International Design System sees Record Growth in 2010
Geneva,
April 4, 2011
PR/2011/686
International design activity saw strong growth in 2010 with WIPO receiving 2,382 applications under the 57-member Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, or a 32.6% increase over the previous year. The number of registered designs that were filed by applicants from the following countries increased significantly in 2010 compared to 2009: Germany (+31%), Switzerland (+42%), Turkey (+108%), Austria (+48%), Spain (541%), and Luxembourg (+271%). Similarly, international design registrations grew by 31.8% with a total 2,216 registrations in 2010 (table 1).
“Designs are a valuable means of product differentiation, often determining the success of one product over a comparable one. While many companies invest large sums of money and expertise to develop winning designs, good designs can also be developed at low cost and provide a high return on investment,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. He added “The significant growth in filings under the Hague system shows that, in spite of difficult economic times, companies continue to invest in protecting industrial design.”
The theme of this year’s World Intellectual Property Day on April 26, 2011 – “Designing the Future” – seeks to highlight the role of design in product differentiation and the contribution of designers to society and innovation.
Regional and National Filing Trends
Among major users, applicants in Germany ranked first, registering 2,864 designs, or 26.9% of the total. They were followed by applicants from Switzerland (2,635 designs, 24.8%), France (998 designs, 9.4%), the Netherlands (867 designs, 8.2%), and the United States of America (811 designs, 7.6%). Applicants from Italy, Turkey, Austria, Spain and Luxembourg were also among the top ten filers, each with more than 200 designs filed for protection in 2010 (table 2).
The international design system allows an applicant who does not reside in a country that is a member of the Hague system to apply for protection so long as applicants have a connection to a contracting party – be it a state or an intergovernmental organization. This was notably the case of American applicants.
Designation Trends in International Registrations
In 2010, WIPO recorded 10,741 designations of contracting parties in international registrations, representing a 6.3% increase over the previous year. This relatively low rate of increase in designations as compared to registrations is because many applicants designated the European Union as a block rather than designating those individual European Union members that are also members of the Hague Agreement.
In 2010, the European Union was the most designated member in terms of designs for which protection was requested under the Hague system. It was designated with respect to 7,897 (70.3%) of the total 11,238 designs recorded by WIPO that year (see Table 5, below). The next most designated countries were Switzerland with 7,736 designs (69%), Turkey (4,589 designs, 41%) and Singapore (2,448 designs, 22%) (see table 3).
Top Applicants
The Procter & Gamble Company (USA) topped the list of largest users with 127 design applications in 2010. P&G was followed by Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (The Netherlands), Vestel Beyaz Esya (Turkey), Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (Germany), Gillette Company (USA), Daimler AG (Germany), Pi-Design AG (Switzerland), Swatch AG (Switzerland), Braun GmbH (Germany) and Société des Produits Nestlé (Switzerland).
Profile and Costs of Registrations Recorded in 2010
In 2010, 11.4 % of the recorded designs were in the field of the packages (mostly for foodstuff and cosmetics) and the containers for the transport and handling of goods, such as plastic bottles. This was followed by clocks and watches (9.1%), and furnishing (8.3%) (table 4).
In 2010, 2,216 international registrations containing 11,238 designs were recorded, which is an average of 5 designs per international registration. This amount increased by 26.7% compared with 2009. During the same period, the number of designations of member states per registration increased by 6.3%.
At the end of 2010, 25,633 registrations were active. These registrations contained 107,834 active designs. The number of right holders amounted to 7,919, or a 2.5% over 2009. The majority of rights holders (96.02%) own a portfolio of registrations amounting to a maximum of 10 designs, showing extensive use by small and medium-sized enterprises (table 5).
The average amount of fees paid with respect to an international registration was 1,655 Swiss francs.
Of all the international registrations recorded by WIPO in 2010, 89.1% required fees amounting to less than 3,000 Swiss francs.
