20 pm - 3.50 pm: Speaker: Stephan N. Schneller, Attorney at Law, Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbH, Munich (Germany)

• Preliminary Injunctions (PI’s) in trademark/IP cases in Germany.
• Cease and desist letters, protective briefs and what else you need to know as a paralegal.

3:50 pm - 4:00 pm: Q & A and Wrap up 4:00 pm: End of event   Registration and Information There is no registration fee for this roundtable / mini seminar. Small lunch/snacks are included. Please register by Wednesday, January 20, 2016 via the INTA website at: http://www.inta.org/Calendar/Pages/2016-MiniSeminar-in-Munich.aspx Have a questions or cannot register? Contact TMA Committee Member Alexandra Dellmeier at LexDellmeier IP Law Firm - Munich – Germany, Tel: 0049 89 5587987 0 or email to: info@lexdellmeier.com   Location German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) Zweibrueckenstrasse 12 80331 Munich - GERMANY Room: 1006

The General Court (EGC) held that as the marks were phonetically identical and visually and conceptually similar they should be regarded as similar overall. Followed from this it was held that the mark at issue could be perceived by the relevant public as originating from the same undertaking or undertakings economically linked to the earlier word mark. The EGC upheld the invalidity action and found that there was likelihood of confusion (Judgment dated 15 October 2015; Case T‑642/13). Background of the case and subject matter On 10 October 2005 the applicant, Wolverine International LP, obtained an international registration designating the European Community for the figurative mark ‘cushe’ (No.  859087): [[{"type":"media","fid":"4574","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2432 alignnone","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"150","height":"56"}}]]The mark was registered in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement for the goods ‘clothing, footwear and headgear’. On 20 September 2010 BH Store BV filed a request for a declaration of invalidity against the mark based on the following earlier trademarks:

• the word mark SHE, registered on 8 November 2000 in Germany (No. 39975501) for the goods in Class 25: ‘clothing, footwear and headgear’;
• the figurative mark ‘SHE’, registered on 25 April 2000 in Germany (No. 30018423) for goods included in Classes 3, 9, 16, 18 and 25 and reproduced below:

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4575","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2433","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"129","height":"80"}}]]

• the figurative mark ‘SHE’, registered on 15 January 2000 in Germany (No. 39726287) for goods in Classes 3 and 25, identical to the mark reproduced above.

The Cancellation Division rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity. It held that even though the goods at issue were identical, there was no likelihood of confusion. BH Store BV filed a notice of appeal with OHIM. The Board of Appeal (BoA) of OHIM annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division. The BoA considered the goods at issue to be similar or identical. It found that the marks were phonetically identical and visually and conceptually similar and that the earlier word mark had a low degree of distinctive character. Therefore, the BoA found that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. Decision of the EGC The EGC upheld the BoA’s decision. In its appeal to the EGC, Wolverine International LP claimed firstly that the BoA erred in taking the view that BH Store BV had proved that the earlier word mark had been put to genuine use. Secondly, Wolverine International LP claimed that the BoA committed errors in its analysis of the level of attention of the relevant public, in the analysis of the similarity between the marks and in the examination of the descriptive nature of the earlier word mark. The EGC rejected the first claim holding that the BoA was entitled to find that BH Store BV had provided evidence that the earlier word mark had been put to genuine use. For the second claim, the EGC held that the goods at issue are everyday consumer goods, and the BoA was correct to find that the relevant public was made up of average German end consumers, who are reasonably observant and circumspect. For the similarity between the signs the EGC noted that according to the case law, two marks are similar when, from the point of view of the relevant public, they are at least partially identical as regards one or more relevant aspects. The assessment in relation to the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the signs in question must be based on the overall impression given by the signs. In the present case the EGC found that the earlier word mark is composed of the word ‘she’ and that the sign at issue was perceived as the combination of the word element ‘she’ and a figurative element representing a curved line preceding it. Therefore, the BoA was entitled to consider the signs to be visually similar. For the phonetic similarity the EGC considered that the relevant public perceives the word element of the mark applied for as the element ‘she’, and not as the element ‘cushe’. Therefore, the signs were also phonetically identical. With regard to the conceptual analysis of the signs, the EGC confirmed the BoA’s assessment that the marks were similar because they shared the word ‘she’ and that the figurative element of the sign at issue neither changed nor neutralised the meaning of the word element. The EGC then concluded that so far as the marks at issue are phonetically identical and visually and conceptually similar, they should be regarded as similar overall. Lastly, the EGC held that because of the similarity of the signs at issue and the fact that the goods in question are identical or similar, the BoA was justified in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

