Você está na página 1de 181

Roving Seminar on WIPO Services and Initiatives

organized by the World Intellectual Property


Organization (WIPO) in cooperation with
The Finnish Patent and Registration Office (PRH)

Helsinki, Finland – June 8, 2015


Introduction to WIPO
Development of the International Legal Framework
Major Intellectual Property Economic Studies

 Speaker : Christopher Ruggerio, Senior Legal


Officer, Section for Coordination of
Developed Countries
Facts about WIPO
 MISSION: Our mission is to lead the
development of a balanced and effective
international intellectual property (IP)
system that enables innovation and
creativity for the benefit of all.

 MEMBER STATES: 188

 OBSERVERS: + 390

 STAFF: 1240

 ADMINISTERED TREATIES: 26

 MAIN BODIES: GA, CC, WIPO


CONFERENCE
Economic Norm Setting
Development

Services to Global
Industry Infrastructure
 Norm Setting

Development of international IP law that is:


 balanced
 responsive
 effective
 Flexible
Strong connection of norm-setting to WIPO services.
Standing Committees and Other Fora

 PATENTS (SCP)

 COPYRIGHT & RELATED RIGHTS (SCCR)

 TRADEMARKS, DESIGNS & GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS (SCT)

 AIM:
 Build consensus on topical issues
 Consider interests of stakeholders for a balanced, efficient, user-friendly, cost-
effective system

Issues discussed in other fora:

 Enforcement issues are discussed in the Advisory Committee on Enforcement

 Traditional knowledge (TK), traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) and genetic resources (GRs)
Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances,
26 June 2012
Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate access to
Published Works for Persons who are Blind,
Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled
Adoption of a new Act of the Lisbon
Agreement

The Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin


and Geographical Indications was adopted in May 2015. It allows the
international registration of geographical indications (GIs) and
appellations of origin, and permits the accession to the Lisbon
Agreement by certain intergovernmental organizations.
WIPO HELPS YOU ACCESS
INTERNATIONAL MARKETS
Provider of Premier Global IP Services

 Core business areas:

 Patent Cooperation Treaty (Patents)

 Madrid System (Trademarks)

 Hague System (Industrial Designs)

 WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Budget 2014 – 2015 : CHF 713.3 Million

600

500 76%

400

300

200

100
6% 15%
2% 1%
0
PCT SYSTEM MEMBER MADRID HAGUE OTHERS
STATES SYSTEM SYSTEM
Intellectual Property Infrastructure
“Just as participation in the physical economy requires access to roads,
bridges, and vehicles to transport goods, similar infrastructure is needed
in the virtual and knowledge economy…
“…However, here the highway is the Internet and other
networks, the bridges are interoperable data standards, and the
vehicles are computers and databases.” Francis Gurry, Director
General of WIPO
Global IP Infrastructure

 Databases
 Common platform for e-data exchange among IPOs
 Other platforms
 Tools
 Standards & technical agreements
 Capacity building & networking by Technology Innovation
Support Centers (TISCs)
Major Economic Studies on IP

 WIPO Unit – THE ECONOMICS


AND STATISTICS DIVISION –
Reflects the Growing Consensus
on the importance of the
Economic Dimension of IP.

 The Division applies statistic and


Economic analysis to the use of
WIPO services.

 This structure also improves


WIPO economic insight on IP
Development.
Demand for IP Rights has grown
Studies and Reports
 World Intellectual Property Indicators (WIPI): This is our flagship IP statistics publication. It
provides an overview of latest trend in IP filings and registrations covering more than 100 offices :
http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/wipi/index.html

 The PCT Yearly Review provides an overview of the performance and development of the PCT
system. It includes a comprehensive set of statistics for the latest available year See:
http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/pct/

 Madrid Yearly Review: http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/

 Hague Yearly Review: http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/

 The WIPO IP Facts and Figures provides an overview of intellectual property (IP) activity based
on the latest available year of statistics. It serves as a quick reference guide for statistics:
http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/

 WIPO IP Statistics Data Center is an on-line service enabling access to WIPO’s statistical data.
Users can select from a wide range of indicators and view or download data according to their
needs: http://ipstatsdb.wipo.org/ipstatv2/ipstats/patentsSearch
Studies and Reports

 World Intellectual Property Report 2013 Brands – Reputation and Image in the
Global Marketplace The report looks at how branding behavior and trademark use
have evolved in recent history, how they differ across countries, what is behind
markets for brands, what lessons economic research holds for trademark policy
and how branding strategies influence companies’ innovation activities

For further information and the full report :

http://www.wipo.int/econ_stat/en/economics/wipr
WIPO’s SMEs Initiative

Promote a more active and effective use of the intellectual property


system by SMEs

Strengthen the capacity of national governments to develop strategies,


policies and programs to meet the intellectual property needs of SMEs

Improve the capacity of relevant public, private and civil society


institutions, such as business and industry associations, to provide
IP-related to SMEs

Provide comprehensive web-based information and basic advice on IP


issues to SME support institutions worldwide.
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/multimedia/
FINLAND
The Global Innovation Index
RANKING 2013 RANKING 2014
1. SWITZERLAND 1. SWITZERLAND
2. SWEDEN 2. UNITED KINGDOM
3. UNITED KINGDOM 3. SWEDEN
4. NETHERLANDS 4. FINLAND
5. NETHERLANDS
5. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
6. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
6. FINLAND
7. SINGAPORE
7. HONG KONG (CHINA) 8. DENMARK
8. SINGAPORE 9. LUXEMBOURG
9. DENMARK 10. HONG KONG (CHINA)
10. IRELAND 11. IRELAND
11. CANADA 12. CANADA
12. LUXEMBOURG 13. GERMANY
13. ICELAND 14. NORWAY
14. ISRAEL 15. ISRAEL
15. GERMANY 16. KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
………………………
……………………….. 4. FINLAND
6. FINLAND
Finland : Success Stories and Challenges

Finland is ranked 4th in the 2014 Global Innovation Index, up two


positions from 6th in 2013

Finland ranks better on the Innovation Input Sub-index (5th) than in the
Output Sub-index (6th).

