Growing Union Changing face of the Hague Agreement
- Slides: 19
Growing Union Changing face of the Hague Agreement Tyrone Berger Monash University European Policy for Intellectual Property Association (EPIP) 11 th Annual Conference 3 -5 September 2016, Pembroke College, University of Oxford 1
International designs • Series of agreements - London 1934, Hague 1960, Geneva 1999 • Designs least harmonised of IP rights… real flexibility • Variety of protections ‘cumulative’ • Hague Agreement does not provide harmonised standards … but evidences an effort to ‘internationalise’ designs • Entitlement: ‘Connection’ or Art 3 “domicile, a habitual residence or have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the territory of a Contracting Party” 2
Hague registration process Direct/Paris Route The Hague System 3
Policy objectives • Improve filing international designs • Minimise change to national laws • Leading scholar William T Fryer III (2007): “It was formed to integrate the national systems, to facilitate foreign design protection, a necessary step toward global design law harmonisation” 4
Other features • National application not required • 3 sets of fees: basic, designation, publication • Various terms of protection 5
A note about ‘declarations’ • Mandatory and optional declarations • Two types of systems: non-examining and examining Eg individual designation fees (Art 7(2)) • Countries will approach the Hague Agreement in different ways 6
Growing Union • 34 Contracting Parties to Hague Act 1960 • 51 Contracting Parties to Geneva Act 1999 Total 65 members (re-signs) • Recent accession: US, Japan, Rep of Korea Upcoming: UK, Canada - others? 7
Growing Union Hague Membership 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1934 Act 2010 1960 Act 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1999 Act 8
Designs applications & counts • Hague Yearly Review (HYR) • Continuous growth since 2007 (applications/counts) – 2014? • According to WIPO – “partially due to the expansion in membership of the Hague System” • 2014: 4. 9 designs per application 9
Designs applications & counts 10
Designations 11
Recent national experiences • HYR reports on top 5 countries (EU, CH, DE, FR, TR) • Acceded to Geneva Act 1999 (2010 -2015) – ‘effect of accession’ Finland, Germany (re-signed), Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, United States • Significant increases designations/design counts • Korea & US – large companies (eg Samsung 435 designs, 62% US Hague applic by P&G, Gillette & Microsoft) • Policy implications? 12
Applications by selected CP (2010 -2015) 13
Designations of selected CPs (2010 -2015) 14
Fees – ‘direct v Hague’ • Convergence of costs where an application has more designations, subject to mix of countries • Not an accurate measure by itself – professional fees (eg resident requirement), potential translation costs • Individual designation fees eg EU 67, Japan 582, US up to 1273 (all swiss francs!) 15
Who collects the fees? • Basic and publication fees are retained by the IB • Only the designation fee is forwarded to the Contracting Party • Publication fee due prior to deferment period expires (up to 30 months) • Increased applications => IB revenue 16
Concluding remarks • Growing Union – more attractive? • Robust IP laws ≠ certainty, less harmonisation • WIPO’s 2016/17 Program & Budget Program 31 ‘expand geographical scope’ => target 60 Contracting Parties • Further research!! 17
Changing face? 18
Thank you! Contact: tyrone. berger@monash. edu @tyrone_berger 19
- Growing and changing
- Adoption learning partners hague training
- Hague line
- Hague system fee calculator
- Ramsey kuralı
- Hague convention
- Corlett hague kuralı
- Martin hague
- Security products the hague
- Affirmative agreement
- Sql union minus intersect
- Kiran sanghera
- Face to face class
- Bald on record strategy
- What shape
- Ecdl.com
- Hospice face to face template
- Hyperbole in romeo and juliet
- Barbara cons
- Elements of communication