the smart trade mark blog

Brexit (sorry!) and implications for trade mark records management

2019-02-05T12:31:00.000+00:00

Perhaps you're a BoB (Bored of Brexit)? That's understandable as it seems to become more exasperating by the day.

Nonetheless, it will have implications on how trade mark records and data are managed. This might be pretty dull too, but it is important.

How data is managed in IP databases and on Trade Mark Registers is critical to trade mark management whether it is to ensure the proper management and advice of your business/your client's trade marks, or by having reliable information on the rights of third parties.

If Brexit does not ultimately happen - a result that may see IP professionals discovering a skill for cartwheeling - then the status quo will be maintained.

If Brexit does happen, in whatever form (hard/soft/no deal), the UK has indicated that it will continue to recognise EU rights by 'cloning' them into an equivalent UK right.

I previously speculated that this would be automatic. At the time, many thought they'd instead need to be a formal conversion procedure. Let me not be smug (and, alas, I don't know this week's lottery numbers) as I may not be right - the UKIPO's guidance states equivalent UK rights will be created with "minimal administrative burden", but it is anticipated it will be done proactively by the UKIPO.

The UKIPO's guidance states that "any business, organisation or individual that may not want to receive a new comparable UK registered trade mark or design will be able to opt out". However, to me, it seems that it will be easier (and cheaper) to allow a new right to be created so how many will go to the effort of opting out?

"this is a worldwide issue, not specific to UK businesses and attorneys"

So on Brexit day, all existing EU registrations will be cloned into a UK registration with the same details. Check how many EU registrations you have on your records... take a deep breath and realise all (or nearly all presuming many will not opt out) of these will need duplicating into a UK record - and this is a worldwide issue, not specific to UK businesses and attorneys, as it relates to anyone owning EU trade marks.

I expect many databases will have a tool (or develop a tool) to allow this to be done automatically. Nonetheless, it may represent a big increase in the number of records a business is managing. Some businesses pay per record on their IP database so the impact on their overheads is immediate.

It should be mentioned that cloned EU rights are likely to have a letter prefix to their numbers and this may require a more manual update. This currently happens when searching the UK Register whereby UK national rights are prefixed 'UK' and EU rights are prefixed 'EU', and there are different prefixes for those that are designations in International Registrations.

High lapse rate?

Of all the EU marks on the Register, how many of the owners have commercial interests in the UK? Certainly not all and so I think it's fair to anticipate a high lapse rate at renewal time. This could be the first time private practice firms have the opportunity to charge fees on these records. Some private practice firms struggle to make money on the renewals part of their business - the work involved in regular chasing clients for instructions that end up being a "not interested" is typically not money making. A high(er) lapse rate would only make this worse.

Then there are the UK clients that would often file in the UK first and then the EU (and other countries) come later as their plans to penetrate other markets firm up. These clients are going to end up with two UK registrations with a reasonable likelihood that the first (older) one will be maintained and they won't need to renew the second (cloned) one when it comes due for renewal. Nonetheless, there would still be an obligation for a private practice firm (and in-house department) to keep records of the second cloned one.

There's also International Registrations designating the EU. Here the UKIPO will support this to be cloned into an equivalent UK national right. They may alter this stance if WIPO will allow International Registrations designating the EU to have "continuation of effects" to the UK with "minimal administrative burden" (e.g. no fees).

Let's say WIPO will allow continuation of effects but will require payment of a fee. Now a UK business who has an IR designating the EU (with base mark from the UK) could now request a continuation of effects of the EU designation to the UK. This would mean they have triplicate protection in the UK (1 - the original UK national registration, 2 - a cloned national from the EU designation and 3 - a fresh (continuation of effects) designation of the UK in the International Registration). I hope you are following me, but this is not completely far fetched as it would allow a business to let the two national UK registrations lapse, maintaining their rights in the UK and EU (and any other countries designated in the IR) exclusively through the International Registration.

Those involved in data management should be prepared, and this has only explored registered EU marks, not those pending on Brexit day.

Duplicate protection is not always bad. I worked on a portfolio audit once that had old East and West German registrations. Upon German reunification both registrations extended to the whole of Germany. My audit discovered the old West German registration had inadvertently lapsed - the duplicate (East) German registration came to the rescue to ensure protection across Germany. Every cloud...

WIPO to introduce Division and Merger for International Registrations

2018-11-07T17:11:00.000+00:00

Those managing International trade mark registrations may be pleased to note of new provisions for Division and Merger that are being introduced by WIPO from February 2019.

This will give greater flexibility to International Registrations. Division, in particular, has been a disadvantage of International Registrations over (some) National registrations.

Division

As a recap, division can occur where there are objections to some of the classes in a multi-class application, the classes with objections can be transferred to a divisional application and be dealt with later. This allows the acceptable classes to move forward without delay. It can also be used to divide goods/services within a single class, although this is less common.

Division will now be possible for individual countries designated in an International Registration, provided division exists within the national law. Countries can opt out of accepting requests for division and/or can also notify WIPO of their incompatibility with the national law.

There will be a specific form for requesting division, a Form MM22. Unusually, this form is not to be filed with WIPO but with the National Office of the designated country in which you wish to request division. Currently, all WIPO forms are filed either directly with WIPO and/or through the Office of origin.

There will also be a fee due to WIPO of 177 Swiss francs. This can be paid through a current account held with WIPO or by bank transfer. Presumably, it would also be possible to not pay the fee and wait for an Irregularity Notice and then pay the fee by credit card through the E-Payment Service, although this would add delay.

As WIPO mention, the National Office may examine the request for division of an International Registration to ensure that it meets the requirements in their law before presenting it to WIPO. The Office may also require the payment of a fee, directly to them, different from the fee due to WIPO. It should also be mentioned that division is likely to be happening in foreign countries and therefore you are also likely to incur professional fees of a local agent.

Alternatively, you may be handling a specific designation of an International Registration on behalf of a client. For example, if you are a UK practitioner and have been entrusted with only the UK designation, then you would be making the request for division of an International Registration to the UK Intellectual Property Office ("UKIPO"). The UKIPO currently has a form for requesting division of a national application - a Form TM12 - which carries a fee of £100. I anticipate this fee will also apply to requests for division of an International Registration and perhaps the UKIPO may produce their own Form MM22 with a more similar look and feel to their Form TM12.

It is not clear if, for example, the UKIPO would also, on request, take the WIPO fee from a UKIPO deposit account and pass to WIPO, like they can do with new International applications filed through them as Office of origin.

Once division has taken place, WIPO will create a new International Registration (covering just the one designated country) - I would guess with the same number and a letter suffix.

Central Attack

The divided part of an International Registration will retain the same base mark. If this is lost (e.g. through Central Attack) within the first five years of registration then both the original International Registration and the divided International Registration will be cancelled.

Merger

The new regulations will allow for the merger of International Registrations under two circumstances:

1. Merger of international registrations resulting from the recording of a partial change in ownership; and
2. Merger of international registrations resulting from the recording of division

The second is clear. Presuming you overcome the issues with the divided part then you can merge it back into the main International Registration it was divided from. You'll then have just one registration to manage, renew and maintain.

The first is not entirely clear to me. If you record a partial change in ownership of an International Registration, this will create a new International Registration for the part where ownership has been partially changed. It seems therefore that if the two (or more) International Registrations subject to a partial change in ownership then come to all be back in the same ownership at a later date that they can then be merged together. If so, I do not see if this would be used much in practice.

There will be new WIPO form for mergers, a Form MM24, and it will be possible to file them direct with WIPO. No fee will be payable.

Countries can opt out of accepting requests for merger and/or can also notify WIPO of their incompatibility with the national law.

These steps will add flexibility to the International system, in particular division. Nonetheless, the relationship between WIPO, the Office of origin and the National Offices of designated countries is not always well understood and the addition of extra forms may prove to be more beneficial to more experienced users of the International system.

From single class to multi-class...

2018-09-05T15:19:00.001+01:00

I was asked by an old colleague recently, "Do you know what countries have gone from a single class system to a multi-class one in the last 10 years?" - a question which followed with a hint to put it into a blog piece, notwithstanding its somewhat niche interest. Not that I ever give in to peer pressure...

The scenario is: you have inherited a mature trade mark portfolio with many single class registrations. Is it possible to consolidate matters by re-filing multi-class applications with a view to allowing the single class registrations to lapse in the future? The administration in managing the trade mark portfolio would reduce and, although it would not be realised straightaway, renewal costs should be reduced in the future. (If any marks are not in use then re-filing could be a way of resetting the non-use period if a mark is of continued interest.)

The risks are perhaps obvious. Allow an old registrations to lapse to rely on a newer registration could result in a third party having earlier rights. This can be mitigated by undertaking searches for any intervening marks. There may also be possible prior co-existence and acquiescence. The appetite for risk differs with each business, and it's certainly possible to take a different approach for different countries depending on their commercial importance.