Input Sub-index: Finland enjoys top 10 rankings on four Input Pillars:


Institutions (1st) Human capital and research (1st), Infrastructure (8th),
and Business sophistication (7th). Its strengths with in the sub pillars are
in Institutions including political environment and government
effectiveness (1st), Researchers, headcounts/mn pop (1st)
University/industry research collaboration (2nd) and Comm., computer &
info. services imp., % total trade (3rd) .
Finland: Success Stories and Challenges
Output sub-index: Finland scores better in the Knowledge &
Technology output sub-pillar (8th) than the Creative outputs sub-pillar
(10th).
High scores in the Knowledge & Technology outputs include: . PCT
resident patent app./tr PPP$ GDP (2nd), Comm., computer & info.
services exp., % total trade (1st) and Royalty & license fees receipts, %
total trade (4th).
A Challenge is: Growth rate of PPP$ GDP/worker (87th)
The results within the Creative goods and services sub-pillar are
good, ICTs & business model creation and ICTs & organizational
model creation (1st), and Wikipedia edits/pop. 3rd.
Challenges are: Cultural & creative services exports, % total trade
(40th) and Printing & publishing manufactures (54th)
Finland ’s evolution with respect to IP filings and
Economic Growth from 1998 to 2012

• Filings for industrial designs have


increased strongly since 1998 Kuv aa ei v oi näy ttää ny t.

despite slow-downs in the period


around 2008. This growth has
greatly outpaced corresponding
growth in GDP.

• Growth in trademark filings has


been good despite slow-down in
the period around 2009.

• Filings for patent have not grown


much since 2007, but maintain a
good level of activity with a
noticeable uptick seen in 2013.
Further Information:
http://www.wipo.int/dcea/en/roving_seminars/
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
Introduction and Future Developments

Speaker: Matthew Bryan, Director,


PCT Legal Division, Patents and
Technology Sector
Seeking patents multinationally: traditional
patent system
vs. PCT system
File
(months) applications
0 12 abroad
Traditional
File local
application

176 States Enter


national
International
(months)
phase
publication
PCT 0 12 16 18 22 28 30

File local File PCT International (optional) (optional)


application application search report & demand for International
written opinion International
preliminary 148 States
preliminary report on
patentability
examination
The PCT “Market Share”

*
The PCT System
Express intention
and take steps to
Typically filed in same pursue to grant in
national patent office--one various states
set of fees, one language,
one set of formality Disclosing to world
requirements--and legal content of application
effect in all PCT States in standardized way Enter
national
phase
International
(months) publication
0 12 16 18 22 28 30

File local File PCT International (optional) (optional)


application application search report File International
& written demand for preliminary
opinion International report on
preliminary patentability
examination
Typically a national Report on state of
patent application in the art (prior art Additional patentability
the home country of documents and their analysis, designed to assist
the applicant relevance) + initial in national phase decision-
patentability opinion making

Request an additional
patentability analysis on
basis of amended application
Advantages for PCT Users
The PCT, as the cornerstone of the international patent system,
provides a worldwide system for simplified filing and processing
of patent applications, which—
1. postpones the major costs associated with internationalizing a
patent application
2. provides a strong basis for patenting decisions
3. harmonizes formal requirements
4. protects applicant from certain inadvertent errors
5. evolves to meet user needs
6. is used by the world’s major corporations, universities and
research institutions when they seek multinational patent
protection
7. can result (if PCT reports are positive) in accelerated national
phase processing in a number of offices
PCT Coverage Today
148 PCT States
=PCT

Albania Costa Rica


Algeria Côte d'Ivoire
Angola Croatia Guinea-Bissau Malawi St. Kitts and Nevis
Antigua and Barbuda Cuba Honduras Malaysia Poland Sweden
Armenia Cyprus Hungary Mali Portugal Switzerland
Australia Czech Republic Iceland Malta Qatar Syrian Arab Republic
Austria Democratic People's India Mauritania Republic of Korea Tajikistan
Azerbaijan Republic of Korea Indonesia Mexico Republic of Moldova Thailand
Bahrain Denmark Iran (Islamic Republic of) Monaco Romania The former Yugoslav
Barbados Dominica Ireland Mongolia Rwanda Republic of Macedonia
Belarus Dominican Republic Israel Montenegro Russian Federation Togo
Belgium Ecuador Italy Morocco Saint Lucia Trinidad and Tobago
Belize Egypt Japan Mozambique Saint Vincent and Tunisia
Benin El Salvador Kazakhstan Namibia the Grenadines Turkey
Bosnia and Herzegovina Equatorial Guinea Kenya Netherlands San Marino Turkmenistan
Botswana Estonia Kyrgyzstan New Zealand Sao Tomé e Principe Uganda
Brazil Finland Lao People’s Dem Rep. Nicaragua Saudi Arabia Ukraine
Brunei Darussalam France, Latvia Niger Senegal United Arab Emirates
Bulgaria Gabon Lesotho Nigeria Serbia United Kingdom
Burkina Faso Gambia Liberia Norway Seychelles United Republic of Tanzania
Cameroon Georgia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Oman Sierra Leone United States of America
Canada Germany Liechtenstein Panama Singapore Uzbekistan
Central African Republic Ghana Lithuania Papua New Guinea Slovakia Viet Nam
Chad Greece Luxembourg Peru Slovenia Zambia
Chile Grenada Madagascar Philippines South Africa Zimbabwe
China Guatemala Spain
Colombia Guinea Sri Lanka
Comoros Sudan
Congo Swaziland
Countries not yet in PCT
Afghanistan Iraq Somalia
Andorra Jamaica South Sudan
Argentina Jordan Suriname
Bahamas Kiribati Timor-Leste
Bangladesh Kuwait Tonga
Bhutan Lebanon Tuvalu
Bolivia Maldives Uruguay
Burundi Marshall Islands Vanuatu
Cambodia* Mauritius Venezuela
Cape Verde Micronesia Yemen
Democratic Republic of Myanmar*
Congo Nauru (45)
Djibouti Nepal
Eritrea Pakistan
Ethiopia Palau
Fiji Paraguay
Guyana Samoa
Haiti Solomon Islands
*required under ASEAN IPR action plan to join PCT by 2015
PCT Applications

