Brooks Acordia Patent Attorney Looks Forward to U.S. Adoption of Hague Agreement
Los Angeles, CA (Law Firm Newswire) June 17, 2014 - After more than 13 years of efforts from lawmakers and patent officials, the United States is on the verge of becoming a member nation of the Hague Agreement.
The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs, also known as the “Hague system,” allows for the registration of industrial designs in all participating nations with a single application and a single set of fees. Los Angeles patent attorney Pejman Yedidsion said he looked forward to the change.
“The Hague Agreement has been working very well in its member nations for quite a while,” Yedidsion noted, “and I know that many U.S. inventors and patent attorneys are eager to participate as well. They will soon be able to dramatically reduce the repetitive work of registering industrial designs in multiple jurisdictions.”
The United States was one of the original signatories to the Geneva Act for the Hague Agreement in 1999. However, the U.S. Senate did not ratify the treaty until 2007, and the bill to implement the treaty was not made law until December 2012. That law is expected to take effect soon.
Under the Hague Agreement, applications for registration of industrial designs are filed directly with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Applications may be written in English, French or Spanish. A single application may include up to 100 different designs as long as they all fall under the same class of the International Classification of Industrial Designs.
In order to qualify to use the Hague system, the applicant must be associated with a member nation by nationality, domicile, habitual residence, or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment.
“First, WIPO's International Bureau examines the application to make sure it meets the formal requirements,” Yedidsion explained. “Then, intellectual property offices in the member nations evaluate the design to make sure it meets their domestic criteria for registration. If it does not, they notify WIPO of their refusal. The international registration then goes into effect in all nations that do not issue a refusal, and the design receives the same protection as it would if registered separately in each jurisdiction.”
The initial duration of the international registration is five years, and it may be extended in five-year increments up to the maximum duration permitted in each jurisdiction.
Brooks Acordia IP Law, P.C.
1445 E. Los Angeles Ave. #108
Simi Valley, CA 93065-2827
Phone: (805) 579-2500
Fax: (805) 584-6427
- Trademark Cancellation Proceedings
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides administrative procedures for contesting the validity of a trademark registration through a procedure known as cancellation proceeding via a “Petition to Cancel” an already registered mark. This procedure is useful to eliminate an interfering trademark registration or to weaken an opponent’s threatening litigation. It is also useful to cancel a mark that perhaps should not have been obtained and is now being cited against your pending application. The cancellation proceeding is essentially a micro-lawsuit within the USPTO and ...
- An Evolutionary Process: The Ins and Outs of Patent Law
A patent is a “proprietary right granted by the federal government pursuant to laws passed by Congress, which conveys to its owner exclusive rights to a claimed invention.” A simple description surely, but one that’s fraught with twists, turns and pitfalls that make the process of obtaining and defending a patent, particularly one involving an abstract idea, a challenging proposition.<br />
Partner at Brooks Acordia IP Law, PC, Pejman Yedidsion, was quoted in this article:<br />
Read the full article in the ...
- Patent Office Gives Examiners Guidance in Light of Enfish
In light of the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. ruling by the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has updated its guidance to the Examiners. In it, Examiners are to consider that a claim “directed to an improvement to computer-related technology (e.g., computer functionality) is likely not similar to claims that have been previously identified as abstract by the courts.” The guidance also cautioned Examiners “against describing a claim at a high level of abstraction untethered from the ...