The General Court (EGC) dismissed HP’s appeals in both cases and confirmed that the Community Trademarks (CTM) ELITEDISPLAY and ELITEPAD are descriptive for the goods in respect of which registrations were sought (Judgments dated 22 October 2015; Cases T-470/14 and T‑563/14). Background of the Cases and Subject Matter On 5 November 2012 Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (HP) filed a CTM application for the word mark ELITEPAD (No: 011318284) with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) and on 4 February 2013 HP filed a CTM application for the word mark ELITEDISPLAY (No: 011541901). Both applications were sought in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement Classification. The description of goods for ELITEPAD consisted of “computers; personal computers; laptop computers; notebook computers; tablet computers; computer hardware and computer peripherals”, whereas, the description of goods for ELITEDISPLAY consisted of “computer monitors and computer displays”. Both applications were rejected by the examiner in respect of all the goods concerned on the ground that the marks applied for were descriptive and devoid of any distinctive character. The applicant appealed to the OHIM Board of Appeal (BoA). The BoA dismissed the appeal as it found that the sign ELITEDISPLAY consisted of two conjoined word elements, ‘elite’ and ‘display’, and therefore it would be understood as referring to a computer screen or similar piece of equipment that shows information, selected as the best. It found that the two elements were individually descriptive, and the mark consisting of two descriptive elements, was itself descriptive. The appeal for the application ELITEPAD was also dismissed on similar grounds as the BoA found that the sign would be understood by the relevant public as referring to computers or computer hardware containing a panel which is responsive to pressure or touch and which is exclusive or has exclusive and special characteristics or which is of excellent quality. Decision of the Court The EGC dismissed HP’s appeals in both cases. Firstly, the ECG stressed that the descriptiveness of a sign may only be assessed in relation to the relevant public’s perception of it and in relation to the goods or services concerned. The Court held that as it is usual in English to create words by coupling together two words, the combination of ‘elite’ and ‘display’ would not result in a specific meaning different from that conveyed by the two components. In both decisions the EGC held that the word ‘elite’ is used in English to describe not only persons, but also objects. In addition, the word ‘elite’ refers to the notion of exclusivity. Therefore, the signs ELITEDISPLAY and ELITEPAD present a sufficiently close link with the goods designated by the mark applied for, for the signs to fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. The issue of previous decisions of OHIM accepting registration of marks containing the word ‘elite’ is also examined  in both judgements. The EGC states that decisions already made in respect of similar applications should be taken account of. It should also be considered with special care whether they should be followed or not. However, in the present cases the applicant cannot successfully rely on OHIM’s previous decisions as the Board of Appeal has duly given its reasons for not following the previous decisional practice. The EGC holds that the signs ELITEDISPLAY and ELITEPAD were descriptive of the goods in respect of which registration was sought and that they could not, as a result, be registered as Community Trademarks.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4573","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2409 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"267","height":"61"}}]]The World Customs Organization (WCO) was established in 1952 as the Customs Co-operation Council (CCC). It is an independent intergovernmental body with a mission to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of customs administrations. It is the only international organization with competence in customs matters. In 2011 the WCO made available The Interface Public-Members (IPM) platform, which is a unique tool allowing customs officers to verify the authenticity of products and rights holders to share relevant product information online. The platform started out as a genuine and fake database, featuring pictures and basic descriptions of products. After many improvements, the platform has now been developed to a system offering additional options, including the ability to send alerts to customs officers, an e-learning feature and a mobile application. In September 2015, the web and mobile versions of the redesigned new platform was made available to WCO Members. The changes in the platform were based primarily on feedback collected from all stakeholders. The updated platform includes new functionalities and offers users, for example, the ability to search a product simply by scanning the barcode and, when available, verifying a product using security features. For more information about the IPM please click the link below: http://www.wcoipm.org/