200000

150000 +4.5% for 2014

100000

50000

0
78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14
International applications received in 2014 by
country of origin
70'000

CN: +18.7%
60'000
GB: +9%
50'000 US: +7.8%

40'000

30'000

20'000

10'000

0
US JP CN DE KR FR GB NL CH SE CA IT FI ES IL

• These 15 Offices received almost 92% of all applications filed in 2014


• PCT fees=78% of WIPO’s revenue in 2014
Top PCT Applicants 2014
1. Huawei Technologies—CN (3,442)
2. Qualcomm—US (2,409)
3. ZTE—CN (2,179)
4. Panasonic—JP (2,881)
5. Mitsubishi Electric—JP (1,593)
6. Intel—US (1,852)
7. Ericsson—SE (1,467)
8. Microsoft—US (1,460)
9. Siemens—DE (1,399)
10. Philips—NL (1,391)
11. Samsung—KR (1,381)
12. Toyota—JP(1,378)
13. Bosch—DE (1,371)
14. Sharp—JP (1,227)
15. NEC—JP (1,215)
16. LG Electronics—KR (1,138)
() of published 17. Tencent—CN (1,086)
PCT applications 18. Fujifilm—JP (1,072)
19. United Technologies—US (1,013)
20. Hitachi—JP (996)
Top University PCT Applicants 2014
1. University of California (US)
2. MIT (US)
3. University of Texas (US)
4. Harvard University (US)
5. Johns Hopkins (US)
6. Leland Stanford University (US)
7. Columbia University (US)
8. California Institute of Technology (US)
9. University of Pennsylvania (US)
10. Seoul National University (KR)
11. Cornell University (US)
12. Nanyang Technological University (SG)
13. University of Florida (US)
14. Kyoto University (JP)
15. Danemarks Tekniske Universitet (DK)
16. University of Tokyo (JP)
17. University of Michigan (US)
18. Korea University (KR)
19. Peking University (CN)
20. University of Washington (US)
PCT International Searching Authorities
The ISAs are the following 20 offices:
Australia
Austria
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Egypt …and more to
European Patent Office
Finland
come…
India
Israel
--Visegrad (CZ, SK,
HU, PL)
Japan
Nordic Patent Institute
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
Singapore (Sept. 2015)
Spain
Sweden
Ukraine (not yet operating)
United States of America
PCT use in Finland (receiving Office)
1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

• Joined PCT effective October 1980


Examples of FI PCT Applicants
Nokia Corporation
Nokia Siemens Networks OY
Metso Paper, Inc.
Nokia Telecommunications OY
Nokia Networks OY
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY
Kone Corporation
Nokia Technologies OY
Borealis Technology OY
Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus
Outotec OYJ
Teknologian Tutkimuskeskus VTT OY
Valment Corporation
PCT International Searching Authorities
for FI applicants

The competent ISAs for FI applicants are:

Finnish Patent and Registration Office (PRH)

Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV)

European Patent Office (EPO)


Current/future areas of work in PCT
PCT Areas of Work (1)
Quality:
Improve the quality and consistency of PCT international phase
work products
Develop quality metrics for measuring usefulness of work products
and identifying areas of further work
Develop quality feedback system for offices
Explore collaborative search and examination
Help designated Offices to better understand reports
Search strategies, standardized clauses, explanations of relevance of
cited documents
Improve timeliness of actions in international phase
Improve access to national search and examination reports
PATENTSCOPE, CASE, Global Dossier
Make progress against misleading invitations sent to PCT users
PCT Areas of Work (2)

