DOCSLIB.ORG

Design Patents Report, 1991-2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design Patents Report, 1991-2015 DESIGN PATENTS JANUARY 1, 1991 ‐‐ DECEMBER 31, 2015 March 2016 U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION PRODUCTS DIVISION ‐ PTMT P.O. Box 1450 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313‐1450 tel (571) 272‐5600 / FAX (571) 273‐0110 A PATENT TECHNOLOGY MONITORING TEAM REPORT March 2016/des_15dec_25yr.docx DESIGN PATENTS REPORT 1/1/1991 ‐ 12/31/2015 Explanation of Data This Patent Technology Monitoring Team (PTMT) report profiles patent activity for U.S. design "Patents Granted By Date of Patent Application", as shown in the "Pre 2002" column, correspond patents (hereafter referred to as patents) granted between January 1, 1991 and December 31, to patents granted during the reporting period but filed prior to 2002. 2015. The source of the data used for this report is the TAF database maintained by the U.S. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Patent and Trademark Office. Parts of the Report Parts A1 and A2 present tables which show, by number and percent, the patent activity. Part A1 Data Distribution By Date of Grant and By Date of Application presents data by year of patent grant ("Patents Granted By Date of Patent Grant"). Part A2 Parts A1 and A2 redistributes grant data by year of patent application ("Patents Granted By Date of Patent Part A1 distributes patent GRANT data by year of patent grant ("Patents Granted By Date of Patent Application"). The location of patent origin is determined by the residence of the first‐named Grant"). Part A2 distributes grant data by the year in which the patented applications were filed inventor at the time of grant. ("Patents Granted By Date of Patent Application"). Parts A1 and A2 each provide patent counts (pages A1‐1 and A2‐1) and percent distributions (pages A1‐2 and A2‐2). Patent ownership information reflects ownership at the time of patent grant and does not include subsequent changes in ownership. If more than one assignee was declared at Patent data, as shown in the "Pre 2002" column, correspond to the period 1991 through 2001. the time of grant, the patent is attributed to the first‐named assignee. The U.S. and Foreign Corporation ownership categories count predominantly corporate patents; Part B however, patents assigned to other organizations such as small businesses, nonprofit Part B of this report distributes patent GRANT data for organizations that have received U.S. organizations, universities, etc. are also included in these categories. While U.S. patents since 1991. Data are presented by the year in which the patent was granted ("Patents By Government patent ownership includes only patents granted to the Federal Government, Year of Grant") and by the year in which the patented application was filed ("Patents by Year of no similar distinction is made for Foreign Government patents. Application"). Note that for a patent, the country of origin may differ from the country of ownership. DATA FOR THOSE APPLICATIONS WHICH WERE FILED BUT NEVER ISSUED (ROUGHLY 20% OF TOTAL Therefore, the sum of U.S. origin patents may not equal the sum of U.S. ownership DESIGN PATENT FILINGS) ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. category patents. Since the average time period between the filing for a design patent and its final disposition (e.g., Part B is a ranked listing of national and international organizations (i.e., corporations, universities, issued as a patent or abandoned) is now about 20 months (i.e., the patent's "pendency"), the government agencies) that have received 70 or more U.S. patents since 1991. Data line 1 for each patented application data for applications filed in the most recent years are incomplete.* This is listed organization distributes counts of patent grants by year of grant. Data line 2 for each because the patents included in this report are limited to those granted during the specified time organization redistributes those same patent grants by year in which the patented applications period. However, a significant number of the applications filed during the most recent years of this were filed. Information regarding patent ownership reflects ownership at the time of patent time period were still pending at the end of the reporting period. While many of these applications grant. Although a substantial effort has been made to combine name variations into a single eventually will be patented, they will not be patented until sometime following the end of the organizational name, many organizations continue to have patents listed under more than one reporting period. Note that a patent's "pendency" can be quite variable from one patent to organizational name. another thereby affecting the date of patent grant. Such variation in pendency is determined by many factors, including U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) workload which varies between ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ different patenting areas, budget and manpower levels, patent printing schedules, etc. * For