Dependency on the UK becoming (more) less and less

The requirement to have a United Kingdom trade mark registration to secure local protection in a geographically diverse set of jurisdictions has long been a quirk of global trade mark filings. To be honest, my ability to retain such 'obscure' information meant I could remember all these countries but this list continues to get smaller.

The latest country to drop off the UK dependency list is Grenada which introduced a substantive trade mark law of its own on 1 August 2012. They follow Vanuatu, which was in a similar situation, in adopting a trade mark law without a colonial legacy.

I have previously blogged in relation to these (as well as a post on tax havens, as many of these UK dependent jurisdictions provide tax benefits).

This leaves just five countries where a UK registration is required: Gibraltar, Kiribati, St Helena, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. There is some conflicting information out there regarding Gibraltar and Kiribati; I write this piece based on my interpretations of the situation.

Gibraltar is important in the European context. The other countries are remote islands. Nevertheless, all have small populations of approximately:

Gibraltar: 30,000

Kiribati: 103,000

St Helena: 4,000

Solomon Islands: 523,000

Tuvalu: 10,000

In Gibraltar there is a Merchandise Marks Act which gives some protection to Cautionary Notice publications in the absence of a UK registration; or, for those, like me, unsure with a CTM's coverage, perhaps as a supplementary backup to a CTM.

Perhaps we can see legislative developments in Gibraltar, Kiribati, St Helena, the Solomon Islands and/or Tuvalu in the not-to-distant future. Jurisdictions in similar (but not identical) situations, the British Virgin Islands and Jersey, are actively looking to reform local IP laws and this is a positive sign for the others. Realistically, I cannot see much changing in Kiribati or Tuvalu soon. Gibraltar and, to a lesser extent, St Helena may seen some reforms as the UK remains responsible for their good governance. Australia has strong influence in the Solomon Islands.

In my experience, many brand owners were frustrated when they had to secure an unnecessary UK registration before being able to protect their trade mark in jurisdictions that could be miles away. We may recall that UK registrations were not issued as quickly in the past even in smooth cases. The UK now boasts an efficient Trade Marks Registry but movements away from UK dependency overseas should be a good thing.

Trade Marks and Tax Havens

Having recently returned from a trip to Gibraltar, I thought I'd write a piece on tax havens and intellectual property, specifically trade marks. It'll explore some jurisdictions in western Europe and the Caribbean and won't be an exhaustive tour of all tax havens; the definition of 'tax haven' varies depending on your sources anyway. The term 'tax haven' is often applied negatively these days but my aim is not to label these places - I have visited many of them, visited one regularly on business, and even lived in another and certainly did not regard myself as a tax exile.

Gibraltar

It can be tax efficient to own intellectual property by entities based in such tax havens. It is argued that this deprives Governments of significant income that could aid development, but I won't discuss any ethical issues. I'm also not a tax expert and will not look at the best jurisdiction for tax purposes. Furthermore, I will not advise on how easy it is to incorporate and manage companies in the referred jurisdictions.

I will look at the internal trade mark systems of such tax efficient locations. Given that a home jurisdiction can impact on how protection of trade marks in other countries is obtained there are things to be considered from this perspective, and the work involved in the management of such a trade mark portfolio. Any increases in trade mark costs are likely to be easily offset by the tax savings, but a trade mark owner (specifically those responsible in-house for the trade marks) who is thinking of such an ownership model should consider their additional budget required and resources (e.g. people) required to effectively manage this.

Beginning with Gibraltar, 'the Rock' is rebranding itself as a non-tax haven. Nevertheless, taxes are not as 'invasive' here as they are in other places.

Gibraltar has an ambiguous situation with respect to trade marks. As I have blogged before, OHIM considers Community Trade Marks to cover Gibraltar. This is based on an understanding of Gibraltar's status with the EU under Article 299(4) of the Treaty of Rome. However, there do not appear to have been amendments to Gibraltar's local Trade Marks Act to reflect this. As a Common Law jurisdiction, it should enact local legislation to reflect any European or International arrangements in place and so I believe the enforceability of a CTM in Gibraltar is questionable.