ePCT: electronic interface to entire PCT international phase


process
 Online electronic preparation and filing with real-time validations
(currently with 16 receiving offices, including IB, Austria, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
Chile , Eurasian, EPO, Finland, India, Latvia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia,
Sweden and Singapore)
 Multilingual (10 language) interface now available
 Hoping to have RO/US authorization soon for use of reduced
functionality “EFS-Web” mode of ePCT-Filing
 Bulk ePCT upload by IB possible for users
PCT Working Group 2015 (26-29 May)
For WG/2015
(http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=35593):
Study by WIPO Chief Economist on potential fee reductions for
universities
Revised proposal on removing/withholding certain prejudicial
information from public access
Same day priority claims
Proposal to require designated Offices to provide IB with data about
national phase entry (and translations)
Criteria for appointment of International Authorities
New ISA
Proposals for modifying legal framework concerning payment of PCT
fees and establishment of equivalent amounts (to reduce risk relating
to changing exchange rates)
Coordination of training of examiners
Proposed pilot to test ePCT national phase entry functionality
PCT User Wishlist
1) Information to applicants and inventors about misleading
invitations, including making complaints and taking
actions
2) Assist WIPO in encouraging remaining countries to join
PCT, for the benefit of all PCT users and Offices
3) Engagement, when appropriate, in Collaborative Search
and Examination 3rd pilot
5) Feedback on how PCT is working and suggestions for its
improvement
PCT training options
29 video segments on WIPO’s Youtube channel and WIPO’s PCT page
about individual PCT topics
PCT Distance learning course content available in the 10 PCT
publication languages, and a 2nd detailed PCT DL course under
preparation
PCT Webinars
providing free updates on developments in PCT procedures, and
PCT strategies—previous webinars are archived and freely
available
upon request also for companies or law firms, for example, for
focused training on how to use ePCT
Videoconference and audio possibilities also available
In-person PCT Seminars and training sessions
PCT Resources/Information

For further information about the PCT, see


http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/
For general questions about the PCT, contact the PCT
Information Service at:

Telephone: (+41-22) 338 83 38


Facsimile: (+41-22) 338 83 39
E-mail: pct.infoline@wipo.int

matthew.bryan@wipo.int
Global Intellectual Property Systems:
The Madrid System
The Hague System

Speaker: Asta Valdimarsdottir, Director,


Operations Division, Madrid Registry
It begins with a trademark or/and a design and a
plan to export…
 International registration number: 871846
 Holder: Nokia Corporation (Espoo (FI))

 International registration number: 735377


 Holder: Oy Hartwall Ab (Helsinki (FI))

 International registration number:


DM/077406
 Holder: Fiskars Brands
Finland OY (Helsinki (FI))
Protection Options
The national route - file trademark/design applications
with the IP Office of each country in which you want
protection

The regional route - apply in countries which are


members of a regional registration system with effect in
all member states (ARIPO, Benelux Trademark Office,
OHIM or OAPI)

The international route - file through the Madrid or the


Hague System
Trademark and design protection
International route
MADRID
NATIONAL OFFICE WIPO WIPO MAINTENANCE

Basic

HAGUE
NATIONAL OFFICE
Basic WIPO MAINTENANCE
WIPO
USER
The Madrid System
The Madrid Route
The international route through the Madrid System
may be the preferred option when you:
Seek protection in multiple markets, particularly if these
are in different regions

Want flexibility to add new markets as your export plans


develop

Have limited budget and/or time to spend on registration


and management of your trademarks
Convenient

Access a centralized filing and management procedure

File one application, in one language and pay one set of


fees for protection in multiple markets

Expand protection to new markets as your business


strategy evolves
Cost-effective

File an international application, which is the equivalent


of a bundle of national applications, effectively saving
time and money

Avoid paying for translations into multiple languages or


working through the administrative procedures of
multiple IP Offices
Broad Geographic Coverage

Protect your trademark/s simultaneously in the 111


countries covered by the 95 members of the System

Access markets that represent in excess of 80% of world


trade, with potential for expansion as membership grows
Members of the Madrid System

1 Agreement only
40 Protocol only (including EU and OAPI)
54 Agreement and Protocol
95 Members covering 111 countries
1989
Longines
1970 Madrid Protocol

PCT
1967

1960 WIPO Convention

BIRPI moves to Geneva


1925

Hague Agreement
1893
Creation of BIRPI
1891
1886 Madrid Agreement

Berne Convention More than 120 years of


Paris Convention
Experience …
… More than 1.25 Million Trademarks
Worldwide

IRN 158 574

 This Longine trademark is the oldest international trademark


still in effect
 Originally registered in Switzerland in 1889, then
internationally in 1893
How the Madrid System Works
The International Trademark Registration Process
Stage 1

Application through your National or Regional IP


Office (Office of origin)
Before filing an international application, you need to
have registered or filed an application in your “home” IP
Office, known as your Office of origin

Submit an international application through this same IP


Office, which will certify and forward it to WIPO
Stage 2

Formal examination by WIPO


WIPO conducts a formalities examination of your
international application. Once approved, the mark is
recorded in the International Register. WIPO sends a
certificate of international registration and notifies the IP
Offices in which protection is sought

The scope of protection is not known at this stage. It is


only determined after substantive examination and
decision by the IP Offices, as outline in Stage 3
Stage 3
Substantive examination by IP Offices (Office of the
designated Contracting Party)
IP Offices make a decision within 12 or 18 months in accordance
with their legislation. WIPO records the decisions and notifies you

If an IP Office refuses to protect your mark, it will not affect the


decisions of other offices. You can contest a refusal decision before
the IP Office concerned

If an IP Office accepts to protect your mark, it will issue statement of


grant of protection

The international registration is valid for 10 years. Renew directly


with WIPO with effect in the designated Contracting Parties
Costs
Fees payable to WIPO in Swiss francs

Basic fee
653 Swiss francs - b/w reproduction of mark
903 Swiss francs - color reproduction of mark

Standard fees:
100 Swiss francs per designated Contracting Party (dCP)
100 Swiss francs per class of goods/services beyond three
OR
Individual fees where this is declared
71

