When to Walk in Wooden Shoes: Making Sense of the Hague
Transcription
When to Walk in Wooden Shoes: Making Sense of the Hague
When to Walk in Wooden Shoes: Making Sense of the Hague Agreement Brent M. Dougal, of Knobbe Martens & Mark A. Charles of The Procter & Gamble Co. Presentation Overview • Part one: Overview of the Hague Agreement • Part two: Real-World Walkthrough © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 2 Part One: Overview of the Hague Agreement ©2015 Knobbe, Martens, & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. ©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson &Olson Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 3 What is the Hague Agreement? • Design Patent Treaty Administered by the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) • Seek design patent protection in multiple countries with a single application – (Like a PCT for utility patent applications) • Goal to provide a simplified design application filing procedure © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 4 What is the Hague Agreement? • Design Patent Treaty Administered by the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) • Seek design patent protection in multiple countries with a single application – (Like a PCT for utility patent applications) • Goal to provide a simplified design application filing procedure • U.S. joins May 13, 2015 © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 5 Multi-National Coverage • Access to 78 countries Direct Access Intergovernmental Orgs. – Japan – Singapore – European Union – Korea – Switzerland – African IP Organization – Norway – U.S. © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 6 Multi-National Coverage • Access to 78 countries Direct Access Intergovernmental Orgs. – Japan – Singapore – European Union – Korea – Switzerland – African IP Organization – Norway – U.S. • Notable Non-Members: – Australia, Canada, China, India, Mexico, Russia © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 7 Hague Application Process • File design application with either the applicant’s home IP office or with WIPO • Designate countries to enter • Application – Mandatory Contents – Applicant name, figures, indication of product, No. of designs • Application – Mandatory Contents Country Specific – For U.S., a claim, inventors, oath/declaration • Fees © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 8 Basic Timeline 1) Hague Filing & Formalities Review 2) Publication 3) National Phase 0-30 mo. USPTO WIPO © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 9 Timeline – Entering the U.S. 1) Hague Filing & Formalities Review 2) Publication 3) National Phase 0-6 mo. USPTO WIPO U.S. © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 10 Timeline – Most Likely for U.S. Applicants 1) U.S. Design 2) Hague Filing Priority Filing & Formalities Review 6 mo. 3) Publication 4) National Phase 0-24 mo. U.S. WIPO © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 11 Timeline – Foreign Originating Entering the U.S. AKA Reminder to Educate your Clients and Foreign Associates 1) Foreign 2) Hague Filing Design & Formalities Priority Filing Review 6 mo. 3) Publication 4) National Phase 5) 1st OA 10-12 mo. 0 mo. U.S. WIPO © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 12 Significant Changes for U.S. Applications • Increase in patent term from 14 to 15 years for all design patent applications filed on or after May 13, 2015. • Extra bonus: No longer required to file a petition or pay fees to file color drawings in all design applications. © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 13 Limitations of Hague Design Filings • Limited membership – Many countries where US applicants file are not members of the Treaty, including: Australia, Canada, China, India, Mexico, Russia • Same application is filed in every designated country • Local rules unchanged • Fees – For each embodiment in most countries, Per word of the description over 100 words, Per Figure © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 14 Limitations of Hague Design Filings • Getting country specific counsel after filing may be too late (i.e., after the Office Action) • No Continued Prosecution Applications (CPA) • CON or DIV after Hague Application does not get provisional rights based on parent • Publication opens file history of unpublished priority applications © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 15 Benefits of Hague Design Filings • Simplified process for filing for foreign protection • Applicants may save time and money – Use of foreign counsel may be reduced – Ability to include up to 100 designs in the same Locarno class can save or delay costs – Annuity and Maintenance fees can go through WIPO © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 16 Benefits of Hague Design Filings • Provisional rights arising after publication for Hague Applications that designate the U.S. • Ability to select publication timing • Immediate publication to support cease and desist letters © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 17 Resources • Filing Forms, information on various member countries, and other details: http://www.wipo.int/hague/en/ • WIPO Fee Calculator: http://www.wipo.int/hague/en/fees/calculator.jsp • Final Rules: https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-06397 © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 18 Part Two: Real World Redux: Right or Wrong…it’s Complicated Or Hague - A Way to Publicize Competency ©2015 Knobbe, Martens, & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. ©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson &Olson Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 19 Case Study: Registration vs. Patent Preliminary Matters • Product Design location • Attorney location • Foreign Filing License Requirement • Recognition of various local rules regarding design • Hague does NOT harmonize design practice • Inventorship/Creator © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 20 Case Study: Registration vs. Patent • Eukanuba® • Premium Tier • Unique Color Scheme • New Excel Branding • Chevron elements © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 21 Case Study: Registration vs. Patent © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 22 Case Study: Registration vs. Patent © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 23 Case Study: Registration vs. Patent © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 24 Case Study: Registration vs. Patent • Key Question: Is this a useful registration? • Consider Competitive Landscape – Copying of aesthetic – Tradedress devaluation – Costs of litigation – Costs of filing – “Blinking first” © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 25 Case Study: Trademark • Metamucil® • Consistent Color Scheme • Branding has evolved • Consistent 3D Packaging © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 26 Case Study: Trademarks © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 27 Case Study: Trademark © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 28 Case Study: Trademark • European Community Trademark Requirement - May consist of any sign capable of being represented graphically, particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters, numerals, the shape of goods or of their packaging - 3D products/2D representations of packs • Offers the potential for additional rights • May offer superior rights over a weak trademark © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 29 Case Study: Trademark • Possible conflict with Trademark practice - May be used to help acquire distinctiveness by discouraging third parties - Depending on the region, may also be used against the rights holder – essentially double dipping - Know your geography • Layering protections require significant strategy work © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 30 Case Study: Copyright - Publicity • Pampers® • Consistent Color Scheme • Branding has evolved • Consistent 3D Packaging © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 31 Case Study: Copyright - Publicity © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 32 Case Study: Copyright - Publicity © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 33 Case Study: Copyright - Publicity © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 34 Case Study: Copyright - Publicity © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 35 Case Study: Right of Publicity • Types of use, geography, length of use • Contract terms important to filing patterns • Consider securing broad use for any talent • Understand the ownership of works by employees • Know your geography © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 36 Case Study: Color • Olay® • Multicolor product form • Consistent Branding • Evolving 3D Packaging © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 37 Case Study: Color © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 38 Case Study: Color 608.0 2 © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 39 Case Study: Color • Color rules are involved • Different regions have different requirements • Not harmonized • Not always fixable • Know your geography © 2015 Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 40 Questions? ©2015 Knobbe, Martens, & Bear, LLP all rights reserved. ©2012 Knobbe Martens, Olson &Olson Bear, LLP all rights reserved. 41