The existing trade marks law provides for the re-registration of United Kingdom National registrations.

Conversely, Gibraltarian companies can own Community Trade Marks and, being a part of the European Union, there is the possibility to file Madrid Protocol applications based on such Community Trade Marks. Perhaps a word of caution - although I admit I do not have personal experience of this situation - I would anticipate some designated countries would issue Provisional Refusals/Office Actions seeking clarification of the applicant's nationality; perhaps this could even come from WIPO. However, I think these could be overcome once and they would not arise again.

This could create a bizarre and unique situation where the home mark you base your Madrid Protocol application on does not actually cover your home jurisdiction.

Remaining on the Iberian Peninsula and the Pyrenean co-principality of Andorra has a trade marks law dating from the 1990s (its first trade mark legislation). Andorra has not joined the Madrid Protocol although it is a quick registration jurisdiction and would have little trouble meeting Madrid Protocol examination deadlines. Despite being sandwiched between France and Spain, neither French or Spanish enjoy official status; Catalan is the official language. Andorra is not part of the European Union and therefore not covered by a Community Trade Mark, although it uses the Euro.

Another mountainous European principality, Liechtenstein, has more registered companies than it does citizens. The local Trade Marks Office works efficiently and Certificates are issued quickly; note that there are no provisions for trade mark oppositions in Liechtenstein. At 400 Swiss francs (around £270/$425/€335) for the initial filing fee it is not the cheapest country around particularly when the population is little over 30,000. If you need to use an agent, quite possible if your Liechtenstein company is just a tax vehicle that employs few people, then expect high agent charges in this extremely wealthy country. However, Liechtenstein is a member of the Madrid System, and its simple domestic trade mark system minimises the risk of "central attack". Liechtenstein is not a member of the European Union although it participates in the European Economic Area.

Neighbouring Switzerland is also famed for its low tax status, most notably the Canton of Zug. Swiss domestic trade mark law is robust and efficient although with many well known and sophisticated businesses and a population attractive to foreign brand owners, its Trade Marks Register is much larger than that of smaller jurisdictions. Switzerland has been at the forefront of international trade marks being an original signatory to the Madrid Agreement effective 15 July 1892. Also dating from 1892 is the 'German-Swiss agreement concerning mutual recognition of patent, design and trade mark protection' that means use of an identical German trade mark, which is registered for the same goods/services in Germany and Switzerland, counts as valid use in Switzerland (and vice-versa) provided the owner has a place of business/legal seat in either country. I am not aware that this agreement would extend to German owned Community Trade Marks, and most will know that the proudly neutral Swiss have not joined the European Union and so CTMs do not provide coverage ordinarily.

Within the EU, the world's only remaining sovereign Grand Duchy, Luxembourg follows Liechtenstein and Switzerland in boasting wealth and low taxes. Covered by a Benelux Trade Mark (covering a market of over 28 million people) or a Community Trade Mark (covering a market of over 500 million) this would be one of the more difficult of tax havens to get a domestic trade mark registered because of larger numbers of existing trade mark registrations. Luxembourg has membership of the Madrid System (in addition to the European Community being a party to the Madrid Protocol).

Maintaining a francophone connection we will move on to the Channel Islands. The French language has official status in Luxembourg and the Channel Islands, albeit most use being in administrative or ceremonial circumstances. The larger of the two Channel Islands, Jersey, is in the midsts of revamping its IP laws. For now, the trade mark law allows for the re-registration of United Kingdom National Registrations (as per Gibraltar) and for the automatic protection of Community Trade Marks. This latter situation is different to Gibraltar as it is due to legislation enacted locally in Jersey. On the contrary, whilst a Jersey company can file for a Community Trade Mark (and it would provide protection to the island), it could not base a Madrid Protocol application based on a Community Trade Mark as it not a part of the European Union.

If it doesn't confuse matters further, International Registrations designating the United Kingdom also have automatic coverage to Jersey but a Jersey company cannot file a Madrid Protocol application based on a United Kingdom National trade mark. It's easy to see why Jersey wants to introduce new IP legislation as currently it is far more straightforward for foreign applicants to protect their trade marks in Jersey than it is for local applicants to protect them at home.

