• Please log in or register to access this feature.

Original Article

You have free access to this content

TRIPS Compatibility of Sri Lankan Trademark Law

  1. Althaf Marsoof

Article first published online: 7 DEC 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00430.x

Issue

The Journal of World Intellectual Property

The Journal of World Intellectual Property

Volume 15, Issue 1, pages 51–72, January 2012

Additional Information

How to Cite

Marsoof, A. (2012), TRIPS Compatibility of Sri Lankan Trademark Law. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 15: 51–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00430.x

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 3 JAN 2012
  2. Article first published online: 7 DEC 2011

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (604K)

References

  • Agreement on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1994) (TRIPS)
  • Bodenhausen, G. H. C. (1968, reprinted in 1991) Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. WIPO Publication 611, Geneva.
  • Bouchoux, D. (2009) Intellectual Property: The Law of Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents and Trade Secrets, 3rd edition. Delmar Cengage Learning, New York.
  • Canada—Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products WT/DS114/R (17 March 2000).
  • Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2009) 11th edition. Oxford University Press, New York.
  • Cornel & Company Limited v Mitsui and Company Limited and others [2000] 1 Sri LR 57.
  • Correa, C. M. (2007) Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • de Carvalho, N. P. (2006) The TRIPS Regime of Trademarks and Designs. Kluwer Law International, the Netherland.
  • Drahos, P. (1995) ‘Global Property Rights in Information: The Story of TRIPS at the GATT’, Prometheus, 13(1), 6–19.
  • European Communities—Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R (29 September 2006).
  • European Communities—Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs WT/DS174/R (15 March 2005).
  • European Union Trademark Directive 1988 formally known as the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC) [European Union].
  • Griffiths, A. (2007) ‘The Trade Mark Monopoly: An Analysis of the Core Zone of Absolute Protection under Art. 5(1)(a)’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 3, 312–349.
  • Gutowski, R. J. (1999) ‘The Marriage of Intellectual Property and International Trade in the TRIPS Agreement: Strange Bedfellows or a Match Made in Heaven?’, Buffalo Law Review, 47, 713–61.
  • Honey, R. and Sinden, P. (2000) ‘The Interface between Trademark, Designs and Passing Off under Australian Law: The Philips Case’, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 7(4), [online]. Available at http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n4/sinden74.html [Accessed in April 2011].
  • High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) Act No 10 of 1996 [Sri Lanka].
  • Intellectual Property Act No 36 of 2003 [Sri Lanka].
  • Interstellar Starship Services Limited v Epix, Inc., 184 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir., 19 July 1999).
  • Jaconiah, J. (2009) ‘The Requirements for Registration and Protection of Non-Traditional Marks in the European Union and in Tanzania’, IIC, 40(7), 756–80.
  • Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at the Thirty-Fourth Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO, 20–29 September 1999 [WIPO/Paris Union Joint Recommendation].
  • Koninklije Philips Electronics NV v Remington Products Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 551.
  • Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. [United States].
  • LTJ Diffusion SA v Sadas Vertbaudet SA (Advocate General's opinion) C-291/00, [2002] E.T.M.R. 40.
  • LTJ Diffusion SA v Sadas Vertbaudet SA (ECJ Judgement) C-291/00, [2003] E.T.M.R. 83.
  • Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc. 2006 SCC 22, [2006] 1 SCR 772.
  • Matheson, J. A. (2003) ‘The Sweet Smell of a Successful Registration’, Intellectual Property Counselor, [online]. Available at http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=d28c44ca-6b7a-440b-a97d-ee09588e9c02 [Accessed in April 2011].
  • Nichols plc v Registrar of Trade Marks C-404/02, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1418.
  • Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) as revised in 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958 and 1967 and amended in 1979.
  • Philips v Remington C-299/99, [2003] Ch. 159.
  • Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt C-273/00, [2003] Ch. 487.
  • Stoll, P., Busche, J. and Arend, K. (eds.) (2006) WTO–Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Germany.
  • The Economic Times (13 March 2011). ‘ICICI Bank Trademarks Corporate Jingle’. Available at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-03-13/news/28685973_1_trademarks-jingle-sound-marks [Accessed in April 2011].
  • Thirunavakarasu v Siriwardena and others [1981] 1 Sri LR 185.
  • Toys R Us, Inc. v Feinburg and Guns are We 1998 WL 760219, Oct. 28, 1998, (SDNY).
  • United States—Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology WT/DS350/R (1 October 2008).
  • United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 WT/DS176/AB/R (2 January 2002).
  • United States—Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 WT/DS176/R (6 August 2001) [Panel Report].
  • Wimalaratne v Linganathan and another [1984] 1 Sri LR 247.
  • Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions—und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots—und Segelzubehor Walter Huber C-108/97, [2000] Ch. 523.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (604K)