You must also watch out for countries that do not allow for duplicate registrations. In these countries it will be necessary to voluntarily surrender an existing registration to overcome a refusal. In the best case with these, there will be a lag when you do not have registered rights while the application is pending registration. At worst, another issue raises its head after voluntarily surrendering the old registration.

Anyway, if you are thinking of undertaking such an exercise, here is a list of countries that may have gone from single classes to multi-class in 'recent' times, perhaps in the last 10 years, perhaps more than that. This is done from my memory so there's no guarantee this is right! It's not meant to be exhaustive. It's a pointer - you'd need to research, double-check and apply it to a specific portfolio.

Bahrain *
Brunei #
Cambodia #
China #
Colombia #
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Egypt *
El Salvador
The Gambia #
Ghana *
India #
Indonesia #
Kenya #
Laos #
Mexico * (in practice the IMPI will examine each class in an IR as though it is a separate application)
Mozambique *
Namibia #
Nicaragua
Oman * (multi-class applications expected to be allowed locally soon)
Panama
Peru
Spain # (this change happened back in the early 2000s when they also abolished quinquennial taxes if you remember them)
Syria *
Thailand #
United Kingdom # (definitely more than 10 years ago, more later)

The countries marked with * are single class when filing nationally, but they can be designated in a multi-class International Registration. Those marked # are now multi-class nationally and/or can be designated in a multi-class International Registration.

This leads nicely on to Replacement. Techinically, this happens automatically, but to get it noted on Trade Marks Registers it needs to be requested formally. In simple terms, replacement is to International trade marks what seniority is to EU trade marks. (Seniority is also a useful tool in consolidating rights but as readers of this blog may be very familiar with this, I will not touch on it here.)

If you have old single (or multi-) class national registrations and you now have International Registrations designating these countries then replacement may be a useful exercise to consolidate things and make a note of the older rights. You may need to obtain local advice on how each national Office will look at this; you'll typically need the help of a local associate to request replacement at each national Office anyway. It may be for this reason that replacement is hardly utilised, or perhaps it's ignorance, or because it could be a fiddly (and thus expensive) job involving liaising with multiple countries (cf. seniority which is centrally handled with the EUIPO).

Another tool more often used in the consolidation of trade marks is the merger of trade marks. The United Kingdom became a multi-class jurisdiction with the introduction of its 1994 Act - quite scarily - nearly 24 years ago.

They introduced a provision to merge single class registrations for the same trade mark in the same ownership into a single registration so that savings on renewal fees could be made. They have changed the criteria set down at various times and currently the registrations must also share the same filing date.

Ireland, which went multi-class around 1996, has a merger procedure as do Hong Kong and New Zealand. It's also possible to merge trade mark registrations in Guernsey. Just south of Guernsey is Jersey, where trade marks have to be based on UK registrations. The Jersey Registry is able to reflect in its own records where merger has taken place, but be aware for other UK dependent jurisdictions because the local laws are often rather short and may be silent with respect to mergers.

So if you're looking to consolidate a number of single-class registrations into multi-class registrations then, if the risks are acceptable, make sure to take into account International Registrations, replacement and mergers as well as the what might be more obvious re-filings and seniority.

North and South Yemen

2018-05-02T18:20:00.000+01:00

We all know about North and South Korea. They've not exactly been out of the news recently.

I'm far too young to remember North and South Vietnam, although I (just) have memories of East and West Germany competing at the Olympic Games and of being too young to appreciate the significance of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Germany wasn't the only country to unify in 1990. As a young boy, my first atlas was prior to the unification of Yemen and being a geography geek from a young age I would have spent time memorising for which part Aden was the capital and which part had Sana'a as its capital.

One of my first, but probably not my first atlas (what is the plural for atlas?). It's still an old one.

Prior to 1990, Yemen consisted of independent north and south parts. Officially both countries had relatively similar names - the Yemen Arab Republic versus People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. Both had their own set of trademark laws.

A devastating Civil War, which often does not reach our regular news reports, has been going on since 2015. The internationally recognised government was ousted in the capital Sana'a by Houthi rebels. They now control territory similar to that which constituted North Yemen. Since occupation, I understand the Trademark Office has continued to operate from the capital.

I have now heard information that the Government located in Aden, in what was South Yemen, is now also receiving trademark applications (based on the same laws and regulations), and also receiving confirmations of registrations/renewals issued by the Trademarks Office up in Sana'a.

Yemen's poverty has meant it is not high up on the list of most important jurisdictions to many trademark owners, and the sad Civil War has only lessened its commercial importance. Nonetheless, if Yemen is a country where you do need to protect trademarks, it would be worth investigating whether you need to file in both the North (in Sana'a) and South (in Aden) to best protect your interests.

Trademark developments in Austria

2017-10-10T15:23:00.001+01:00

In accordance with the latest EU Directive on trademarks, the trademark legislation in Austria has recently been updated.

In come Certification marks and the ability to divide applications. Out goes a need for notarised documents when recording trademark assignments.

It's all change with respect to renewal fees. Austria applied a unique approach to trademark renewals, more commonly seen with patents, in that the renewal fee increased over time i.e. the renewal for the second term of 10 years was lower than that for the third term of 10 years, which was in turn lower than the fourth term of 10 years.

These fees still apply to registrations falling due for renewal before 1 September 2018, but then a new fee system will come in. This will see a set fee irrespective of whether this is the registration's first renewal, second, third or 10th renewal.

However, it's not all that simple. Registration terms will change to being calculated from the application date. They have until now been calculated from a later registration date - and just for a bit of added complexity, the renewal date would be 'extended' to the last day of that month.

Existing registrations falling due for renewal on or after 1 September 2018 will have their renewal dates shortened so they are calculated from the application date.

Example

Therefore, if you have a case that was applied for on 23 November 2007 and matured to registration on 2 October 2008, it would fall due for renewal on 31 October 2018.

If it is renewed it will then remain in force until 23 November 2027.

To compensate trademark owners, if the term is shortened by one year or more, there is a fee discount available of €70 per year.

Austrian trademarks registered from 1 September 2018 will fall due for renewal 10 years from their application date. Until then, the term will be calculated from its registration date.

We will have nearly one more year where Austrian trademark renewal fees are calculated on a sliding scale and then after this still a number of years where the calculation of Austrian renewal fees will require careful checking.

Information from the Austrian Patent Office regarding renewal/maintenance fees is contained here (see page 5).

Indonesia makes the Madrid System a '100 Club'

2017-10-09T12:58:00.001+01:00

Last week Indonesia deposited its instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol and brought the number of contracting parties into triple figures.

It follows hot on the heels of Thailand, which will be available for designation in International applications in less than a month.

The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries are committed to joining the Madrid Protocol and now eight out of the 10 countries are on board. Brunei, Cambodia and Laos joined up in the last two years leaving Malaysia and Myanmar as the only ASEAN countries not a part of Madrid. Malaysia has undergone consultations and appears to be in the process of taking steps to ready itself to accede.

In Myanmar, the IP world is still waiting for the country to adopt a formal trademark law. Currently, a deposit registration system with a Cautionary Notice publication supports Common Law rights in trademarks. After years of waiting, there are now indications that Myanmar will be opening a new IP Office to operate a formal trademark law. It appears the new law may be a stepping stone towards Madrid membership or, in other words, first of all there will only be a national system for registration but presumably once the Office is up to speed it can look to accede to the Madrid Protocol and have International Registrations designate Myanmar.

There are some concerns on how well Indonesia may manage meeting the strict timelines for examining International applications. It has made a declaration under Article 5(2)(b) of the Protocol to extend the refusal period to 18 months but it could be they still struggle to meet this given an expected increase of applications now it will be easier for foreign parties to simply tick a box to file in Indonesia in an International application. Could this therefore see a backlog in the examination of national applications?

It will be interesting to see how much Indonesian businesses use the Madrid system. Domestic applicants make a lot of trademark applications in their home market. Now they will have easier access to designate most of their ASEAN partners in an International application, Australia, just to the south may also be an attractive market, as well as the powerhouse economies of Asia, Europe and the United States.

Miscellaneous musings (on recent IP news)

2017-05-12T13:31:00.001+01:00

Madrid Protocol

I'll start my musings on Madrid (the Madrid Protocol) where Hong Kong is beginning steps to become available for International trademarks, although this is not likely until 2019 at the earliest.

Under Article 3bis of the Madrid Protocol, "The protection resulting from the international registration shall extend to any Contracting Party only at the request of the person who files the international application or who is the holder of the international registration. However, no such request can be made with respect to the Contracting Party whose Office is the Office of origin."

This is interpreted so that Hong Kong applicants will not be able to designate (mainland) China and vice-versa. As many will know, Hong Kong is not a sovereign state and is a Special Administrative Region of China. As such, any Madrid membership will be made by China on its behalf.