example, in a report profiling design patents granted through December 2015, patent grant data, as distributed by year of application, are approximately 95% complete for design patent Patented application data are of significant value since the date an application was filed more applications filed in 2011, 93% complete for filings in 2012, 84% complete for filings in 2013, and accurately reflects when the technology was developed. Additionally, fluctuations in data based 47% complete for filings in 2014; data are essentially complete for design patent applications filed on application date are much more likely to reflect changes in technological activity since, for the prior to 2011. most part, such fluctuations would be immune from many of the changes in USPTO processing such as occurred in years such as in 1986 and 2005 when the USPTO issued fewer patents than would have normally been expected because of administrative reasons. Part A1 Patent Grants as Distributed By Year of Patent Grant ---- Technology Assessment and Forecast Report ---- DESIGN PATENTS REPORT Page A1- 1 ---- Patents Granted By Date Of Patent Grant (Granted: Jan 01, 1991 - Dec 31, 2015) ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NUMBER OF PATENTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pre 2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Total 138881 15451 16574 15695 12951 20965 24062 25565 23116 22799 21356 21951 23468 23657 25986 432477 U.S. Origin 92257 9325 10045 9252 7554 11691 13494 13713 12026 12612 11756 12445 13312 13385 14335 257202 Foreign Origin 46624 6126 6529 6443 5397 9274 10568 11852 11090 10187 9600 9506 10156 10272 11651 175275 JAPAN 13019 1364 1567 1568 1384 2405 2416 2767 2415 1910 1869 1899 2092 1975 1878 40528 TAIWAN 6498 1294 1370 1268 870 1553 1355 1423 1114 1348 1086 953 1024 908 877 22941 GERMANY 3650 509 509 476 474 773 810 976 1196 1070 909 1051 960 930 1040 15333 KOREA, SOUTH 1008 211 186 238 233 589 957 1159 785 769 902 864 1102 1630 2238 12871 CANADA 4192 410 446 398 277 501 632 705 712 635 704 661 701 617 673 12264 UNITED KINGDOM 2653 305 356 401 369 663 674 685 777 659 574 600 702 603 702 10723 FRANCE 2675 350 227 286 222 395 556 600 628 586 458 435 420 395 420 8653 ITALY 2070 205 292 358 294 416 524 544 485 439 437 412 418 393 425 7712 CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUB 141 102 127 192 163 309 455 626 606 645 603 694 661 676 881 6881 CHINA, HONG KONG S.A. 2268 355 404 329 311 445 425 426 288 285 236 212 216 211 189 6600 AUSTRALIA 1081 103 120 114 90 160 241 253 299 282 265 226 269 273 247 4023 SWITZERLAND 1104 165 123 125 111 182 240 285 241 276 199 200 190 199 283 3923 SWEDEN 1326 142 106 97 65 112 207 190 207 150 142 177 155 177 225 3478 NETHERLANDS 769 69 79 50 63 107 124 127 102 113 148 117 165 98 186 2317 DENMARK 809 54 55 40 40 33 63 126 125 134 90 105 158 151 137 2120 AUSTRIA 288 27 43 34 28 48 93 107 264 177 171 129 117 96 104 1726 ISRAEL 355 56 47 47 44 64 80 119 92 79 93 86 119 122 149 1552 BELGIUM 449 66 64 50 55 69 90 85 92 62 128 112 71 72 78 1543 SPAIN 378 55 48 39 41 81 93 109 81 59 91 83 54 62 88 1362 FINLAND 274 46 77 35 31 53 92 82 132 82 65 60 65 116 100 1310 SINGAPORE 105 11 33 36 29 55 56 49 56 27 49 30 59 60 82 737 NEW ZEALAND 171 26 18 30 11 32 37 46 44 34 46 55 34 43 58 685 NORWAY 157 19 17 11 21 27 39 24 27 46 45 26 43 54 60 616 BRAZIL 76 15 50 55 21 26 23 29 44 43 39 59 32 28 58 598 MEXICO 121 10 8 15 15 22 33 23 20 13 27 30 48 49 31 465 INDIA 14 6 7 9 16 19 24 37 38 37 24 37 45 57 59 429 SOUTH AFRICA 98 8 14 14 16 13 30 32 39 23 19 14 20 26 29 395 IRELAND 90 15 19 10 13 22 15 24 8 18 14 16 28 23 37 352 LUXEMBOURG 167 14 18 11 8 15 28 11 20 12 7 7 8 14 11 351 THAILAND 78 16 20 10 9 10 13 17 13 12 19 10 24 24 20 295 MALAYSIA 82 7 13 12 10 18 15 16 22 22 20 8 16 12 11 284 POLAND 7 2 2 3 2 2 6 14 8 17 22 18 15 21 23 162 TURKEY 5 3 5 6 3 9 5 19 17 16 11 7 8 13 18 145 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 17 3 3 2 2 4 4 7 12 9 7 14 3 41 128 ARGENTINA 35 4 7 4 5 7 14 9 4 8 2 4 5 8 5 121 INDONESIA 31 8 3 17 12 12 8 8 1 4 4 6 1 115 Others ( 92 ) 363 71 49 52 39 25 91 96 81 87 73 98 98 127 187 1537 Ownership: U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Constitutionality of Design Patents
    CLIFFORD & PELTZ-STEELE - DESIGN PATENTS FINAL - WEBSITE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 11/27/15 12:54 PM THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DESIGN PATENTS RALPH D. CLIFFORD* & RICHARD J. PELTZ-STEELE** ABSTRACT Design patents have been part of American law since 1842. In that time, only just over 600,000 design patents have been issued, with more than half of these being granted in the last twenty years. This quantity is dramatically fewer than the number of utility patents issued which is rapidly approaching 9,000,000 issued patents. Possibly because of the low usage of design patents over time, no case law and little literature address the constitutional issues raised by them. This article intends to overcome that shortcoming. Two constitutional aspects of design patents will be examined. First, congressional authority to adopt the design patent laws will be examined. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 grants Congress specific powers to adopt both patents and copyrights. When a design is examined, it is unclear that it is an invention making its patentability suspect. At the same time, establishing a design as a writing is not problematic, leading to its eligibility for copyright. In this case, the clause itself must be examined to determine if something that qualifies only for copyright protection can nevertheless be granted a patent. The words chosen in the clause, particularly based on the way some of them were used in the Eighteenth Century, suggest that the answer is “no.” Of course, any * Professor of Law at the University of Massachusetts School of Law. I wish to thank the participants at the 2013 Intellectual Property Academic Conference held at the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and at PatCon4 held at University of San Diego who made many valuable suggestions regarding this article and its improvement.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Law in the Construction Industry — a Practical Guide
    Chapter 28 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY — A PRACTICAL GUIDE Scott S. Havlick, Esq., Editor and Author (2005 & 2007 Supplements) Holland & Hart LLP Kenneth C. Winterton, Esq., Author (2005 Supplement) Holland & Hart LLP SYNOPSIS § 28.1 INTRODUCTION § 28.2 PATENT LAW § 28.2.1—Design Patents Related To Ornamental Buildings And Ornamental Building Features § 28.2.2—Patent Infringement § 28.3 TRADE SECRET LAW § 28.4 COPYRIGHT LAW § 28.4.1—Copyright Protection In Architectural Works § 28.4.2—Limitations To Copyright Protection § 28.4.3—Copyright Infringement § 28.4.4—Moral Rights In Visual Artworks — Building Murals And Sculptures § 28.5 TRADEMARK LAW § 28.5.1—Truth In Advertising § 28.5.2—Avoiding Consumer Confusion — Searching And Clearing § 28.5.3—Avoiding Consumer Confusion — Non-Traditional Trademarks § 28.5.4—Branding Large Developments — The Pitfall Of Geographic Descriptiveness (10/07) 28-1 § 28.1 The Practitioner’s Guide to Colorado Construction Law § 28.1 • INTRODUCTION Intellectual property law is comprised of several distinct legal schemes created under fed- eral law, state statutory law, and case law: patents, trade secrets, copyright, and trademark law. To exhaustively describe the contours of each of these large bodies of law is beyond the scope of this chapter, but a working understanding of each flavor of intellectual property right is useful for the construction law lawyer. This chapter broadly describes each body of law and focuses on selected issues that arise with more frequency in the construction industry: 1) Copyright protections that exist in architectural plans, drawings, and the constructed buildings themselves; 2) The rights of visual artists; 3) The potential for trademark protection in non-functional and distinctive design and décor features in buildings; and 4) The challenges of trademark protection for larger development projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation by Design: Differentiator in the Digital Age
    INNOVATION BY DESIGN: DIFFERENTIATOR IN THE DIGITAL AGE Sara Diamond and Linda Lewis Canada’s poor innovation record has been exacerbated by a reluctance to acknowledge design as a key component of innovation. We have the key ingredients for design to make a difference to Canadian innovation — a strong and varied sector, a base of university and college programs, exemplary firms, and proof that design matters. By including design as part of the innovation paradigm (research and development and design), we could radically transform Canada’s lacklustre innovation record into a leadership position. Le design est un facteur clé d’innovation, et la réticence du Canada à reconnaître son importance ne fait qu’aggraver son maigre bilan en la matière. Nous avons pourtant tout ce qu’il faut pour faire du design un accélérateur d’innovation : un secteur dynamique et varié, des programmes universitaires et collégiaux, des entreprises modèles et des données confirmant son rayonnement. Il suffirait d’intégrer le design au paradigme d’innovation (et donc à la recherche-développement) pour redorer le terne bilan du Canada et en faire un pôle mondial d’innovation. With great power comes great design. Designers allow companies to stay ahead of where cus- Mercedes-Benz commercial for 2012 CLS 550, July 2011 tomers are by anticipating and addressing human needs and behaviours in the context of our complex and chang- anada’s poor innovation record has been exacerbat- ing world. “Hard problems” in research are called “wicked ed by a reluctance to acknowledge design as a key problems” by designers; these challenges require intensive C component of innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • Marks Published for Opposition