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4572","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"height":2151,"width":3000,"style":"width: 800px; height: 574px;","class":"media-image alignnone size-full wp-image-2404"}}]]

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4571","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"318","height":"145"}}]] The European General Court (EGC) decided that the word mark “CHOICE” cannot be registered as a trademark because it is just a descriptive indication and therefore it is devoid of any distinctive character (Case T‑431/14, Judgment of 22 October 2015). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 11 April 2013, Volkswagen AG filed an application for registration of a Community Trademark (CTM) at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). The mark in respect of which registration was sought is the word mark “CHOICE” (No.: 011769163) for – among others – cars. Decision of previous Instances In August 2013, the examiner of OHIM rejected the application for registration. The examiner stated that the term “CHOICE” could be understood as an adjective or as a noun. Referring to the online version of the Oxford dictionary, the term “CHOICE” as an adjective means “top quality” or “exquisite” and as a noun it stands for “the act of choosing” or “selection”. The meaning of the adjective “CHOICE” is just a purely descriptive indication. Therefore, the examiner came to the result that “CHOICE” is devoid of any distinctive character. Volkswagen appealed against the decision of OHIM. But, the Board of Appeal (BoA) followed OHIM’s line of arguments. Therefore, the applicant appealed further to the EGC. Decision of the EGC The EGC upheld the decision of the BoA. First, the court underpins the argumentation of the previous instances by determining that consumers could perceive the mark applied for as an adjective. Also, the court underlines that the applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the aforementioned meanings of the adjective “CHOICE” were wrong. Secondly, the court is of the opinion that also the noun “CHOICE” is only a descriptive indication of advertising and praise. Regarding this, the court pointed out that “CHOICE”, with the meaning “selection” carries the connotation of a particular quality which is the basis of every choice. Therefore, “CHOICE” is a laudatory term in everyday language and the relevant public just perceives it as an indication of high quality and a mere praise, but, not as an indicator of origin. Consequently, the word “CHOICE” as an adjective as well as a noun is devoid of any distinctive character.      

The General Court (EGC) upheld the decision by the Board of Appeal (BoA) regarding the invalidity proceedings in respect of the Yves Saint Laurent SAS (YSL) registered Community designs (RCD) 000613294-0001 and 000613294-0002. The EGC held that the contested designs had individual character with respect to the H&M’s prior design and therefore rejected the applications for a declaration of invalidity. (Cases T-525/13 and T-526/13, Judgment of 10 September 2015) Background of the case and subject matter On 30 October 2006 YSL filed an application for two Community designs with the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM). The designs were intended to be applied to ‘handbags’ in Class 03-01 of the Locarno Agreement Classification. The designs were both represented according to six views as follows: RCD 000613294-0001                                                         RCD 000613294-0002 [[{"type":"media","fid":"4558","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2369","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"150","height":"164"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4559","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2370","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"147","height":"164"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4564","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2375","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"122","height":"164"}}]][[{"type":"media","fid":"4565","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2376","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"125","height":"164"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4560","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2371","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"150","height":"101"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4561","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2372","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"150","height":"99"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4566","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2377","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"125","height":"164"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4567","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2378","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"158","height":"150"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4562","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2373","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"150","height":"205"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4563","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2374","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"150","height":"107"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4568","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2379","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"143","height":"205"}}]] [[{"type":"media","fid":"4569","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2380","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"132","height":"205"}}]] On 3 April 2009 H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (H&M) filed with OHIM applications for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the contested designs, claiming that the designs had no individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. In support of the applications, H&M invoked the earlier design reproduced below: [[{"type":"media","fid":"4570","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2381 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"295","height":"402"}}]] In 2011 the Cancellation Division rejected the applications for invalidity. H&M filed a notice of appeal with OHIM and by decisions of 8 July 2013 the BoA dismissed the appeals. According to the BoA the earlier design and the contested designs had features in common but the differences in the shape, structure and surface finish were significant and differentiated the two bags for the informed user. The BoA found that the informed user in the present case was neither an average purchaser of handbags nor a particularly attentive expert, but someone in between who is familiar with the product in accordance with the level of attention established by case-law. H&M did not dispute the BoA’s findings regarding the informed user. However, H&M appealed to the EGC claiming that it was erroneously concluded, and without sufficient reasons being given by the BoA that the high degree of freedom of the designer did not have any impact on the finding that the designs at issue produced a different overall impression on the informed user. It also claimed that it was erroneously concluded that even though it was accepted that the designer had a high degree of freedom, that the differences between the designs at issue were significant enough to create a different overall impression. Decision of the EGC        The EGC upheld the decision of the BoA. Firstly, the EGC rejected H&M’s claim that the BoA had not stated in a sufficiently clear and unequivocal manner the reasoning on which the decision was based on. Secondly, the EGC examined the requirements of individual character and the role of the designer’s degree of freedom in that consideration. Under Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, a registered Community design is to be considered to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available to the public before the date of filing the application for registration or, if a priority is claimed, the date of priority. Article 6(2) of that regulation states that, in assessing individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design is to be taken into consideration. The EGC stated that the assessment of the individual character of a Community design is the result of a four-stage examination. The examination consists in deciding upon