General profile 2014

42,430 International Registrations

Average Number of Designations 6.89

Average Number of Classes 2.52

Average Fee 3,102 CHF

All Fees 70% < 3,000 CHF


72

Top Offices of origin


Contracting Parties 2012 2013 2014
European Union 6,256 6,814 6,698
United States of America 5,073 5,893 6,030
Germany 4,553 4,357 3,813
France 3,639 3,514 3,127
Switzerland 2,720 2,885 2,809
Italy 2,332 2,118 2,076
China 1,799 2,455 1,860
Japan 1,898 1,855 1,843
United Kingdom 1,274 1,580 1,809
Benelux 1,774 1,784 1,776
73

Top designated Contracting Parties


Contracting Parties 2012 2013 2014
China 20,120 20,275 20,309
European Union 16,889 17,598 17,270
United States of America 16,411 17,322 17,268
Russian Federation 16,634 18,239 16,573
Japan 12,493 13,179 12,814
Switzerland 13,464 13,215 12,759
Australia 10,753 11,675 11,533
Republic of Korea 10,090 10,967 10,402
Turkey 9,656 9,838 9,513
Mexico - 5,095 8,533
WIPO Resources and E-Services

The Madrid Website provides resources and E-Services


to assist you to search before filing, file an application
and to monitor and manage your registration

In summary, these resources include…


WIPO Resources and E-Services
SEARCH FILE
ROMARIN – database of international Forms and E-Forms
registrations
Madrid Goods & Services Manager – correct
Member Procedures good & service specifications and translation
Global Brand Database – search marks by International Application Simulator
text and image from national/international Fee Calculator
sources, including trademarks, appellations of
origin and official emblems (over 17,880,000 E-Payment – online payment system by credit
records) card/WIPO current account
MONITOR MANAGE
Madrid Real-Time Status of international Madrid Portfolio Manager access
applications and progress of requests being registration documents, uploading of requests
processed by WIPO for recording, payments
Madrid Electronic Alert monitor changes to Forms and E-Forms – E-Subsequent
international registrations (third party tool) Designation and E-Renewal
Translation request into official Madrid
working languages
Extracts from the International Register
WIPO Resources and E-Services
CONSULT
E-Services overview and tutorials WIPO Gazette of International Marks
Legal texts – Agreement/Protocol, Office practices on replacement
Regulations, Administrative Instructions
Statistics
Declarations made under the Madrid
Warning – misleading invoices
Agreement and the Madrid Protocol
Guide to the International Registration of
Marks

UPDATES
Information Notices Subscribe to receive news and updates on the
Madrid System by e-mail
Madrid Highlights – quarterly newsletter for
Madrid System users
Highlighting recent development

Web forms
Subsequent designations
E –renewal
E – filing
Benelux
Australia
A new version of the Romarin database
Recent development

Partial renewal
Scope of the protection as indicated after final decisions
Continuous processing
New Rule 5bis
Relief measure for applicants/holders where the time
limit in specific procedures before the International
Bureau has not been met
Notification of non-renewal to the holder, the
representative and the Office of that Contracting Party
concerned
The Madrid system – Finland
International Applications and
Registrations. Finland as Office of Origin
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Registrations 239 206 192 207 173 119
Applications 245 206 189 232 174 121
3 categories of irregularities
1) Classification of goods and services (Rule 12)
Goods and services not properly classified
Office of origin to remedy

2) Indication of goods and services (Rule 13)


Too vague, linguistically incorrect, or incomprehensible
Office of origin to remedy

3) Miscellaneous (Rule 11)


Entitlement, basic mark/priority, MM18, fees, etc.
Office or origin, applicant or both to remedy
International Applications - Irregularities
Total Number of International Applications: 122

With errors; 34; 28 
%

Error free; 88; 72 %
Breakdown of Irregularity letters in the
Madrid system
International applications filed 122
Total Number of Errors 34
Total Number of Irregularity Letters 36
Applications with multiple errors 3

Other Errors related to 
Rule 11(4) 
(Administrative 
errors); 4; 12 %

Erros reated to Rule 
13 (Indications of 
G&S); 17; 52 %

Errors related to Rule 
11(3) (Fees); 12; 36 %
Individual designations in international
registrations and subsequent designations
(Office of Origin: Finland)
1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Subsequent designations 80 79 133 118 121 96
Registrations 239 206 192 207 173 119
Individual Desginations 1549 1408 1594 1470 1328 910
Top 10 Contracting Parties designated
by Finland in 2014
Total designations: 910
Russian Federation; 80; 
9 %

China; 76; 8 %

United States of 
America; 65; 7 %
Others; 413; 45 %

European Union; 61; 7 %

Norway; 49; 5 %

Japan; 44; 5 %
Republic of Korea; 43; 5 
Turkey; 26; 3 % Australia; 27; 3 % %
Ukraine; 26; 3 %
Top 10 Contracting Parties designating
Finland in 2014
Total designations : 1,209
Russian Federation; 
158; 13 %

Others; 321; 27 %

China; 151; 12 %

Sweden; 40; 3 %

Germany; 119; 10 %
Italy; 42; 3 %

Benelux; 51; 4 %

Turkey; 67; 6 % France; 106; 9 %

Switzerland; 75; 6 % United States of 
America; 79; 7 %
Designations vs Refusals
100 %

90 %

80 %

70 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Designations 1 931 1 736 1 617 1 636 1 585 1 209
Refusals 486 521 529 453 527 488
The Hague System
Hague Union in 2014

46 Geneva Act (1999) (including EU and OAPI)


15 Hague Act (1960)
61 Contracting Parties
Hague Union in 2015

49 Geneva Act (1999) (including EU and OAPI)


15 Hague Act (1960)
64 Contracting Parties
Key differences with Madrid

No Basic Design concept


Direct filing at WIPO possible

Up to 100 designs in single application (same class)