Just to the north, Guernsey has already introduced a far more sophisticated trade mark system, modelled to some extent on how the UK IP Office operates, and it wants to be seen as a very forward thinking and progressive intellectual property hub; it is planning on being the first jurisdiction worldwide to introduce Image Rights registrable protection.

The trade mark system allows for direct applications (although if you have a UK trade mark or CTM in place you can use this to 'support' your Guernsey application and benefit from lower official fees). Guernsey is not a member of the European Union or the Madrid Protocol.

We will remain in the 'Atlantic Archipelago' - the term British Isles, although currently geographically correct, is controversial in Ireland (the British Lions rugby team has been the British and Irish Lions since 2001). Ireland provides similar benefits to Luxembourg in being a member of the European Union and a party to the Madrid Protocol.

Perhaps useful to North American brand owners is that Ireland is an hour closer to them than continental Europe. This might not sound much but consider 09.00 in Los Angeles is 17.00 in Dublin, but 18.00 in Paris, (Gibraltar and Luxembourg). Ireland is also natively English-speaking, although so is Gibraltar and you would be hard pressed to find a business person not fluent in English (or French or German) in multilingual Luxembourg.

Moving to sunnier climes and the Cayman Islands, where there is a need for a UK registration or CTM registration or International Registration designating the UK to form the basis of a local application. Additionally, there is no membership of the Madrid Protocol.

The Bahamas can at least boast an independent trade mark system where registration in the UK or CTM is not a prerequisite. However, a single class system that uses the archaic former British classification is in place. This means you would need to 'translate' specifications of goods into the International Classification when ready to file in most other countries, there is no provision for service marks and the Madrid Protocol is unavailable. It can also take some time to obtain registration; the Registry's indication that this can "take up to 18 months" does not match my experience that has taken around double this timeline at times.

Returning closer to home (well closer to home for me and just a 30 minute flight away) and we have the Isle of Man. The birth place of the late Bee Gees brothers and the resting place of Sir Norman Wisdom, the island also lays claim to having the oldest parliament in the world, The High Court of Tynwald.

The Isle of Man is a self-governing Crown Dependency and the United Kingdom does not normally interfere with its internal legislation. However, when it comes to trade marks, the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 covers the Isle of Man automatically (and there is no separate local registration possible). Under Section 108(2), "references in this Act to the United Kingdom shall be construed as including the Isle of Man", and a Community Trade Mark is also effective although the Isle of Man is not a part of the European Union. Furthermore, the UK Government ratified the Madrid Protocol "with respect to the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man". A Manx company can therefore take advantage of the Madrid Protocol, although as with the EU-Gibraltar nationality entitlement example above, I would not be surprised in receiving the odd Office Action from overly ardent examiners requiring ownership clarification.

As with the examples of Ireland and Luxembourg and, to a lesser extent, Switzerland above, a Manx company (by virtue of its home jurisdiction being effectively the United Kingdom for trade mark purposes) would have to contend with having to deal with more crowded Trade Mark Registers domestically.

Do not overlook a general ownership concern for companies from Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey, the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man. The foreign affairs of all of these are managed by the United Kingdom and the fact they do not have diplomatic recognition themselves can create issues in some foreign countries. Some explanations and proof that Gibraltar, etc. provide reciprocity to nationals of their country may need to be filed with a foreign Trade Marks Office.

Management of trade mark portfolios in tax havens can be complicated at the best of times but when these are your home jurisdictions - and thus impacting on your global trade mark portfolio - you will see there can be some added obstacles to navigate.

I'll conclude with a table summing up various places visited in this blog.