    MARKS PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION The following marks are published in compliance with section 12(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946. Applications for the registration of marks in more than one class have been filed as provided in section 30 of said act as amended by Public Law 772, 87th Congress, approved Oct. 9, 1962, 76 Stat. 769. Opposition under section 13 may be filed within thirty days of the date of this publication. See rules 2.101 to 2.105. A separate fee of two hundred dollars for opposing each mark in each class must accompany the opposition. SECTION 1.— INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION The short titles associated below with the international class numbers are terms designed merely for quick identification and are not an official part of the international classification. The full names of international classes are given in section 6.1 of the trademark rules of practice. The designation ‘‘U.S. Cl.’’ appearing in this section refers to the U.S. class in effect prior to Sep. 1, 1973 rather than the international class which applies to applications filed on or after that date. For adoption of international classification see notice in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE of Jun. 26, 1973 (911 O.G. TM 210). Application in more than one class SN 75-163,780. BAUER NIKE HOCKEY INC., ST-JEROME, CLASS 28—TOYS AND SPORTING GOODS QUEBEC, CANADA, FILED 9-10-1996. FOR SPORTS ARTICLES AND REPLACEMENT PARTS THEREFOR, NAMELY, ICE SKATES, HOCKEY SKATES, ROLLER SKATES, IN-LINE ROLLER SKATES, ICE SKATE BLADES, IN-LINE SKATE CHASSIS, WHEELS, AND BRAKES; HOCKEY STICKS,
    [Show full text]
  • Using Intellectual Property to Establish and Protect Your Firm's
    Using Intellectual Property To Establish and Protect Your Firm’s Architectural, Interiors and Industrial Design Domain By: David R. Gerk, Esq.1 If you were to hear a story about a painter that hosted an exhibit in Manhattan early in the afternoon and then simply left the gallery for a celebratory dinner leaving the front door to the gallery wide open for any and for all to come through and take her works of art, wouldn’t you consider this painter to be somewhat foolish? Likewise, wouldn’t you be puzzled if you were told a story about a movie producer that knew bootleggers were likely to copy his newest blockbuster and sell it on the city streets in advance of the release date, but the producer refused do anything to stop these thieves even though he knew how to prevent the bootleg copies from coming into existence? Lastly, if you read in the morning paper that a company decided to let its main competitor sell duplicate copies of its best selling products, but did not receive any royalties whatsoever in exchange, wouldn’t you suspect there was a misprint in that paper? While each of these scenarios sounds outrageous, blatant misappropriations as severe as these are very real. Perhaps even scarier is the fact that equally substantial misappropriations may be happening to you or your company on a regular basis. Designers, architects and virtually any person or entity that makes a living based upon the creative products or services they provide may simply be giving their most valuable asset away and not even know it.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation and Imitation Artistic Advance and the Legal Protection of Architectural Works Elizabeth A
    Cornell Law Review Volume 70 Article 4 Issue 1 November 1984 Innovation and Imitation Artistic Advance and the Legal Protection of Architectural Works Elizabeth A. Brainard Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth A. Brainard, Innovation and Imitation Artistic Advance and the Legal Protection of Architectural Works , 70 Cornell L. Rev. 81 (1984) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol70/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INNOVATION AND IMITATION: ARTISTIC ADVANCE AND THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL WORKS Architectural design represents a unique combination of innovation and imitation. One commentator has noted that "an uneasy balance between influence and originality" exists within the profession.1 Imita- tion may play a greater role in advancement in architecture than in other forms of intellectual property that the law protects against copy- ing. Nevertheless, architectural work must be protected to encourage original and creative design. Thus, proper protection of architectural works requires independent consideration and individualized legisla- tion. This Note evaluates the appropriate level of protection for archi- tectural works in light of the need to encourage progressive architectural creativity without precluding architectural imitation. Section I exam- ines the current protection afforded architectural works under the Copy- right Act of 1976, the Patent Act, and the common law of torts.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Design and Design Frameworks: Investing in KBC and Economic Performance