Mostly non-examining states - less refusals
The publication in the Designs Bulletin is the notification of a designation

Renewal
• Madrid: 10 years (indefinitely)
• Hague: 5 years (up to the maximum duration of the respective national
laws)

No subsequent designation concept


Origin of International Registrations
2013: Top Designated Contracting Parties

Number of designs recorded:

1. European Union (10178 designs, 79.5%)


2. Switzerland (9287 designs, 72.5%)
3. Turkey (5993 designs, 46.8%)
4. Norway (3152 designs, 24.6%)
5. Ukraine (2911 designs, 22.7%)
6. Singapore (2639 designs, 20.6%)
7. Morocco (1932 designs, 15.0%)
8. Croatia (1884 designs, 14.7%)
9. Monaco (1724 designs, 13.5%)
10. Liechtenstein (1706 designs, 13.3%)
Keep Updated on the Madrid and
Hague System

New WIPO newsletter platform,


https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/

Subscribe to Madrid and Hague Notices, our regular


legal and news updates
Sign up to receive our quarterly e-newsletter, Madrid
Highlights
Thank you
for your attention

Asta.valdimarsdottir@wipo.int
Global Databases for Intellectual Property
Platforms and Tools for the Connected
Knowledge Economy

Speaker : Yoshiyuki Takagi, Assistant Director General,


Global Infrastructure Sector
Benefits to Stakeholders
For Innovators/IP Professionals/Business/Research:
 IP intelligence
 Is it worthwhile to protect my innovation? Is there any similar
brand? Who are potential competitors?

 Partnering
 Who may be interested in my innovation? Who can provide me
with a chance to produce/market new things as a partner?

For IP Offices:
 Providing digital workflow and online environment
 Efficiency and timeliness with quality service
Global Databases, Tools, and Platforms for
IP Business (Free)

PATENTSCOPE
Global Brands Database
Global Designs Database
WIPO Lex
WIPO Platform (IPAS, DAS, CASE)
WIPO Global Partnerships Databases (WIPO
GREEN, WIPO Re:Search)
Background: Patent Information

More patent applications (families) are filed in


multiple countries
More non-resident (foreigner’s) applications filed
More applications filed in Asian languages
(Chinese, Korean and Japanese)
More PCT (international publications), now 55% of
non-resident applications

Prior art search needs to cover global patent data


Patentscope

2.7 million PCT data (first publish every week,


high quality full text)
45 million records from 41 countries or regions
Full text data search possible
Search query can be expanded in several
languages
Search and read in your language

How to use it?


www.wipo.int
If you want to search prior art in PATENTSCOPE by key words in
multiple languages, go to “Cross Lingual Expansion”
TIP: Use a key term in English. Why?
TIP; Search words – in English (best for Machine translation)
130k to
153k; 20%
plus

Search
Query
(synonyms &
technological
ly related
terms)
For patent abstracts and titles, WIPO TRANSLATE
outperforms Google Translate and Microsoft Translate,
measured by BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy) score.
Login (free-of-charge by your e-mail) allows users to:
• save search queries;
• download search results to excel sheets for printout
Various charts can be
generated by Analysis button Download the
result to spread
sheets (up to
10,000 results
Save search queries
WIPO Pearl
WIPO’s multilingual terminology portal gives access to
scientific and technical terms derived from patent
documents
currently contains 14,951 concepts and 91,152 terms -
and is constantly growing
10 languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian and
Spanish
Integrated with PATENTSCOPE so you can search the
entire PATENTSCOPE corpus for terms and their
equivalents in other languages
Key words search and Concept map search are possible
Monthly webinar
Global Databases, Tools, and Platforms for
IP Business (Free)

PATENTSCOPE
Global Brands Database
Global Designs Database
WIPO Lex
WIPO Platform (IPAS, DAS, CASE)
WIPO Global Partnerships Databases (WIPO
GREEN, WIPO Re:Search)
Global Brands Database
18 million records in relation to brands:
 Trademarks registered under Madrid System
 Appellations of Origin registered under Lisbon System
 Emblems protected under the Paris Convention 6ter
 selected national TM data (22 countries)

Link and cross search to EU/OHIM TMView

World premier image search tool for device marks


www.wipo.int
Global Databases, Tools, and Platforms for
IP Business (Free)

PATENTSCOPE
Global Brands Database
Global Designs Database
WIPO Lex
WIPO Platform (IPAS, DAS, CASE)
WIPO Global Partnerships Databases (WIPO
GREEN, WIPO Re:Search)
Global Databases, Tools, and Platforms for
IP Business (Free)

PATENTSCOPE
Global Brands Database
Global Designs Database
WIPO Lex
WIPO Platform (IPAS, DAS, CASE)
WIPO Global Partnerships Databases (WIPO
GREEN, WIPO Re:Search)
Global Databases, Tools, and Platforms for
IP Business (Free)

PATENTSCOPE
Global Brands Database
Global Designs Database
WIPO Lex
WIPO Platform (IPAS, DAS, CASE)
WIPO Global Partnerships Databases (WIPO
GREEN, WIPO Re:Search)
WIPO IPAS, WIPO DAS

IPAS (IP Office Administration System) is an electronic


system that supports all the major business processes
of an IPO in developing countries. (Used in about 60
countries)

 IPAS enables IPOs to develop a patent / trademark DB with


minimum errors.