Notwithstanding this, the Netherlands has membership of the Madrid Protocol and has extended this to Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba (sometimes referred to as the BES Islands or the Caribbean Netherlands). Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba are special municipalities of the Netherlands. There are 817 live International Registrations which designate Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba and where Benelux is the Office of origin (that's not to say all applicants are from the Netherlands, some are from Belgium or Luxembourg).

From the above, it seems a Contracting Party can have different Office of origins and is not necessarily caught by an Article 3bis restriction.

Anyway, it seems Hong Kong and (mainland) China will look to come to another arrangement outside of the Madrid Protocol.

Eurasian Trademark

Another IP system we may need to become aware of is through the Eurasian Trademark system. This may be with us in 2018. It will cover Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia.

It seems it will be a mix between how the International and EU trademark systems work. There will be no need for a base application/registration, but applications can be filed with anyone of the five national IP Offices. Although it will be a unitary right across all countries, it will be examined by each national IP Office separately. In the event of refusal, this can be argued nationally. A final refusal in any country will result in refusal of the Eurasian trademark, but conversion/transformation into national applications in the non-refused countries appears to be possible.

It's not clear if this system will look to link to the International trademark system. I'm not sure I can envisage it being used much by Western trademark owners when all member countries are members of the Madrid Protocol anyway (Russia and Kazakhstan being particularly cheap under Madrid). However, it may be useful for local portfolios (think, in particular, marks in Cyrillic script) as there is no requirement to get an unnecessary base registration (with the 'Central Attack' fears that can pose). Any attractiveness to Western trademark owners may come down to costs.

Hague

Remaining in the Eurasian region and Russia will be joining the Hague System for Designs. They will join other regional countries as members: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine. Accession is anticipated for later this year and will be for the Geneva Act only.

The UK is also likely to accede to the Geneva Act of the Hague System in early 2018. This will be welcomed, particularly if UK applicants shall no longer have easy direct access to the Registered Community Design system when 'Brexit' happens.

Representation at the EUIPO

Whether UK practitioners will still be able to work directly with the EUIPO is something that is very much on the radar of British IP professionals that undertake a lot of EU work. There has been talk of Brits opting into "EU citizenship" and this may present an opportunity, although a) anyone remaining in the UK would still not be resident in the EU/EEA and b) this is an idea that might not get any further than being just an idea. Nonetheless, it could be an interesting angle that may not currently be being looked at for British professionals looking to retain representation rights.

Series marks

Remaining in the UK and the UKIPO has recently issued guidance on series marks. Although not exclusively available in the UK, they are a bit of an alien concept to some trademark professionals in other countries. A Series of trademarks is a number of marks with very small differences. Any differences between the marks must not substantially change how they look, sound or alter their meanings. As a common example, a black and white version of a trademark and a colour version of a trademark can often be included in the same application (and at no extra cost).

The IPO's guidance reflects a strict approach for marks to form a series.

Enjoy your weekends readers!

Brexit and trademarks

2016-06-24T14:48:00.000+01:00

The United Kingdom has decided in yesterday's referendum that it will leave the European Union.

Personally, I'm gutted. Having lived and worked on the continent, I regard myself as a Europhile. It may be a great shame that our younger people may not have so many opportunities to live and work in Europe.

There will be an impact on trademarks. What exactly needs to be determined? For now we do not need to worry.

The Prime Minister has indicated that he will stand down and it is his replacement who will submit the Article 50 request to the European Union that begins the formal withdrawal process. Indications are that this will take place in October and the withdrawal process will have a two-year negotiating period once submitted.

I think there's a chance of another General Election in the intervening period. This means we could be looking at between two-two and a half years before EU trademarks will no longer cover the UK.

Furthermore, I understand this negotiating period is extendable if agreed by both parties - a "cooling-off" period in trademark terms, I suppose.

Automatic re-registration?

What will happen to EU trademark (and design) registrations once the UK does leave the EU?

My hunch is that they will automatically continue to cover the UK. My reasons are:

1. There are so many of them that having a formal revalidation process would be a burden on UK IPO resources.
2. EU trademarks are searchable on the UK IPO's systems so it should be a fairly straightforward task to convert/duplicate them to become UK national registrations.
3. As for EU designations in International registrations, it should be possible, working with WIPO, to organise automatic 'Continuation of Effects' to the UK.
4. They would not want to discriminate UK businesses by making them pay to revalidate EU trademarks which they legitimately obtained thinking they had the UK covered.
5. It's certainly arguable that the UK IPO could lose out on a windfall that could be generated by a formal revalidation process, but I would argue that this would be a temporary spike (and the Office would need temporary staff for this) whereas they can bring in extra fees in a more managed way as registrations fall due for renewal and get assigned.

Reverse seniority?

I wonder if there is a need to allow seniority claims to be reversed so where an EU registration has claimed seniority from a UK registration then this UK registration can be reinstated (presuming it has since lapsed).

This may be beneficial in the case of very old prior rights where the corresponding EU registration does not date back as far. This could carry official fees for the UKIPO as I believe they would require examination. Whether such requests can restore the specification of the original UK registration or can only comprise that which is included in the EU registration (where they are different) would be a question to be answered in this eventuality.

From a practical point of view, an automatic revalidation process would negate the need to request "reverse seniority" in the vast majority of cases.

EEA and representatives

We wait to see if the UK's withdrawal from the EU will also be a withdrawal from the European Economic Area. If it remains in the EEA then the impacts on the management of trademarks will be less.

If it decides to leave the EEA then things may change more. Currently, only an Address for Service in the EEA is required for trademark matters before the UK IPO. Leave the EEA and the rules may change so that an Address for Service is in the UK only. In practice this would not be a big deal as the vast majority of Addresses for Service for UK national registrations are in the UK already, as opposed to other EEA countries. (Disclaimer: this is based on my regular scouring of the Trade Marks Journal and Register, and not on a detailed analysis of Addresses for Service.)

However, this could scupper any plans to automatically duplicate the EU Register to the UK as a large number of EU trademarks have IP representatives in other EEA countries. Perhaps these could be left be, with a UK Address for Service only needing to be appointed when there's subsequent dealings with the UK IPO.

UK Professional Representatives

Leave the EEA and the ability of UK Professional Representatives to act before the EUIPO (and other EU Offices) could be impacted. The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys has indicated that they will "be calling on the UK Government to ensure that UK practitioners remain entitled to represent clients before the European Union Intellectual Property Office."

If UK Professional Representatives can no longer act before the EUIPO then this lucrative strand of work will go elsewhere, firms in Germany, Ireland and the big IP units near Alicante likely destinations in my view.

If they can continue representing though then they will be well placed to continue the UK's strong level of representation before the EUIPO. Such work could also be supplemented by corresponding UK filings too.

However, we may see a change in filing strategy. If the UK is an added country to consider in filing programmes then the attractiveness of an International trademark may increase. The rationale being the more countries to be covered, the more attractive it is to use.

Scotland

In Scotland the people were in favour of remaining in the European Union. This may now lead to another Scottish referendum and further implications to trademarks. I've blogged previously on what could happen in this event.

Gibraltar and Northern Ireland

Gibraltar (overwhelmingly) and Northern Ireland (much more narrowly) also voted to remain in the European Union - the out votes of England, in particular, and Wales tipping the balance towards leave.

Politically I cannot see Northern Ireland looking to go it alone or look to instead form a part of a united Ireland and so will find itself alongside England and Wales (with or without Scotland).

Gibraltar is unlikely to make a bid for independence or accept co-hegemony from Spain (as the Spanish Government was keen to offer early on). Its local trademark system currently allows for the re-registration of UK or EU trademarks, but they may close the door on EU trademarks (which have more doubtful enforceability anyway).

Jersey

The Channel Island of Jersey lies outside of the European Union and its citizens were not entitled to vote in the referendum.

However, their trademark legislation allows for the automatic protection of EU trademarks to the island (i.e. without the need to re-register them locally). Conversely, UK national registrations must go through a formal re-registration process and get a local registration.

They would need to change their local law to stop EU trademarks providing protection to Jersey. I understand discussions in recent years saw them happy with the status quo but the UK's withdrawal from the EU may make them revisit this issue and we could perhaps anticipate an entirely revamped trademark law in Jersey (neighbouring Guernsey has taken its own route and runs a very efficient Registry).

Conclusion

Nothing changes overnight. There is no need to take action just yet. I think by "pro-actively" filing in the UK now then you may end up with duplicate UK registrations in the future. Keep your ears and eyes open as things become clearer.

Delays at WIPO

2016-05-20T10:45:00.002+01:00

A few days ago WIPO advised of increased delays following an update to its IT systems.

WIPO is not known for its streamlined operations compared to other offices such as the EUIPO or the UK's Intellectual Property Office, but it now seems there will be further delays with International trademark applications and transactions.

Madrid Real-Time Status is a handy tool provided by WIPO, but there's been little movement on incoming procedures on some of the cases I have been monitoring for a month or more now.

WIPO tries to reassures that,

Deadlines for responding to irregularity letters are calculated as of the date of communication of the letters in question. Their late communication therefore has no bearing on the time available to respond.