Jurisdiction	Currency	Time Zone	Local registration	Community Trade Mark	Madrid Protocol
Andorra	Euro	CET	Yes	No	No
Bahamas	Bahamian dollar (pegged to US dollar 1:1)	EST	Yes	No	No
Cayman Islands	Cayman Islands dollar (pegged to US dollar 1:1.2)	EST	Yes but must be based on UK National or IR, or CTM Registration	No	No
Gibraltar	Pound sterling (Gibraltar pound also in circulation (same value))	CET	Yes but must be based on UK National Registration	Questionable	Yes (based on a CTM)
Guernsey	Pound sterling (Guernsey pound also in circulation (same value))	GMT	Yes	No	No
Jersey	Pound sterling (Jersey pound also in circulation (same value))	GMT (proposal to switch to CET defeated in 2008 referendum)	Yes but must be based on UK National Registration	Yes	No
Ireland	Euro	GMT	Yes	Yes	Yes (based on national trade mark or CTM)
Isle of Man	Pound sterling (Manx pound also in circulation (same value))	GMT	UK is local	Yes	Yes (based on a UK trade mark)
Liechtenstein	Swiss franc	CET	Yes	No	Yes
Luxembourg	Euro	CET	Benelux is local	Yes	Yes (based on a Benelux trade mark or CTM)
Switzerland	Swiss franc	CET	Yes	No	Yes

UK Registered Designs - how far do they go?

I sometimes describe registered designs to clients as suffering from middle child syndrome when it comes to intellectual property rights stuck between big brother patents and younger sibling trade marks, with copyright being a close cousin and spoilt only child. Design law gets less attention and suffers from a lack of harmonisation worldwide; it's law being made up of bits of the other three. It's tagged on to a dominating patent regime of some countries, part of copyright and/or, as in the case of the EU, being controlled by its Trade Marks Office.

It does not always get completely disregarded and, for example, the UK is looking to improve its registered design system at the moment.

Some countries do not have design legislation and in some it is often assumed that a UK registration covers some countries automatically. Some of these assumptions come from the UK IPO website - or from private firms who advise based on this information. Therefore, I have explored how up-to-date the IPO's information is and provide my findings here. Independently, I have passed these on to the IPO so, if they agree, they can update their own website pages.

Of note is that Registered Community Designs ("RCDs") will not, except in a few cases, have the same effect as a United Kingdom Registered Design in these jurisdictions. This is a similar situation as with respect to UK Trade Marks and their Community Trade Mark counterparts.

Many of the countries that have introduced local design legislation provided for 12-month transitional periods for owners of UK Registered Designs to apply locally. I believe these periods have now concluded, where applicable.

Legislation introduced in 2002 brought design registration to Anguilla. Unfortunately, the law is is not available on-line without paying a fee.

Antigua and Barbuda now has independent design legislation.

Bermuda has a design law that allows for automatic protection of UK registrations but also allowing for purely local applications.

It is believed UK registrations will be automatically protected in the British Indian Ocean Territory.

The Falkland Islands also provide for automatic protection. Note the UK IPO's advice, "The Supreme Court of the Falkland Islands is empowered to declare that rights in a UK design have not been acquired in the Falkland Islands on any grounds for cancellation existing under UK law, including publication of the design in the Falkland Islands prior to the UK registration." This provision tends to be replicated in other jurisdictions providing automatic protection.

Fiji also provides for automatic protection. However, it is possible, and would indeed seem recommendable if this country is of commercial interest, to advertise the design rights already obtained in the UK in a Fijian newspaper.

Gambia now has its own law after implementing regulations were brought in during 2010.

Both Gibraltar and Grenada have laws providing for automatic protection.

With respect to Gibraltar, its status with the EU under Article 299(4) of the Treaty of Rome should allow for automatic protection of RCDs. However, there have not been amendments to Gibraltar's local Designs Act to reflect this and, as such, I believe it would be unwise to rely on RCDs being enforceable in Gibraltar.

Guernsey is a 'secondary' design jurisdiction and re-registers designs including those from the United Kingdom and Registered Community Designs.

Guyana also provides for automatic protection although there is a defence for infringers if they could not know of the design in Guyana which suggests if there is no use or disclosure in Guyana (e.g. in the UK only), a registered design owner would be prevented from taking action. This could be a fair defence in many of the other jurisdictions too.

UK Design legislation is extended to the Isle of Man (by the British Government not the Manx Government) to provide automatic protection. Obviously, this has been amended to reflect a Registered Community Design covering the UK. Therefore, I am confused by the IPO's statement that RCDs do not cover the Isle of Man as my interpretation is that they would.