1. the sector to which the products in which the design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied belong
2. the informed user of those products in accordance with their purpose and, with reference to that informed user, the degree of awareness of the prior art and the level of attention in the comparison of the designs
3. the designer’s degree of freedom in developing his design; and,
4. the outcome of the comparison of the designs at issue, taking into account the sector in question, the designer’s degree of freedom and the overall impressions produced on the informed user by the contested design and by any earlier design which has been made available to the public.

In the present case, the EGC confirmed that the degree of freedom was not the starting point of the assessment of the individual character but that it was a factor that had to be taken into consideration in that assessment. The overall impressions produced by the contested designs and the earlier design differed as to three features which decisively influenced their overall appearance, namely the overall shape, structure and the surface finish of the bag. The EGC held that these differences were significant and that the similarities between them were insignificant in the overall impression which they produce. Consequently the EGC confirmed the BoA’s assessment that the contested design produced an overall impression on the informed user which was different from that produced by the earlier design.

From 31 October 2015 the Madrid System operates as a single treaty system and the Protocol governs all the designations in the International Register.  All new international applications shall be filed using the MM2 International Application form. On 31 October 2015, the Madrid Protocol entered into force in Algeria, which was the last remaining Contracting Party of the Madrid Union to be a member of the Madrid Agreement only. Following the entry into force of the Madrid Protocol in Algeria, the Protocol will apply in the relationships between all the Contracting Parties of the Madrid Union.  Therefore, all Madrid System users will benefit from the flexibilities and features of the Protocol. Key features of the Protocol now available to all users:

• Filing of international applications based on national/regional applications or registrations, via a single form (MM2)
• Free choice of Office of origin on the basis of commercial establishment, domicile or nationality
• Transformation of international registrations into national or regional trademarks following their cancellation due to the basic mark ceasing to be in effect
• Choice of presenting to either WIPO or the Office of the holder any subsequent designations and requests for the recording of cancellations and renunciations
• Renewal of international registrations for periods of ten years

Forms MM1 and MM3 are no longer applicable. Any international application filed using forms MM1 or MM3 will be considered irregular in accordance with the Common Regulations. For more information please click on the following link: WIPO: Information Notice NO. 39/2015 Practical Consequences of Algeria’s Accession to the Madrid Protocol