It would appear the upgrade in IT systems will be beneficial in the long run and hopefully see an increase in the timeliness of action by WIPO.

WIPO, if desired by member states, may also look to implement a 'Performance Framework'. This could involve information on the performance of WIPO being published on a regular basis and would include information on pendency rates of all Madrid transactions. This would be another welcomed step with users who are currently left frustrated by slow movement at WIPO and not what many have come to expect of a modern Intellectual Property Office in 2016.

Things will hopefully be improving.

New EU trademark regulations - some practicalities

2016-01-29T15:52:00.000+00:00

23 March 2016 will see some fundamental changes to trademarks in the European Union.

Gone will be Community Trade Marks to be replaced with European Union trade marks.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) will become the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

The new names are clearer but what else may change that trademark owners and representatives should note? Scroll down to the bottom if you don't have time to read all this.

New fee structure

Official fees will change. It's generally good news.

The initial filing fee will be reduced by €50 to €850. However, rather than getting "three classes for the price of one" as with the current fees, the new initial filing fee covers one class only. Trademark cluttering is considered a concern in the EU and this is a step towards discouraging it.

If you need to cover two classes then the additional class fee for the second class is €50 so for such applications there will be no fee differences under the new and old systems.

For the third class upwards, the fee will be €150 per class. It is for these multi-class applications where it will get more expensive.

If you do have a three class or more application to file then you may want to consider filing it before 23 March.

Conversely, if you have a one class application, you could consider holding off filing until 23 March or after. It is not normally recommended to delay filings and the official fee saving is fairly small but could be taken advantage of if you have a priority filing.

Renewal fees will come down significantly with the basic fee dropping from €1350 to €850. The Office will apply the fee due at the time of renewal though to avoid "tactical" timing of renewals. If you've already paid future renewals using the old fees, don't worry, you'll be reimbursed. If you've done these renewals through a third party then you may need to 'nudge' them so money returned to them can make its way to you!

There will be some small fee decreases for the likes of oppositions and revocations in due course too. N.B. Application and renewal fees presume filings are made online.

Misleading invoices

The Office does not send invoices out . However, their name change may see an upsurge in activity from scammers. A cursory check of the UK Company Registers does not show any newly incorporated companies containing "EU Intellectual Property", but such entities may be being set up in other countries.

It is important that trademark owners and representatives remain vigilant.

In terms of payments to the Office, we can anticipate a need to update the beneficiary name details for the Office for when payments are made to them by bank transfer for payment of fees or to top up current accounts.

New website

We can imagine that there will be a new website address - and euipo.europa.eu currently redirects to the current OHIM website at oami.europa.eu.

I imagine a redirection in the other direction will be put in place on or after 23 March, but users may wish to update their favourites accordingly.

Many will recall the problems faced in late 2013 and early 2014 with the Office's revamped website. Let's hope these are not faced again or you may see IP practitioners take to social media in less than jovial moods.

Speaking of which, watch out in case the Office adopts new social media handles.

If the website does go down for whatever reason then TMview should remain available for trademark searches. Be wary though that if there are problems with the Office's website that TMview may not be able to access the EU database and search results may be missing EU applications or registrations.

Old specifications for class headings

The IP TRANSLATOR case changed a previous interpretation at the Office that registrations for class headings covered the entire class and specifications were not to be interpreted literally.

Trademark owners of registrations filed before 22 June 2012 that covered class headings (and therefore thought they were getting entire class protection) can now file Declarations stating the protection they require.

The deadline is 24 September 2016
The goods and/or services, other than those clearly covered by the literal meaning of a class heading, must be indicated in a "clear, precise and specific manner"
Such goods and/or services indicated must have been in the same International Class in force at the time of the application and contained in the alphabetical list for that class

If the deadline is not acted upon then any specifications for class headings will be interpreted literally (the means what it says approach).

EEA representation

Trademark owners and representatives from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, which together with the EU member states make up the European Economic Area, will be able to act directly before the Office.

Applicants from these three nations would have often covered the EU through an International Registration but may now choose to file directly.

International Registrations

A practical disadvantage to designating the EU in an International Registration was the time it took to obtain protection as there is a more long-winded publication process.

This will now be shortened by five months, but if you take into account processing times at the Office of origin and WIPO, it is still quicker to file directly, even more so if your application can fulfil the Fast Track conditions.

At this time, there has been no word of a change in Individual fees for designating the European Union in an International Registration. I imagine it's only a matter of time before they are aligned with the new regular official fees.

There will be further changes in October 2017, but the key changes you may wish to look into now or very shortly are:

1. Update records and database with the new name e.g. change Community Trade Mark to European Union trade mark.
2. Update schedules of charges to show any new official fees and any pre-populated template documents containing the current fees.
3. If you have any three classes or more applications to file then get them on file soon, if possible.
4. For any one class applications, particularly where you have the security of a priority claim, you could hold off filing until after 23 March.
5. Be as alert as ever to misleading invoices.
6. Get ready to update beneficiary name details for making bank transfers to the Office.
7. Bookmark a new website address.
8. Review pre-22 June 2012 registrations for any that contain class headings and begin preparations to clarify the protection.
9. Docket the deadline of 24 September 2016 for such cases.

Season's greetings!

2015-12-22T11:00:00.006+00:00

To our Readers, Clients, Colleagues, Friends and Associates,

As we approach the holiday season, I’d like to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year.

Instead of sending Christmas cards, we are making a small donation to Oxfam this Christmas to help with their continuing efforts in fighting poverty worldwide.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch in 2016 should you require any support with trademarks or registered designs.

Happy holidays!

Kuwait to increase trademark fees significantly

2015-11-19T17:46:00.000+00:00

It has been reported through various sources that in December 2015, the fees for trademarks in Kuwait will increase significantly.

I understand this will include filing, publication and registration fees. Furthermore, I believe that applications already on file will be subject to the new publication and registration fees (if they're not becoming due imminently). This is not something that would have been anticipated when originally filing applications and applicants are going to need to budget for some substantial additional fees.

Can anything be done to alleviate these fee increases? Yes, applications can be filed now and will be subject to the existing application fees. A legalised Power of Attorney is required for Kuwaiti applications but this can be late filed so it seems advisable not to delay if you want to take advantage of the current application fees.

However, examination does not happen that quickly in Kuwait so you are going to need to budget for the increased publication and registration fees.

Looking ahead

Kuwait is a member of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, usually known as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The other members are Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

As the states look to implement a unifying trademark law (not a unitary law) this fee increase may be a reflection of this. The official fees of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are some of the most expensive in the world. Kuwait's fee increase could be seen as a way of them putting their fee structure in line with the two members that receive the most trademark applications.

Therefore, could we see fee increases in Bahrain, Oman and Qatar too? I feel it is fair to anticipate doing so. It could be sensible to consider filing in these countries sooner rather than later if they're likely to be of commercial interest in the future. Bahrain and Oman are members of the Madrid Protocol and can be designated in International applications. If there are fee increases locally, expect them also to elect to increase the Individual fees payable to them under the Madrid Protocol.

The Gambia joins the Madrid Protocol

2015-11-17T18:13:00.000+00:00

The Gambia will become the next member of the Madrid Protocol when it joins up on 18 December 2015.

African membership of the Madrid System continues to grow, although being the smallest country on the mainland of Africa, the addition of the Gambia will not make a significant impact on the worldwide Madrid System map.

Furthermore, although a lot of African countries are now members of the Madrid System, not all of these have made local legislative amendments to reflect Madrid membership and the enforceability of International Registrations is highly questionable.

This does not appear to be the case for the Gambia though, which has a relatively modern trademark law.

The Gambia has previously been infamous for its significant delays caused most notably by an enormous backlog in printing Trademark Journals. However, in recent times it has made tremendous efforts to get applications advertised and made significant inroads into its backlog.

Nonetheless, resources are at a premium at the Gambian Registry and an increase in filings caused by Madrid designations may push the Registry's capabilities even more. Of course, if you designate via Madrid and do not get a refusal in the designated time then you have an assumed registration (although this does not necessarily rule out a future challenge). Covering the Gambia through a Madrid designation will be an attractive option to many.

When it comes to Provisional Refusals, the Gambia has made a declaration under Rule 17(5)(e). Such ex officio Provisional Refusals can only be contested "before an authority external to the said Office" e.g. a tribunal or court.

The Gambia joins only China and Madagascar in making such a declaration. In practice, even if the Gambian Registry can cope with examining all its International designations in the required timescale, examination can be sketchy and it's not anticipated that the Registry will be issuing rafts of Provisional Refusals, probably very few.

Misleading invoices - a small win for the UK Intellectual Property Office

2015-11-12T18:31:00.003+00:00

The UK Intellectual Property Office was pleased to announce this week, "IP scammers face record financial liability".