Background
The Hague system offers users a cost-effective and user-friendly means of obtaining protection for an industrial design by filing a single application. Without the system, and because industrial design protection is limited to the territory where protection is sought, a designer would have to file separate applications in each of those in which protection is sought. Under the system, a single application is made for as many members as selected by the applicant. Members’ offices then have a limited period of time to examine whether a new international registration can be granted protection in their territory. After this, the effects of the international registration are the same as if all the designs contained therein had been registered directly with each of the offices concerned.
The system thus offers both front-end and long-term advantages. For example, an average application made for 5 designs and covering the whole of the European Union plus a handful of neighboring States such as Switzerland, Turkey and Norway would cost about four times less in filing fees alone than if national or regional applications were made individually with each office. To this important saving must be added the savings in terms of legal representation and filing related services as well as the general savings resulting from the fact that a single application dealing with a single set of requirements has to be prepared and prosecuted. But the beauty of the system lies in its long term advantages as the international applicant ends up with a single yet flexible international registration that can be centrally managed, for all designs and all territories.
The Hague system rests on three different versions of the Hague Agreement, which are referred to as “Acts”, and each having its own membership. Recently, efforts have stepped up to simplify use of the Hague system by focusing on the Geneva Act of 1999. Following a decision by the Assembly of the Hague Union, the freezing of the application of the 1934 Act came into operation on January 1, 2010, thus simplifying the legal framework. During 2010, the geographical scope of the Union expanded with Norway, Azerbaijan and Germany joining the Geneva Act (annex). Spanish was added to French and English as a third working language in April 2010.
Annexes
Table 1- Number of Designs Contained in International Registrations by Contracting Party of Entitlement (2006-2010)
Shares of total filings in 2010 and growth rates compared to 2009
Table 2 - Number of Designs Contained in International Registrations by Country of Address of the Holder
Shares of total filings in 2010 and growth rates compared to 2009
Table 3 - Most Designated Contracting Parties (2010)
Number of Designs Recorded in the International Register by Designated Contracting Party
Growth rates compared to 2009 and share of total number of designs recorded in 2010
in the International Register 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Growth Share 5,949 6,579 7,920 8,872 11,238 26.7% 100% Designated Contracting Party 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Growth Share 1 European Union (EM) 0 0 4,028 5,932 7,897 33.1% 70.3% 2 Switzerland (CH) 5,275 5,387 6,185 6,178 7,736 25.2% 68.8% 3 Turkey (TR) 1,356 1,550 3,389 4,048 4,589 13.4% 40.8% 4 Singapore (SG) 1,149 1,474 2,168 2,409 2,448 1.6% 21.8% 5 Ukraine (UA) 2,122 2,238 2,393 2,056 2,332 13.4% 20.8% 6 Croatia (HR) 1,918 2,260 2,476 1,906 2,131 11.8% 19.0% 7 Monaco (MC) 2,072 2,496 2,114 1,683 1,634 -2.9% 14.5% 8 France (FR) 3,318 3,348 1,893 1,281 1,600 24.9% 14.2% 9 Morocco (MA) 2,056 2,017 1,971 1,596 1,545 -3.2% 13.7% 10 Germany (DE) 3,491 