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4556","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2353 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"350","height":"182"}}]] Interbrand was founded by John Murphy in 1974 as one of the first brand consultancy companies. Meanwhile, it has approximately 31 offices in 27 countries and is one of the largest and oldest brand consultancy companies around the world. Every year, Interbrand conducts and publishes various studies relating to brands, their value and the impact on companies and consumers. Interbrand’s 16th annual Best Global Brands Report was released on 5 October 2015. Brands at the Speed of Life The issue of the Best Global Brands report this year is “Brands at the Speed of Live”: http://interbrand.com/views/brands-at-the-speed-of-life/ Analysis The procedure for ranking the Best Global Brands is based on three key components that contribute to a brand’s cumulative value: an analysis of the financial performance of the branded products or services, the role the brand plays in influencing customer choice and the brand’s competitive strength. Results 2015 The 40 Best Global Brands can be found below: [[{"type":"media","fid":"4557","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2354","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"600","height":"371"}}]]   As you can see, Apple and Google maintain their first and second positions for the third year in a row and each exceed 100 billion US-dollars in brand value. This year five brands are listed at the ranking for the first time: Lego (Rank 82), PayPal (Rank 97), MINI (Rank 98), Moët & Chandon (Rank 99), and Lenovo (Rank 100). After Huawei (Rank 39), which already appeared in the ranking of 2014, Lenovo is the second Chinese brand to appear on the Best Global Brands ranking. The top risers this year are Facebook (Rank 23, +54%), Apple (Rank 1, +43%), Amazon (Rank 10, +29%), Hermès (Rank 41, +22%) and Nissan (Rank 49, +19%). Technology and automotive brands dominate this year’s ranking by holding 28 of 100 positions. In particular technology brands dominate by collectively making up more than a third (33.6%) of the total value of all 100 brands. For more information on the 2015 ranking, please click on the following link: http://interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2015/ranking/

On 6 October 2015 the European Parliament (EP) adopted a resolution on the possible extension of geographical indication (GI) protection of the European Union (EU) to non-agricultural products. The resolution follows a stakeholder consultation concluded in October 2014 which favored an EU system of protection based on geographical indications for non-agricultural products. The Commission is called to propose without delay a legislative proposal for a single European system of GI protection for non-agricultural products. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4555","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-full wp-image-2348 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"431","height":"149"}}]] Background of the resolution Geographical indications are distinctive signs which identify a good as originating in the territory of a particular country, or region or locality in that country, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. In the EU protection for GI’s can be sought for agricultural products and foodstuffs, wine and spirit drinks. However, in some Member States, non-agricultural geographical indications are protected by national laws, which results to different degrees of protection within the EU. The EP states that the EU should adopt legislation on non-agricultural GIs, such as typical regional handicrafts. The legislation should be adopted in order to fully exploit the positive economic effects of protecting the distinctiveness and quality of such products, provide consumers with reliable information on their place and method of production, and preserve the know-how and jobs relating to them. The traditional know-how and techniques are considered to form part of the EU’s cultural heritage and consumers are seen to show a growing interest not just in product safety, but also, in the origins of products, their authenticity and the methods by which they are produced. The Parliament also considers that the extension of protection would bring positive effects on trade relations with third countries. General principles and the proposed registration process The resolution calls on the Commission to apply the lessons learned from the experience gained in the protection of GI’s in the agricultural and food sectors. The aim is to create a new system which is based on best practices and non-discriminatory principles and is transparent, effective, responsive and free of unnecessary administrative burdens and deterrent costs for producers who voluntarily decide to register a product under a geographical indication scheme. The costs and red tape for businesses is to be kept to a minimum in the new system. A broad definition that would make it possible to recognize the link between a product and the area covered by the GI is favored and the system of protection should enable the inclusion of names which are unambiguously associated with a given place. Also non-verbal signs and symbols that are unmistakably associated with a particular region should be included. Even though a broad definition is preferred, some indications, for instance generic terms or homonyms, have to be excluded from GI protection. The Parliament proposes a compulsory registration procedure to provide greater security, especially as regards the enforcement of rights in the event of a dispute. It is also stressed that the system must be accompanied by the creation of a single standardized and public European register for non-agricultural products benefiting from geographical indication protection. At least the following criteria should be included in the specifications of the products: raw materials used, description of the production process, proof of the link with the territory, and elements of corporate social responsibility. Quality checks after the registration are considered to be necessary in order to make sure that the criteria on which the status was based are still being met. The resolution is now forwarded to the Council and the Commission for the preparation of a legislative proposal. It is also proposed that the Commission examines the possibility of transferring the registration of agricultural and non-agricultural GIs to the OHIM.