Those involved in the business of maintaining intellectual property rights will be familiar with the unsolicited letters that are sent to proprietors with exorbitant fees for maintaining these rights, or for putting these rights into a "directory". Furthermore, many of these requests look like they come from official Intellectual Property Offices, at least to many IP owners who are not familiar with dealing with Intellectual Property Offices on a regular basis.

Various Offices around the world have made it an important task to educate their customers about these organisations, for example, see the warnings from the UK, OHIM, the USA, Norway and New Zealand, and also some examples of the actual letters from WIPO.

The judgement handed down by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (and found here) orders the defendant, Intellectual Property Agency Limited and its sole director, Harri Mattias Jonasson, to pay £500,000. This is maximum this court can impose.

Bearing in mind the defendants made a profit of over £1.1 million, this is really only a small win for the Intellectual Property Office, and probably an even smaller one for those that have been duped into paying such inflated fees.

There is a lack of sympathy in some quarters for IP owners who go ahead and pay "silly" money. This is a little unfair in my view. These legal steps, added to continued awareness by Intellectual Property Offices and IP professionals alike, will hopefully go some way to making these businesses less lucrative.

However, it's flabbergasting that a firm can make such significant profits on the basis of UK rights alone, and I dread to think how much money this "industry" makes worldwide.

My own firm is very reasonably priced when it comes to UK and worldwide renewals. Perhaps we are missing trick (I say in jest). Those that have been duped, or could be in the future, will be pleased to know there are many firms out there who will provide a service tantamount to its value and who can also act as a barrier to the scammers.

UK Registered Designs - online filing for all filing routes - and other bits

2015-10-21T14:05:00.000+01:00

The Intellectual Property Office in the United Kingdom recently introduced an online tool for the filing of UK national registered design applications.

I blogged over two years ago on the online filings of designs when the UK was certainly not alone in not offering an online service. The UK system is new and not yet as developed as I imagine it will become e.g. it does not support priority filings which must still be made by post.

Ignoring any unregistered rights that can persist, this now means design applicants have three (online) routes to protect their designs to the United Kingdom:

1. National UK application
2. Registered Community Design application covering the 28 member states of the European Union including the UK
3. International Design application through the Hague System designating the European Union

What route is preferable will depend on whether a business has interest in protecting their design nationally, across the EU, or in other states that are also a part of the Hague System, or to a handful of jurisdictions with a link (historical or current) to the UK.

There has been much fanfare that Japan, Korea and the US have joined the Hague System relatively recently. These are countries with different design regimes than Europe. I have had to temper clients' enthusiasm that they could now get easy and cost-effective design protection in such countries. It's not going to be quite as straightforward as some circles have made it out to be. For example, the Marques Class 99 blog has explained how the task of claiming priority (which should be a simple formality) is complex and expensive, meaning designating these countries in an International application may be a false economy; i.e. you may as well just file nationally from the start (see 'Priority problems - parts 1 and 2 from 13 October).

Incidentally, the UK is likely to accede to the Hague System in its own right in due course. As I've commented on the SOLO IP blog, I'm not convinced this brings much to the table. However, it would be beneficial if the UK decides to leave the European Union.

The International Design system is useful for obtaining protection to mostly other European countries if protection beyond the EU is required. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway - which along with the EU members make up the European Economic Area - can be covered, as can Switzerland.

I've blogged before on the usefulness of a UK National Registered Design to foreign shores. These benefits are highly unlikely to be extended to designations of the UK in a Hague International registration (when it becomes possible to designate the UK).

This is because protection in the overseas jurisdictions arises from legislation enacted locally (and usually a long time ago). To provide protection of a Hague designation of the UK will likely require local legislation to be amended and, to be frank, if this were to happen it more likely independent design legislation would be enacted and a 'link' to the UK ended.

Whether National, Community or International (or a combination thereof) is preferable, official fees for all three filing routes are not expensive.

Algeria joins Protocol: impacts on trademark portfolios

2015-08-13T08:56:00.000+01:00

Recent news from WIPO informs us that Algeria will join the Madrid Protocol from 31 October 2015.

With a population of close to 40 million and being the largest African and Arab country, Algeria's accession will be welcomed in many quarters. American, British and Japanese companies, as examples, will now be able to designate Algeria in International applications.

Previously, as a Madrid Agreement member only, Algeria was only available to entities from other Madrid Agreement countries. This means Chinese companies and those from the majority of continental European countries, for example, have already been able to designate Algeria in International applications for many years.

Algeria was the last remaining bastion of Madrid Agreement only membership.

This development may therefore have practical repercussions. Where a country is a member of the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol, in simple terms, the Protocol takes precedence. This means the Madrid Agreement is now largely redundant as the system is transformed into "a One Treaty System".

However, Article 9sexies is, at least for the time being, where there are some differences. If the Madrid Agreement is closed down this Article may fall by the wayside.

If you work for or represent companies from the likes of Belgium, China, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Switzerland (and other Madrid Agreement member countries) then this could have an impact on your budgets.

If you're in the UK or US (or other Madrid Protocol only countries) then you're already paying the higher fees so no need to read on. You might be glad the playing field may soon be levelled.

I've mentioned Article 9sexies a couple of times before (here and here). It basically means that if you come from a Madrid Agreement and Protocol country (let's say France) and designate countries that are members of the Madrid Agreement and Protocol (let's say Benelux and Bulgaria) then you would pay the Complementary fee for each designated state as opposed to the Individual fees Benelux and Bulgaria charge under the Madrid Protocol.

Article 9sexies also impacts examination timelines - designated states only get 12 months through this Article - so this may lengthen procedures if it's abolished. From my viewpoint, this is unlikely to be significant in the majority of cases.

However, I do accept for those countries who can notify oppositions after the expiration of the 18 month period under Article 5(2)(c), - or, in other words, indefinitely - that they bring some uncertainty to applicants. This being more so to applicants who currently rely on Article 9sexies and therefore have more guaranteed timescales. These members are notably China plus Cyprus, Iran, Italy, Kenya and Ukraine; (other countries signed up to Article 5(2)(c) are Protocol only members).

With IP budgets often under scrutiny, it's the fees that some companies may need to be aware of. Let's do some analysis.

The Complementary fee for each designated state is 100 CHF and this includes up to three classes. What happens if you now need to pay Individual fees for three classes:

Armenia: 100 CHF up to 265 CHF
Belarus: 100 CHF up to 600 CHF
Benelux: 100 CHF up to 167 CHF
Bulgaria: 100 CHF up to 327 CHF
China: 100 CHF up to 499 CHF
Cuba: 100 CHF up to 356 CHF (both first and second part Individual fees)
Italy: 100 CHF up to 159 CHF
Kenya: 100 CHF up to 758 CHF
Kyrgyzstan: 100 CHF up to 660 CHF
Moldova: 100 CHF up to 356 CHF
San Marino: 100 CHF up to 178 CHF
Switzerland: 100 CHF up to 450 CHF
Tajikistan: 100 CHF up to 452 CHF
Ukraine: 100 CHF up to 429 CHF
Vietnam: 100 CHF up to 269 CHF

If you can file a word mark application covering those countries using the lower fees now you would pay 2153 CHF (plus your Office of origin's handling charge). Under the higher fees, it works out at 6496 CHF (plus your Office of origin's handling charge) (excluding the second part fee for Cuba of 82 CHF).

If you file in a single class, the lower figure of 2153 CHF (plus your Office of origin's handling charge) remains the same and the higher figure changes to 5068 CHF (plus your Office of origin's handling charge) (excluding the second part fee for Cuba of 82 CHF). Obviously, it's unlikely for anyone to file an International application designating only those countries but you'll get the idea of the costs changes that a trademark holder could be facing. This could be more acutely felt for large international trademark portfolios.

Renewals would also face similar changes in the fees.

We will have to wait and see whether Article 9sexies is something that is abolished - and resistance to this may be strong from those countries who benefit from it. This may mostly be from 'old guard' members from the Madrid Agreement's early days who may find themselves outvoted in any changes as more and more countries become members.

It's perhaps worth mentioning that both Syria and Uzbekistan withdrew from the Madrid Agreement (to rely on the Madrid Protocol only) so they could benefit from increased fees and examination timelines, possibly not prepared to wait for the repeal of Article 9sexies.

When simplification and harmonisation are watch words in IP this may mean the days of Article 9sexies are numbered though and so it might be something that is worthwhile being prepared for.

New trademark law in the British Virgin Islands

2015-07-29T12:29:00.000+01:00

A new trademark law in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI") will enter into force on 1 September 2015. It has been a while coming.

This will completely modernise a law that is archaic. Currently, there are two ways to register a trademark in the BVI:

1. A local, substantive application. This uses the very dated former British classification system. Importantly, this does not provide for service marks.

2. A UK-based application. This requires a base UK registration. As the UK and BVI are many miles apart on different continents, it can be the case for some trademark owners that the UK is not a market of interest whereas the BVI is, or the UK is covered by a Community Trade Mark (and national protection is not obtained in the UK). However, the UK-based method is currently the only way in which to obtain service mark protection.

