For example, it is possible, under the protocol, to obtain an international registration on the basis of a pending trademark application, so that a trademark holder can, simultaneously or immediately after, file an application in a Member State, effectively apply for an international registration. In comparison, the agreement requires that the trademark holder already have an existing registration in a member jurisdiction, which can often take many months and sometimes years. Moreover, the agreement does not allow for the “conversion” of international records that have been “centrally attacked”. In a recent decision (BGE 134 III 555, 8 July 2008), the Supreme Court analysed and applied the differences between the Madrid agreement and the Madrid Protocol. The Commercial Court of Bern has asked the Bern Commercial Court to invalidate the Swiss part of the international brand FOCUS (owned by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH and registered on 23 May 1996) for non-use. Basic registration in Germany has been the subject of several appeals. The parties did not dispute that FOCUS had not been deployed to Switzerland. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the additional five-year period for the start of use had not begun until 8 October 2003, when the last opposition procedure in Germany was formally closed. The Tribunal found that, until that date, the non-use of the mark was justified by the opposition proceedings under way in Germany. However, the Supreme Court reviewed this decision on appeal and found that the Swiss part of FOCUS became independent of the basic registration in Germany on 23 May 2001.
There was no valid reason not to use the trademark in Switzerland as of May 23, 2006. The Supreme Court recalled that it had ruled, in an earlier case between the same parties (BGE 130 III 371), that a centralized attack by an opposition procedure to the basic registration constituted a valid reason for not using the Swiss part of the international mark, irrespective of the consideration of the chances of success of such an opposition procedure. The crucial question, then, was when the five-year term for a non-use decision had expired. The Tribunal found that, contrary to Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Madrid Agreement, there is no explicit reference to an appeal against a basic inscription as a reason for renewing the five-year term. It only mentions complaints (“Action”). Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the provision of Article 6, Section 3 of the Madrid Protocol could not be applied by analogy with the corresponding provision of the Madrid Agreement. In accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Madrid Agreement, an international registration becomes independent of the national trademark previously registered in the country of origin at the end of a five-year period from the date of registration, subject to provisions 6, section 3. This provision says that in the United States, the proposal sank as a result of a trademark dispute between two companies that made heavy electoral contributions to some members of Congress, followed by a redeployment of the Senate following elections, followed by the departure of a Republican senator. [2] The treaty was eventually ratified by George W.
Bush during the presidency. [3] On 31 July 2015, Algeria tabled its accession instrument and will accede to the Madrid Protocol on 31 October 2015. As Algeria is the last member of the Madrid system to comply, the protocol is now effective throughout the Madrid system. [7] Compliance with the convention or protocol includes membership of the Madrid Union. As of June 2019,[update] there are 104 members from 120 countries.