Jersey is a re-registration jurisdiction. Only a UK National Registered Design can be registered locally; no provision is made for RCDs.

UK Registered Designs are automatically protected in Kiribati.

Malta now has independent design legislation and being part of the European Union is also protected through a RCD.

United Kingdom Designs (Protection) Act No. 181 of 1887 is not available on-line but is understood to be the local legislation providing for automatic protection of UK Registered Designs in Montserrat.

St Helena is another with the fairly standard "recognise UK Registered Designs automatically" law.

I cannot see that St Kitts and Nevis has a design law to allow for either automatic protection of UK Registered Designs or for independent local applications.

St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines now allow for independent design registration and UK Registered Designs will not have effect.

I cannot see that there is any design legislation in the Seychelles at all, let alone any that would give provision to automatic protection of a UK Registered Design. However, it is possible to register copyrights.

Sierra Leone offers an unclear situation through my on-line enquiries (I've not bothered my associate in Freetown at this stage). I cannot locate a design law which would allow for automatic protection of a UK Registered Design. It is possible to designate Sierra Leone in an ARIPO design application but in the absence of any design legislation, questions should be asked of its enforceability. Sierra Leone had plans for a new IP law in late 2008 but I do not believe this came into force.

UK Registered Designs extend automatically to the Solomon Islands.

Swaziland operates its own national design registration system now.

Tanzania is made up of two separate IP jurisdictions, Tanganyika (the mainland) and the island of Zanzibar. The mainland seems to lack design legislation but provisions within its Patent Act provide for automatic protection of UK Registered Designs. When it comes to Zanzibar, local independent legislation is in place.

My interpretation of the Tuvalu Chapter 62: United Kingdom Designs Protection would be that it provides for automatic protection of UK Registered Designs but I make this statement with a disclaimer. The UK IPO seems to think a local re-registration application is necessary.

In his over six years in power, Idi Amin CBE ("Conqueror of the British Empire") obviously forgot to repeal Uganda's United Kingdom Designs Protection Act. This remains in force to this day and provides for automatic protection of UK Registered Designs.

Vanuatu's design law is in a state of limbo - and for the same reason as its trade mark counterpart i.e. an absence of implementing regulations - is not yet in operation and it is therefore not possible to file for designs at this time.

The situation with the British Virgin Islands as described by the UK IPO would appear to be the same situation as exists in Bermuda (above).

After all this, I will provide a concluding table which I must stress is based on my interpretations and the taking of some information at face value.

Jurisdiction	UK	RCD
Anguilla	No	No
Antigua and Barbuda	No	No
Bermuda	Automatic	No
British Indian Ocean Territory	Automatic	No
British Virgin Islands	Automatic	No
Cayman Islands	No	No
Falkland Islands	Automatic	No
Fiji	Automatic	No
Gambia	No	No
Gibraltar	Automatic	Automatic but questions remain
Grenada	Automatic	No
Guernsey	Extendable	Extendable
Guyana	Automatic	No
Isle of Man	Automatic	Automatic
Jersey	Extendable	No
Kiribati	Automatic	No
Malta	No	Automatic
Montserrat	Automatic	No
St Helena	Automatic	No
St Kitts and Nevis	No	No
St Lucia	No	No
St Vincent and the Grenadines	No	No
Seychelles	No	No
Sierra Leone	No	No
Solomon Islands	Automatic	No
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands	No	No
Swaziland	No	No
Tanzania (Tanganyika)	Automatic	No
Tuvalu	Automatic	No
Uganda	Automatic	No
Vanuatu	No	No
Zanzibar	No	No

Many readers will be aware of the excellent value of the RCD system - 27 countries protected for a basic official fee of €350. The UK itself also provides for cost-effective design registration with the basic official fee being only £60 (about €70). Global owners of design rights may wish to ensure they obtain protection at not only the European Community level but also at the UK level, particularly if protection is required in parts of the Americas, Africa or the Pacific. RCDs and UK Registered Designs are both obtained very quickly.

As always, any comments or questions are welcomed.