The new law will abolish the two ways to register trademarks and consolidate it into one. It will bring in provisions for Certification and Collective marks, allow for priority claims to be made, and provide protection for "well known" marks. The registration term will be reduced to 10 years from 14 years (for local, substantive registrations; UK-based registrations were given registration terms matching their base UK registration).

The International Classification will be used as the former British classification system is replaced in yet another jurisdiction. How reclassification will be managed remains to be seen.

However, should any thoughts be made about taking action before the new trademarks law comes into force? Perhaps, yes. The current official fees are low. The BVI is one of the wealthiest of the Caribbean nations (it's where Sir Richard Branson's Necker Island is) and it's anticipated that official fees will rise and, possibly, quite considerably (they are waiting to be announced).

If you have a UK registration and you need corresponding protection in the BVI, consider filing before 1 September 2015. UK-based registrations are not advertised for opposition purposes so if you file on or after 1 September 2015 when the UK option is removed, your application will be advertised for opposition purposes.

If you file now then you can take advantage of the (probable) lower official fees. However, be sure this is not going to be false economy. Local, substantive applications may require some form of reclassification incurring costs. If an application needs to be filed covering modern goods not well envisaged by the former British classification system then it may also be a good idea to wait until the International classification can be used.

For UK-based applications, check the base UK registration's renewal date. The BVI registration will take this renewal date so if the UK registration is due for renewal in the next few years then so will the BVI registration.

As for renewals, although registrations falling due for renewal on or after 1 September 2015 will be renewed for 10 years, their renewals can be filed now and the current official fees can be taken advantage of.

Trademark matters in the BVI must be handled by resident trademark agents duly registered with the Registry of Corporate Affairs. This is the case currently although I understand the new law will allow them to be more stringent on who they will accept as a resident registered trademark agent. Naturally, I work with local registered trademark agents should you not have one of your own and need any support.

Trademark Annuities...

2015-06-10T15:39:00.000+01:00

In case the title of this blog left you with a quizzical look, no, the title is correct. Those of you that work across intellectual property rights (e.g. in both patents and trademarks) will be familiar with the payment of patent annuities.

However, there's a select group of jurisdictions where annual fees are payable to maintain trademark registrations.

Annual fees make the Cayman Islands one of the most expensive jurisdictions in which to maintain trademark registrations (although recent hikes in the official fees in the UAE and Venezuela means it's not the only place where maintaining a trademark registration can cost a fortune).

The Cayman Islands Registry used to allow representatives from anywhere to attend to matters before them. This changed in 2012 so that a local representative was required. I've previously worked with the local Registry but this change prevented me from doing so directly and therefore being able to maintain trademarks most cost-effectively for clients. Local agents in the Cayman Islands tend to be expensive reflecting the high cost of living there. It is worth considering paying all the annual fees (up to a registration's renewal date) in bulk to reduce the level of professional fees.

It's also worth being 'tactical' and avoiding registering trademarks in December. Annual fees fall due on 1 January each year so if you register in December you'll find yourself with an immediate payment to be made to keep the registration you have only just got in force.

The Cayman Islands are now looking to introduce a fresh trademark law (that removes its dependency on UK or Community registrations). It will be interesting to see how they set their official fees. Annual fees may be abolished but they will need to bring in examiners to handle applications filed under a new substantive trademark law so an increase in initial filing fees and, possibly, renewal fees could be anticipated.

Like the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands are a British Overseas Territory. They also share a need for annual fees to be paid to maintain trademark registrations. With a population roughly half that of the Cayman Islands and an economy that is not as developed, the number of trademarks registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands is a lot less.

Remaining firmly in the Western Hemisphere, Honduras is another country where annual fees are due. Again, I think it's worthwhile considering paying them in bulk up to a registration's renewal date as it can make the management of the registration easier.

Don't confuse these annual fees for Honduras with rehabilitation taxes. These taxes, which are unique to Honduras, are an optional payment. When paid they will protect a registration from being cancelled for non-use. Therefore, you only need to pay them if you're not using a trademark.

Rehabilitation taxes can easily be forgotten about and this is understandable when they are optional and not a mandatory maintenance requirement. They can be paid retrospectively. Therefore, if you have a registration that is vulnerable to cancellation on the grounds of non-use but you wish to file an opposition based on this registration, you would just need to back-pay any rehabilitation taxes prior to filing an opposition to help avoid a counter cancellation action on the grounds of non-use.

So annual maintenance payments to maintain trademark registrations may not be common, but if you help manage trademark renewals or maintenance then be aware that they can crop up from time-to-time. Even if you don't have patents under your responsibilities, you may also come across annual fees/annuities when maintaining design registrations (particularly in countries where the design law is a subset of the patent law) or domain names.

Hong Kong: expected official fee changes

2015-03-22T09:06:00.001+00:00

Hong Kong is expected to make changes to their official fees from 30 March 2015.

Trademark filing fees will go up, whereby renewal fees will go down. Renewal fees for design registrations will also decrease.

What to do?

If you have any new trademark filings, you are advised to get them instructed as soon as possible so you can avail yourselves of the current (lower) official fee.

If you have any trademarks or designs falling due for renewal imminently but from 31 March 2015 onwards, these can be renewed after 30 March to ensure a lower official fee is paid.

For any renewals due from 31 March onwards entrusted to us, we will make conscious efforts to pay the new lower fees. Of course, it might be that the introduction of the fee changes is delayed.

OAPI to join Madrid

2014-12-22T19:22:00.000+00:00

Good news came from Geneva and Yaoundé recently with word that OAPI will join the Madrid Protocol on 5 March 2015.

I understand there are still some regulations to be adopted locally at OAPI HQ but these were under discussion during a recent Council meeting.

A previous blog ensuring OAPI is not confused with ARIPO (or others) still attracts hits and is linked here for reference. It may also be worthwhile reminding readers of the member states - with a total population of an estimated 165 million people:

Benin
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo
Côte d'Ivoire
Equatorial Guinea
Gabon
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Mali
Mauritania
Niger
Senegal
Togo

Perhaps not surprisingly given the geographic coverage, official fees in OAPI are quite high. Under the Madrid Protocol, although they will be converted into Swiss francs, OAPI plans on individual fees corresponding with the official fees for direct filings.

My firm has handled a number of cases in OAPI and we may experience a decrease in local registrations. However, membership of the Madrid Protocol should see an increase in trademarks being protected across the OAPI members and this should benefit the countries concerned.

Horn of Africa and Sudan region update

2014-08-03T11:25:00.001+01:00

It's been a while since I last blogged, but I am pleased to be back with a piece on the Horn of Africa and the Sudan region.

This is an area of the world that has seen a few developments with respect to trademarks, yet conversely is an area of the world where protecting trademarks can be difficult-to-impossible.

The most populated country of the region - and the most populated landlocked country in the world - Ethiopia introduced a new trademark law in early 2013. This provided a June 2014 deadline in which to re-register rights in the country. This deadline has now been extended to 23 December 2014. The requirements for re-registrations are fairly bureaucratic (e.g. a Power of Attorney must be legalised up to the Ethiopian Consulate) so it's recommended to act now if any rights need re-registering.

Across Ethiopia's western border is Africa's newest nation of South Sudan. This country has decided to use the law of (north) Sudan to which it was a part prior to independence. However, they have adopted some practicalities and don't follow the law to the lettter. For example, the law requires trademark applications to be supported by legalised documents but South Sudan does not have diplomatic missions in many countries so notarisation of documents is proving to be acceptable. That said, South Sudan does have consulates in the United Kingdom and United States, amongst a few others.

The trademark system appears to be more of a deposit system and trademarks are not being published for opposition purposes (as they should be according to the law). It does appear that cancellation can be requested at the court though.

It is hoped that when South Sudan does adopt a law of its own that it will recognise any of the rights it is registering in the meantime.

Elsewhere, in the region, it's not possible to register trademarks in Somalia despite this country having a trademark law. This has been the case for some time now and it is expected that the Trademarks Registry building was destroyed in the fighting of the early 1990s.

In the northern region of Somaliland, which has declared its independence from Somalia, it is possible to publish Cautionary Notices. It is constitutionally obliged to follow laws previously promulgated by Somalia prior to their declaration of independence provided they do not conflict with Sharia law. This includes trademark legislation but in the absence of a Trademarks Office this is unworkable. It is believed action for passing off could be undertaken under the inherited Civil Code of 1974, taking particular note of Article 176: "a person who, without just cause enriches himself to the detriment of another person is liable, to the extent of his profit, to compensate such other person for the loss sustained by him”.

Eritrea is another Cautionary Notice jurisdiction in the region. A Trade Name Register appears to exist for authorised local traders who display these names at their premises. If you have a local subsidiary in Eritrea this could provide some rudimentary protection. Cautionary Notices are the protection route for brand owners without a local presence. However, the publication of Cautionary Notices in Eritrea is not always possible as the authoritarian government restricts the publication of Cautionary Notices from time-to-time.