DAS (Digital Access System) used by 11 IPOs

 DAS enables IPOs to exchange priority documents securely


among themselves.
WIPO Case
“Centralized Access to Search and Examination Reports”

Started with an initiative of the Vancouver Group (UK, AU, CA) in


2011

Online patent work-sharing platform for patent examiners


worldwide—secure sharing search and examination documentation

IPOs can enhance quality and efficiency of patent examination

CASE will be linked to IP5 Global Dossier


Members of CASE; Two Groups
Providing/Depositing Accessing (only) Offices (AO)
Offices (PO)
Australia Brunei
Canada India (to become PO)
China Indonesia
Lao
Israel
Mongolia
Japan (via dossier linkage)
Vietnam
Rep. of Korea (via dossier Malaysia
linkage)
New Zealand (to become PO)
UK Philippines
Singapore (to become PO)
Candidates:
European offices (Germany in progress, Sweden,…)
WIPO CASE Service - Outline
PATENTSCOPE

IP5 IP Offices
Global WIPO CASE Philippines Malaysia
Dossier
Indonesia Mongolia
Japan

Linkage Access Australia NZ

China
Canada Laos

Document, China Singapore


EPO
Patent Family
Israel Viet Nam
Korea
WIPO UK Brunei
CASE
US Depositing
PCT Forum Offices
India

Chile
Global Databases, Tools, and Platforms for
IP Business (Free)

PATENTSCOPE
Global Brands Database
Global Designs Database
WIPO Lex
WIPO Platform (IPAS, DAS, CASE)
WIPO Global Partnerships Databases (WIPO
GREEN, WIPO Re:Search)
Broad aims:
- Match-making for technology transfer and collaborations
- Reduce transaction costs
- Build on comparative advantages of multi-stakeholder approaches
- Demonstrate practical means for the global policy issues
- Facilitate mutual trust by WIPO’s expertise and impartiality as a
member of UNFCCC’s Climate Technology Center and Network
Recognition:
- Users want access to technologies, not just patent rights
- Collaboration (e.g. training) is crucial to tech transfer
Launched in November 2013, expanded to over 2,000 technology
offers, 430 registered users
Partners (57 as of May 2015) include companies, universities, UN
agencies, governments, IPOs, NGOs, etc.
Partners of WIPO GREEN
www.wipo.int/green
Example: Product to license or sell
WIPO Re:Search
Broad aims:
- Match-making for technology transfer and collaborations
- catalyzes the development of medical products for neglected
tropical diseases, malaria, and tuberculosis
- Global Public Private Partnerships and sharing knowledge (IP,
compounds, expertise, facilities and know-how) royalty-free with
qualified researchers worldwide
Launched in October 2011
Partnership Hub (BIO Ventures for Global Health) has
facilitated 82 research collaborations (38 agreements)
between members, mainly for pre-clinical research
As of today, 94 members from 26 countries
Resolving IP Disputes outside the Courts
through WIPO ADR: WIPO’s Arbitration
and Mediation Center

Speaker : Matthew Bryan, Director,


Patent Cooperation Treaty Legal Division
159

Top Ten Priorities in Choice of Dispute


Resolution Clause (WIPO Survey)

WIPO Center Report on International Survey of Dispute Resolution


in Technology Transactions
160

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation


Center
Facilitates the resolution of commercial disputes between private
parties involving IP and technology, through procedures other
than court litigation (alternative dispute resolution: ADR)
Offices in Geneva and Singapore
ADR of IP disputes benefits from a specialized ADR provider
WIPO mediators, arbitrators and experts experienced in IP
and technology - able to deliver informed results efficiently
Competitive WIPO fees
International neutrality
Services include mediation, (expedited) arbitration, expert
determination, and domain name dispute resolution
WIPO ADR 161

Mediation, Arbitration, Expert


Determination
 Mediation: informal consensual process in which a neutral
intermediary, the mediator, assists the parties in reaching a settlement
of their dispute, based on the parties’ respective interests. The
mediator cannot impose a decision. The settlement agreement has
force of contract. Mediation leaves open available court or agreed
arbitration options.
 Arbitration: consensual procedure in which the parties submit their
dispute to one or more chosen arbitrators, for a binding and final
decision (award) based on the parties’ rights and obligations and
enforceable internationally. Arbitration normally forecloses court
options.
 Expert Determination: consensual procedure in which the parties
submit a specific matter (e.g., technical question) to one or more
experts who make a determination on the matter, which can be
binding unless the parties have agreed otherwise.
162

Why Consider IP ADR?


 Cost of IP court litigation
 Calls for expedient solutions
 Internationalization of creation/use of IP
 Calls for cross-border solutions; consolidate in one procedure
 Technical and specialized nature of IP
 Calls for specific expertise of the neutral
 Short product and market cycles in IP
 Calls for time-efficient procedures
 Confidential nature of IP
 Calls for private procedures
 Collaborative nature of IP creation and commercialization
 Calls for mechanisms that preserve relations
Routes to WIPO ADR
 ADR contract clause electing WIPO Rules
WIPO Mediation, and/or
WIPO (Expedited) Arbitration, and/or
WIPO Expert Determination
Model clauses: www.wipo.int/amc/en/clauses/index.html
Parties can shape the process via the clause (e.g.,
location, language, law)
 ADR submission agreement electing WIPO Rules, e.g., in
existing non-contractual disputes
 Court referrals
164