    323 | DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6. DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE This chapter addresses the nature and the economic impact of design by looking at design-related intellectual property and how businesses protect their knowledge based capital. The chapter reviews the nature and various definitions of design and how design-related IP, specifically registered designs, relates to other formal IP mechanisms such as patents, trademarks, and copyright. It looks at the primary areas of design activity in a subset of OECD countries and investigates the similarities and differences of the constituent design IP regimes as well as the various treaties governing international design IP regulation. The review continues with an examination of how design-related IP functions in comparison to and in conjunction with other formal and informal IP protection mechanisms and what factors motivate firms to choose and appropriate combinations of protection mechanisms. By examining historical patterns of design registrations in a variety of ways, this chapter identifies trends, at the national level, of how firms perceive the importance of design-related IP. Analysis of national origins of registrations in both the European Community and the United States provides an indicator of the activity of those countries’ businesses relative to their proximities to the markets. It explores the existence of possible alternative indicators for design activity and of industry-specific variations across the sample set. The chapter concludes with a review of input and output measures as stated in the limited set of studies that have endeavoured to establish or quantify the value and/or benefit of design and design-related IP.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Article of Manufacture” Today
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 31, Number 2 Spring 2018 THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” TODAY Sarah Burstein* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 782 II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 785 A. Design Patentable Subject Matter ............................................ 785 B. Design Patent Claiming & Infringement ................................. 786 C. Remedies for Design Patent Infringement ............................... 788 III. WHAT IS THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” IN § 289?.............. 789 A. The Apple/Nordock Rule .......................................................... 791 B. The Supreme Court Weighs In ................................................. 791 IV. WHY COURTS SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE GOVERNMENT’S APPROACH .................................................................................... 793 A. The Test .................................................................................... 794 1. The Underlying Premise ........................................................ 795 2. The Factors ............................................................................ 797 B. The Nature of the Inquiry ......................................................... 802 1. A Case-by-Case Inquiry? ...................................................... 802 2. Is it a Question of Fact or Law? ............................................ 807 C. The Burden of Proof................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hoovering the Hoover District, North Canton, Ohio by Lenny Siegel May, 2017
    Hoovering the Hoover District, North Canton, Ohio by Lenny Siegel May, 2017 It is rare that a company dominates an industry to the degree that its name becomes synonymous with the industry. But in watching British period dramas on TV, I have heard people using the term “Hoovering” to describe the use of a vacuum cleaner. The Hoover Company manufactured those famous vacuum cleaners in North Canton, Ohio, for decades, leaving behind a wealth of subsurface contamination, including tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and tri-chloroethylene (TCE). Now the current owner, under supervision from U.S. EPA’s RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) program, is beginning a series of cleanup measures that include what is essentially the vacuum cleaning of toxic vapors from the subsurface.1 Western Factory Area from Main Street Background The Hoover property currently consists of 69.5 acres in downtown North Canton, containing 30 buildings with about one million square feet of offices, warehouses, and manufacturing space. Established as a company in 1908, the factory is surrounded by homes, athletic fields, civic buildings, and a church. Its historic brick chimney was recently restored. Hoover, purchased by Maytag in 1989, terminated production there in 2007, selling the property to Maple Street Commerce (MSC) the following year. While many of the former factory 1 Ohio EPA has also been involved at the site, but U.S. EPA is overseeing the vapor intrusion investigation. Hoovering the Hoover District 2 May. 2017 buildings today house businesses, Maple Street has ambitious plans for mixed-use—that is, residential above commercial uses—redevelopment within former manufacturing buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Design Rights to Protect Your Technology in Japan