A country where it is possible to protect trademarks is Djibouti. With an estimated population of 800,000, it's not high up in commercial importance to many brand owners and trademark filings are not high in volume. However, the Port of Djibouti is very important to Ethiopia's imports and exports and its position as a transit country should not be overlooked.

It is quite expensive to protect trademarks in the country compared to its size. Nevertheless, trademark applications mature to registration fairly quickly. An unusual colonial legacy sees that if you support an application with a certified copy of a French registration then it can smooth the way to registration, although this is not a prerequisite.

Sudan also has a trademark law and is the only country in the region to be a part of the Madrid System. That said, there are some question marks on how enforceable these are. I understand they do not follow the same process as national filings and there are rumours that Madrid designations are piled up in a corner of the Sudanese Office.

Sudan is also a member of ARIPO. However, it has not yet joined the Banjul Protocol that governs ARIPO trademark filings.

As for national applications, once you have satisfied the bureaucratic filing requirements, trademark applications are prosecuted slowly. An eight-month opposition period hardly assists with the fast-tracking of applications.

If the Horn of Africa and the Sudan region is an area of the world where you need to protect your trademarks then it is advisable to begin your efforts as soon as possible.

Fast track examination of trade marks - UK

2014-02-24T16:33:00.000+00:00

The UK Intellectual Property Office is seeking views on whether there is a need to reintroduce the fast track examination procedure (perhaps - or perhaps not - inspired by the bobsleigh, luge and skeleton in Sochi).

With examination of UK trade mark applications usually taking less than a month, many will ask, "What would be the point?". I feel they would be justified in making such comments.

I can think of a number of things the IPO could improve on (better electronic communications, on-line applications for International applications, etc.) that I feel should be greater priority. Needless to say, these are personal thoughts and may not be shared among other users of the IPO.

I have nonetheless filed submissions to the consultation. If you would also like to respond then you have until 15 April 2014 and make sure it's by 11.45pm (British time).

My response is self-explanatory and repeated below:

I am responding to your consultation regarding the 'Fast Track Examination of Trade Marks'.

It is appreciated that there are circumstances when more speedy (than 'standard') registration is preferable, for example, businesses needing shorter timescales for product launch, legal proceedings, etc.

I believe applicants would be prepared to pay a premium to obtain quicker registration times. The amount proposed is not much in the scale of things if an applicant finds themselves in a scenario where speedier registration is required.

However, Fast Track examination is not cutting significant time from the time from filing to registration because of, notably, the two-month opposition period. Obviously, this is not a period of time that can be moved (without a notable legislative change).

Clearly, Fast Track examination does not guarantee acceptance and does not ensure oppositions will not be filed. In the event of objections or oppositions, these would likely mean a Fast Track application would take longer than a smooth standard application.

With examination periods for standard applications (and also 'Right Start' applications, it can be added) of 20 days or less, how much time would a Fast Track application shave off the whole process?

I would not envisage an uptake of a new Fast Track examination procedure in any greater numbers than from when the scheme ran between 2008-2009.

I make some suggestions to your proposals that may see a greater uptake of Fast Track applications and ensure it provides greater value for money:

1. Applications must be made on-line.

2. Examination by the end of the next working day

This would really put the "Fast" into Fast Track. If necessary, take Examiners from standard applications to fulfil significant demand for Fast Track on a given day.

A "Money Back Guarantee" or compensation scheme should be available when this is not fulfilled.

2. Mandate the use of accepted TMclass terms

This will help enable examination to be completed within the timescale above.

3. Auto-notification of prior rights

Searches can still be performed but, where no other issues have arisen and the application is otherwise accepted, the application should proceed proactively to advertisement. Owners of prior rights, as applicable (e.g. owners of UK marks but not Community Trade Marks), can be notified automatically.

If necessary, put in place a 'Warning Box' to applicants advising them of this if they choose the Fast Track option.

4. Daily publication of the Trade Marks Journal

Under the current suggestion, an application could be made on a Friday, examined and accepted by the following Friday and then still take another week until advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal. That is not fast tracking, in my view.

A daily publication would help ensure a process is truly Fast Track. If necessary, Monday-Thursday Trade Marks Journals only need contain Fast Track applications and the regular Trade Marks Journal can be continued on Fridays only.

5. Registration issued quickly - online notification

The period from the end of an opposition period to actual registration should be improved under Fast Track.

Currently, an application published on 6 December 2013 - therefore with an opposition period running until 6 February 2014 - is scheduled for registration on 21 February 2014. This is over two weeks following the expiration of the opposition period.

For Fast Track applications at least, registration should be completed within, say, two days of the expiration of the opposition period (or other reasonable time required for the Office to process oppositions). Fast Track applicants could also be sent online notification of registration pending receipt of the physical Certificate of Registration. You could also consider sending Fast Track applicants their Certificates of Registration by guaranteed next day post (UK applicants/representatives only).

In conclusion of the above, I think it is misguided to only look at the examination aspect of a Fast Track process. Fast Track publication and Fast Track notification of registration need to be put in place too. The current resources and operations of the Intellectual Property Office may not be geared up to manage this, and making changes to accommodate Fast Track may only be justified if there is significant take-up of Fast Track examinations. Amendments to the Trade Mark Rules may also need to be made which is an added burden.

I would stress that even with the adoption of the above suggestions that, due to the opposition period and the current examination period for standard applications, that the time shaved off in a Fast Track application is still going to be fairly negligible overall, perhaps at best one month. I could anticipate that the uptake of the Fast Track process will not be significant. However, it is appreciated that the Intellectual Property Office are committed to providing a high quality service and its introduction could be useful to applicants that find themselves needing registration more quickly.

It is felt that a standard examination period of under one month is perfectly acceptable in standard cases and matches or beats the performance of most of your counterparts in Europe and the Rest of the World.

Comparing to some other countries with expedited/accelerated examination, Australia does not make additional charges for expedited examination. However, applicants must submit a witnessed declaration detailing the reasons for the request. I feel, if there is going to be a Fast Track option available, that a fee-paying Fast Track approach is better, one where the applicant justifies use of this route and not an Intellectual Property Office.

Switzerland charges 400 CHF extra for expedited examination, cheaper than the 550 CHF basic fee. The Benelux charges €193 extra for fast registration (for 1-3 three classes), again cheaper than the €240 basic fee. Although I feel the £300 proposed additional fee for Fast Track is fare, you may find it useful to benchmark with fellow Intellectual Property Offices, particularly in Europe, also to get a wider picture of uptake and perceived value, as it may paint a similar picture to what could happen for the UK.

I hope these comments are useful.

TRADEMARKS AND BRAND PROTECTION IN 'EUROPEAN OVERSEAS TERRITORIES'

2014-02-19T11:39:00.001+00:00

I have written an E-book with the above title that may be of interest to readers of this blog.

It's not expensive and can be purchased from Amazon here.

The Protocol - Past, Present and Future

2014-02-11T10:08:00.000+00:00

Trade mark professionals in the UK – and many in other countries – work with the Madrid Protocol on a daily basis. How different it once was.

The Madrid Protocol, with the UK among its first members, came into play on 1 April 1996. For most, this date is better known as the first day Community Trade Marks (CTMs) could be filed (or, more precisely, the earliest filing date CTM applications could be accorded). CTMs got filed by the bucket-load and have been popular from the start.

For the Madrid Protocol it was different, as many countries were slow on the uptake. This included those that were already members of the Madrid Agreement, which, until they were in the Protocol, were out of bounds for UK businesses.

Only a handful of Madrid Protocol applications were filed by UK companies in the early days. With the European Union (EU) easily covered by the new CTM, the majority were filed to designate China as most of the other members of commercial importance at this time were other EU member states. I can recall speaking to the UK Trade Marks Registry to check on the progress of an early application and being told: “We’ve only had three applications so far.” A recent check of ROMARIN shows a mere 11 active registrations originating from the UK registered between April and September 1996.

Over time some key countries have come aboard such as Australia, Japan, Korea, Russia, Singapore and the US as well as the EU itself. And, if it was not immediately popular, the advent of the Protocol proved a watershed moment in the Madrid system and the global registration of trade marks.

Early expansion

The Madrid Agreement had been operational since 1892, but primarily as a European continental club. Prior to 1948, the only non-European member was Morocco. The arrival of Vietnam, in 1949, marked the Agreement's expansion to Asia, although it would take another 40 years before it touched the Americas with the accession of Cuba.

With little prospect of further expansion in the same guise, particularly to common-law countries, the inflexibilities of the Madrid Agreement were ironed out in the Madrid Protocol and allowed the UK, US and others to come aboard. It has grown rapidly since.