3,498 1,896 1,254 1,483 18.3% 13.2% 11 Liechtenstein (LI) 1,974 1,879 1,752 1,561 1,430 -8.4% 12.7% 12 Benelux (BX) 3,415 3,328 1,565 1,118 1,392 24.5% 12.4% 13 Egypt (EG) 2,562 2,051 2,056 1,488 1,369 -8.0% 12.2% 14 Italy (IT) 3,433 3,362 1,705 1,168 1,321 13.1% 11.8% 15 The F.Y.R. of Macedonia (MK) 1,481 1,838 1,847 1,310 1,179 -10.0% 10.5% 16 Montenegro (ME) 0 1,530 1,707 1,093 954 -12.7% 8.5% 17 Georgia (GE) 1,232 1,125 1,206 983 929 -5.5% 8.3% 18 Bosnia and Herzegovina (BA) 0 0 0 304 879 189.1% 7.8% 19 Moldova (MD) 969 1,017 1,088 875 780 -10.9% 6.9% 20 Norway (NO) 0 0 0 0 776 - 6.9% 21 Oman (OM) 0 0 0 534 732 37.1% 6.5% 22 Albania (AL) 0 753 1,091 941 729 -22.5% 6.5% 23 Mongolia (MN) 750 695 951 756 709 -6.2% 6.3% 24 Serbia (RS) 1,976 2,098 1,421 733 695 -5.2% 6.2% 25 Armenia (AM) 0 199 949 801 631 -21.2% 5.6% 26 Kyrgyzstan (KG) 822 718 843 686 538 -21.6% 4.8% 27 Spain (ES) 2,897 2,528 1,185 442 518 17.2% 4.6% 28 Belize (BZ) 927 779 742 625 475 -24.0% 4.2% 29 Slovenia (SI) 1,559 1,358 589 293 433 47.8% 3.9% 30 Lithuania (LT) 0 0 16 86 425 394.2% 3.8% 31 Greece (GR) 2,035 1,957 970 368 406 10.3% 3.6% 32 African Intellectual Property Organization (OA) 0 0 11 132 256 93.9% 2.3% 33 Iceland (IS) 67 76 229 342 231 -32.5% 2.1% 34 D.P.R. of Korea (KP) 1,141 1,139 911 306 206 -32.7% 1.8% 35 Syrian Arab Republic (SY) 0 0 187 464 193 -58.4% 1.7% 36 Hungary (HU) 1,325 1,196 505 182 126 -30.8% 1.1% 37 Tunisia (TN) 2,578 2,442 2,157 1,940 99 -94.9% 0.9% 38 Namibia (NA) 132 36 201 201 96 -52.2% 0.9% 39 Latvia (LV) 641 551 152 123 92 -25.2% 0.8% 40 Denmark (DK) 0 0 0 25 82 228.0% 0.7%
Table 4 - Ten Most Popular Classes in International Registrations
Registrations by class in 2010, shares of total and growth compared to 2009
Table 5 - International Registrations in Force in the International Register (on December 31, 2010)
List of the Contracting Parties to the Hague Agreement as of December 31, 2010
African Intellectual PropertyOrganization (OAPI) (99)
Albania (60 and 99)
Armenia (99)
Azerbaijan (99)
Belgium (60)
Belize (60)
Benin (34 and 60)
Bosnia and Herzegovina (99)
Botswana (99)
Bulgaria (60 and 99)
Côte d’Ivoire (34 and 60)
Croatia (60 and 99)
Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea (60)
Denmark (99)
Egypt (34 and 99)
Estonia (99)
European Union (99)
France (34, 60 and 99)
Gabon (60)
Georgia (60 and 99)
Germany (34, 60 and 99)
Ghana (99)
Greece (60)
Hungary (60 and 99)
Iceland (99)
Italy (60)
Kyrgyzstan (60 and 99)
Latvia (99)
Liechtenstein (34, 60 and 99)
Lithuania (99)
Luxembourg (60) Mali (60)
Monaco (34 and 60)
Mongolia (60 and 99)
Montenegro (60)
Morocco (34 and 60)
Namibia (99)
Netherlands (60)
Niger (60)
Norway (99)
Oman (99)
Poland (99)
Republic of Moldova (60 and 99)
Romania (60 and 99)
Sao Tome and Principe (99)
Senegal (34 and 60)
Serbia (60 and 99)
Singapore (99)
Slovenia (60 and 99)
Spain (34 and 99)
Suriname (34 and 60)
Switzerland (60 and 99)
Syrian Arab Republic (99)
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (60 and 99)
Tunisia (34)
Turkey (99)
Ukraine (60 and 99)
(Total: 57)
_______________
Party to the 1934 Act (12)
Party to the 1960 Act (34)
Party to the 1999 Act (39)
For further information, please contact the Media Relations Section at WIPO:
- Tel: (+41 22) - 338 81 61 or 338 95 47
- Fax: (+41 22) - 338 82 80
EIN Presswire does not exercise editorial control over third-party content provided, uploaded, published, or distributed by users of EIN Presswire. We are a distributor, not a publisher, of 3rd party content. Such content may contain the views, opinions, statements, offers, and other material of the respective users, suppliers, participants, or authors.