    Additional Approaches: Using Design Rights to Protect Your Technology in Japan Overview of Design Protection in Japan Yukei MIZUNO Japan Patent Attorneys Association International Activities Center Agenda • Procedures for Obtaining Design Registration • Summary of Japanese Design Registration System • Major requirements for Obtaining Design Registration Procedures for Obtaining Design Registration Filing An Application Decision of NO Refusal • Name and Address of Examination each Creator • No • Name and Address of Unexamined each applicant Publication Substantial Requirements? • The Name of Article • Not Required to Request • Drawings Substantial Examination Decision of • Priority Information YES Registration and Certificates Registration Summary of Japanese Design Registration System Applicable Laws Japan Design Law Object of Protection Industrial Design • “Design” is the shape, patterns or colors, or any combination thereof, of an article (including a part of an article), which creates an aesthetic impression through the eye. [Design Law Sec.2-(1)] Average Period from Filing to Issuing the First 6.1 months (2015) Action Grace Period Within 6 months from application filing dates Duration of Protection 20 years from registration dates Major Requirements for Obtaining Design Registration • Industrial Applicability • Possibility of repeatedly producing the same articles using industrial technology is needed • Novelty • Another design which is identical or similar to the design did not exist prior to the filing of the application for design
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications
    E SCT/36/2 REV. ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JANUARY 27, 2017 Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications Thirty-Sixth Session Geneva, October 17 to 19, 2016 COMPILATION OF THE REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI), ICON AND TYPEFACE/TYPE FONT DESIGNS Document prepared by the Secretariat INTRODUCTION 1. At the thirty-fifth session of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT), held in Geneva from April 25 to 27, 2016, the Chair requested the Secretariat to prepare a questionnaire, based on the proposal made by the Delegations of Israel, Japan and the United States of America, entitled “Industrial Design and Emerging Technologies: Similarities and Differences in the Protection of New Technological Designs” (document SCT/35/6). The Chair further requested the Secretariat to prepare a document containing the replies to that questionnaire, to be presented at the thirty-sixth session of the SCT. 2. Accordingly, the Secretariat prepared and addressed to all Member States of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) the Questionnaire on Graphical User Interface (GUI), Icon and Typeface/Type Font Designs (hereinafter “the questionnaire”), which is reproduced in Annex II to the present document. The questionnaire was also made available, in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, on the SCT Electronic Forum webpage at: http://www.wipo.int/sct/en/. 3. By August 12, 2016, closing date to return the completed questionnaire to WIPO, replies from the following Member States were received: Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, SCT/36/2 Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Trademarks by Design: Combining Design Patents and Trademarks to Protect Your Intellectual Property
    TRADEMARKS BY DESIGN: COMBINING DESIGN PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS TO PROTECT YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Robert S. Katz Helen Hill Minsker Design patents and trademarks are separate species of intellectual property (IP), but each can provide significant commercial advantages to their owners. Design patents grant the inventor exclusive rights to the invention for a period of fourteen years, but at the end of that time, the invention is dedicated to the public. Trademarks, if properly maintained, can exist forever. With the growing importance of IP rights, old ideas, such as combining trademarks and design patents, deserve another look as a means to accomplish this. Moreover, with the Supreme Court’s recent declaration in Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. ___ (2000), that secondary meaning is required before certain types of product designs are entitled to trade dress protection, design patents may be the most effective way to ward off infringers while secondary meaning for trademarks and/or trade dress is established. This article addresses the relationship between design patent protection and trademark protection. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK The Patent Law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Design patents cover the way an article looks, and may be drawn to the shape/configuration of an article, surface ornamentation applied to the article, or a combination of both. A design patent does not need to be directed to the entire article, and claiming a portion of the article is permitted, In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261 (CCPA 1980).
    [Show full text]