This decade has seen a diverse expansion, both geographical and economical. There has been the accession of Colombia, India, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Rwanda and Tunisia. And Kazakhstan, Sudan and Tajikistan added the Protocol to their Agreement membership. Furthermore, the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles in 2010 created three new Madrid jurisdictions: Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba. Meanwhile, far removed from the sunny climes of the Caribbean, Denmark extended its Madrid Protocol membership to include Greenland.

Challenges, of course, remain. Is the requirement to have a home registration really needed these days? Direct filings with WIPO would make them operationally less cumbersome. The removal of the threat of “central attack” would bring less uncertainty to the table when using Madrid, and this is a concept less easily understood by owners of smaller trade mark portfolios.

WIPO suffers processing delays at the moment. Statements of grant were made mandatory, as many users were forthright on the importance of these. WIPO listened, but the increased numbers of these documents put them under pressure.

They should have little problem in coaxing civil servants from Member States to a tax-free salary in Switzerland should it need more staff. Although my criticism of WIPO’s recruitment would be that Government experience seems to be a prerequisite for employment, when professionals from industry or private practice could add a different perspective.

I must give praise where it is due, though, and the set-up of three dedicated teams of examiners at WIPO has left the organisation less faceless. Incidentally, Madrid Team 1 (madrid.team1@wipo.int (+41) 22 338 750 1) looks after applications originating through OHIM, and Madrid Team 3 (madrid.team3@wipo.int (+41) 22 338 750 3) is responsible when the UK is the Office of origin.

The development of on-line tools should also be welcomed and will improve operations.

US issues

The onerous maintenance requirements for US designations still present a problem. In the first term of registration there are likely to be three maintenance events, namely two Affidavits due (to the US Patent and Trademark Office) and one renewal due (to WIPO). The high number of Provisional Refusals in the US may have meant there were no cost savings in the original Madrid filing, but even if there were (for there being no need to engage US Counsel), the maintenance requirements for US Madrid Protocol designations are, at best, no cheaper than they would be for a national registration. It’s easy to see why some argue that the US has taken all the benefits of the Madrid Protocol for its own businesses, but is barely extending this back to other users of Madrid. A similar situation arises for designations of the Philippines.

Common-law countries, mostly in Africa, pose another problem when they have not amended their local legislation to reflect their Madrid membership. WIPO can seem oblivious to this, thinking once they have a member signed up, it is “job done”, but ultimately if you could not enforce an International Registration in, for example, Zambia, isn’t that country's membership worthless?

As for the future, it is easiest to speculate on the new joiners. Remaining in Africa, Zimbabwe has made legislative steps to ready itself for membership, but, as we saw with India, this does not necessarily mean they will be depositing their instrument of accession immediately. Being the home of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), Zimbabwe could play an important role on the continent and help in finding a way of linking ARIPO’s Banjul Protocol with the Madrid Protocol.

Malta, currently the only EU member not to have Madrid membership, could complete the EU jigsaw. We may also anticipate Algeria – the sole remaining member of the Madrid Agreement only – to accede to the Protocol, too. This may put to bed the Madrid Agreement and abolish Article 9sexies. This provision allows applications from member states of both the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol to pay complementary and supplementary fees (rather than individual fees) when designating members that are also party to the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol. They also get the advantage of a 12-month examination period. Those from Madrid Protocol-only countries, including the UK, can claim this is unfair.

The ASEAN states are scheduled to join the Madrid Protocol by 2015. Thailand is expected to come aboard soon, joining the existing members in ASEAN: the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam. Malaysia has made legislative amendments to prepare for Madrid. For the other ASEAN states (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos and Myanmar) this timetable may be less realistic, although we may expect Brunei or Indonesia to make strides in this time, and new legislation is imminently anticipated in Myanmar.

The same is true with CAFTA-DR countries whose free trade agreement with the US stipulates Madrid Protocol membership. Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua are the members, with Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic considered the most likely to join up first.

Pockets of resistance

Of some of the major markets currently outside of the Madrid family, resistance is strong in Canada, where local practitioners have lobbied their Government hard not to join.

Brazil and South Africa present some more positive vibes, although both realise they need to reduce examination backlogs to be able to cope with an influx of Madrid applications. They are making inroads into these backlogs, although not at the same rate as India.

Brazil faces another challenge because the local law stipulates Portuguese as the official language for all correspondence. This could be amended, but a change could present a linguistic burden on the local trade mark office. It is possible that Portuguese could become an official Madrid language – WIPO already provides some information in this language. However, there may be a reluctance to do this unless some dispensation can be reached that keeps a handle on translation costs (for example, only International Registrations designating Brazil are translated into Portuguese).

WIPO may also be wary. In 2004, Spanish was made an official language, but it has not been until the last year that Colombia and Mexico joined the Madrid club (Spanish-speaking Cuba and Spain were already members before 2004).

Making Portuguese an official language would be almost purely to lure in Brazil. Other Lusophone nations, such as Angola, Cape Verde and Timor-Leste, are not of commercial interest to as many businesses as Brazil (and Mozambique, Portugal and São Tomé and Príncipe are already a part of Madrid). Further, to digress somewhat, Portuguese could only be currently available as a first language for designations of the European Community and not (as is the case with English, French and Spanish) as a second language.

Some of the quirky mechanisms of the Madrid Protocol will continue to baffle some people and there are skills required to work with it, but it is clear that the Madrid Protocol is here to stay and will become increasingly prominent in the field of trade marks in years to come. It may get replaced with a new system in due course, but political wranglings may mean it is easier to amend the existing system than to start from scratch.

This article originally appeared in Issue 406 December 2013/January 2014 of ITMA Review, the journal of the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys.

Certified Copies

2014-01-30T08:58:00.000+00:00

I admit that this might not be the most interesting or high brow of topics. However, it might help provide some useful information.

I've had the need to order some Certified Copies recently to support a priority claim in one instance, and to substantiate applications based on United Kingdom registrations. I was wondering how quickly other jurisdictions were able to issue these documents (and how expensive they are).

A Certified Copy ordered through OHIM on 27 November took a month to be received. To be fair, the document was sealed by OHIM on 18 December and it got caught in the Christmas mail backlog although I believe "three-to-four weeks" would be typical for OHIM to issue Certified Copies. Such documents cost €30 each in Official fees.

Certified Copies ordered through the UK IPO on 23 December were issued in early January. UK Certified Copies cost £20 each in Official fees for trade marks (£22 each for designs). I believe "one-to-two weeks" would be the typical time period for the UK IPO to issue Certified Copies. In my case, the original documents went astray in the post - a service which doesn't have 100% reliability and, from time-to-time, may need factoring in - and, therefore, it ended up being more than two weeks when my replacements arrived.

In Switzerland, Certified Copies can be ordered by e-mail at no charge and are issued in about a week. However, I believe the length of time for WIPO to issue a Certified Copy (Extract) is a lot longer. In fairness, I should mention that I have not ordered such a document from WIPO for some time (obviously they cannot be used as priority documents) but WIPO suffers from some delays in their other Madrid Protocol operations. The costs involved in obtaining a Certified Extract from WIPO are variable as the link shows.

It's been a longer time since I've ordered a US Certified Copy direct from the USPTO. Usefully, they now have an on-line ordering service. A Certified Copy to serve as a priority document would cost $15 in Official fees making them cheaper than both OHIM and the UK IPO.

If readers would like to share knowledge of their jurisdictions timelines and costs for obtaining Certified Copies then perhaps this would be of use to other readers. Particularly if they have a priority claim to substantiate and are wondering when their client is likely to be able to provide this document to them.

The good news is that many countries no longer require Certified Copies to support priority claims. They will typically say that it is at an Examiner's discretion to request a priority document though.

One of the benefits of the International system is that priority claims can be made without substantiation (i.e. needing to provide a Certified Copy or other proof).

Other Offices will take the view that if they can check the on-line Register of the priority claim country then they'll do this pro-actively to verify the priority claim. OHIM's new on-line filing tool is designed so this 'link' can be made by the applicant in the application.

OHIM also provide for the self-downloading of CTM Certified Copies from the on-line record of a specific case. A third party, such as a foreign Trade Marks Office, can then verify the authenticity of the document through OHIM's website by entering an 'Identification code'. I have learned recently that the Trade Marks Office in Saudi Arabia, a country where formalities are known to be complicated, accepts these documents from OHIM to support priority claims.

Needless to say, bureaucracy is still rife in some countries and original physical documents will be required. When they require legalisation this creates another headache. OHIM provide a useful service where they will undertake the legalisation up to the European Commission Representation (for this purpose this is the equivalent of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Nevertheless, if such a document (i.e. originating from OHIM) requires consular legalisation then this will need to be done in Spain. If you're not in Spain then you will likely want to get an agent in Madrid to assist. Dealing with foreign Consulates is not always an easy task even when you're based in the same country, let alone when you're not.

When making priority claims or applications requiring Certified Copies, it is sensible to be prepared for the hassle and costs that can be involved.

UPDATE: In Jordan, it takes 2-3 days for a Certified Copy to be issued.