WIPO ADR Options

WIPO Contract Party


Clause/ Submission Agreement
Agreement

(Negotiation) First Step

Mediation

Expert Expedited Arbitration Procedure


Determination Arbitration

Determination Settlement Award Outcome


165
WIPO Model Clause Example: Mediation
followed by Expedited Arbitration
"Any dispute, controversy or claim arising under, out of or relating to this contract
and any subsequent amendments of this contract, including, without limitation, its
formation, validity, binding effect, interpretation, performance, breach or
termination, as well as non-contractual claims, shall be submitted to mediation
in accordance with the WIPO Mediation Rules. The place of mediation shall be
[specify place]. The language to be used in the mediation shall be [specify
language]”

If, and to the extent that, any such dispute, controversy or claim has not been
settled pursuant to the mediation within [60][90] days of the commencement
of the mediation, it shall, upon the filing of a Request for Arbitration by
either party, be referred to and finally determined by arbitration in
accordance with the WIPO Expedited Arbitration Rules. Alternatively, if,
before the expiration of the said period of [60][90] days, either party fails to
participate or to continue to participate in the mediation, the dispute, controversy
or claim shall, upon the filing of a Request for Arbitration by the other party, be
referred to and finally determined by arbitration in accordance with the WIPO
Expedited Arbitration Rules. The place of arbitration shall be [specify place]. The
language to be used in the arbitral proceedings shall be [specify language]. The
dispute, controversy or claim referred to arbitration shall be decided in
accordance with [specify jurisdiction] law."

www.wipo.int/amc/en/clauses/index
.html
166

WIPO Center Case Role

Administering cases
Under WIPO Rules, or under special procedures
Active management: containing time and costs
WIPO ECAF (optional online case management)

Facilitating selection and appointment of mediators,


arbitrators, experts
WIPO list of 1,500+ neutrals
From numerous countries in all regions
Specialized in different areas of IP and IT
167

WIPO Electronic Case Facility (ECAF)


Simple; secure; instant; location-independent; optional
168

WIPO Arbitration WIPO Expedited Arbitration

Request for Arbitration Request for Arbitration


and Statement of Claim

Answer to Request for Arbitration


Answer to Request for Arbitration and
Statement of Defense
Appointment of Arbitrator(s)
Appointment of Arbitrator(s)
Statement of Claim
Hearing
Statement of Defense
Closure of Proceedings
Further Written Statements and Witness
Statements
Final Award

Hearings • One exchange of pleadings


• Shorter time limits
Closure of Proceedings • Sole arbitrator
• Shorter hearings
Final Award
• Fixed fees
WIPO Mediation, Arbitration and Expert
Determination Cases
 IP/IT disputes and commercial disputes

Contractual: patent licenses, software/ICT, R&D and


technology transfer agreements, patent pools, distribution
agreements, joint ventures, copyright collecting societies,
trademark coexistence agreements, settlement
agreements

Non-contractual: infringement of IP rights

 Domestic and international disputes (25/75%)

 Amounts in dispute from USD 50,000 to USD 1 billion


170

Dispute Areas in WIPO Mediation and


Arbitration Cases
171

How Are Technology Disputes


Resolved?

WIPO Center Report on International Survey of Dispute Resolution


in Technology Transactions
172

Relative Time and Cost of Technology


Dispute Resolution

WIPO Center Report on International Survey of Dispute Resolution


in Technology Transactions
173

Fee Calculator

www.wipo.int/amc/en/calculator/adr.jsp
174

Uniform Domain Name Dispute


Resolution Policy (UDRP)
 1999: WIPO-created international administrative ADR
procedure
 Allows trademark owners to resolve “clear cut” cases of
abusive domain name registration and use
(“cybersquatting”)
 Operates outside the courts, but preserves party court
option
 Uniform: applicable to all gTLDs “old” (.com, .net, .org,
etc.) and “new” (.bike, .fail, .nyc, etc.)
 Applicable via mandatory “contract web” between ICANN,
registrars, and registrants
175

UDRP: Principal Advantages

 Significantly quicker and cheaper than court litigation


 Two-month average; fixed fees (USD 1,500)

 Predictable criteria and results

 Decision (transfer) implemented directly by registrar

 Prevents consumer confusion/brand abuse


176

The UDRP Test – Three Elements


Trademark must be identical or confusingly similar to
the domain name; and

The registrant of the domain name must have no rights


or legitimate interests in the domain name; and

The domain name must have been registered and used


in bad faith.
177

Domain Name Dispute Filing with


WIPO
 15 years’ experience as the global leader in domain name
dispute resolution
30,000+ cases covering 60,000+ domain names
 2014 total: 2,634 cases
Involving parties based in 177 countries
Multilingual case administration (21 languages to date)
Paperless filing: WIPO-initiated eUDRP
US first-ranked for WIPO case parties and panelists
178

WIPO UDRP Complainant Areas of


Activity
Electronics
Telecom Insurance Transportation Sports
2 % 2 % 1 % 1 %
3 %

Luxury Items Other
3 % 15 %
Media and Publishing
3 %

Hotels and Travel
4 %

Entertainment
4 % Retail
13 %
Food, Beverages and 
Restaurants
5 %

Automobiles
5 %

Banking and Finance
Biotechnology and  11 %
Pharmaceuticals
5 %

Heavy Industry and 
Machinery Fashion
Internet and IT 10 %
6 %
7 %
179

Key WIPO UDRP Resources


 WIPO Guide to the UDRP
 www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide

 Model pleadings (complaint and response)


 www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/complainant

 Legal Index of UDRP Decisions


 www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/index.html

 WIPO Jurisprudential Overview of Selected UDRP


Questions
 www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html
180
181

Further Information

 Queries and case filing:


 arbiter.mail@wipo.int

 Model clauses:
 www.wipo.int/amc/en/clauses/

 Info on procedures, neutrals and


 case examples:
 www.wipo.int/amc/