Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
International Design Patent Filing Considerations After U.S. Entry into the Hague Agreement
Effective May 13, 2015, applicants can file international design patent applications in a single, standardized application via the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designating any of more than 62 territories, including the U.S. and European Union (EU), and can receive the same effective filing date in each jurisdiction. This important opportunity comes as the U.S. accedes to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement, details of which are set forth in the USPTO's recently published Final Rule implementing changes to the agency's relevant design patent Regulations. See, Changes to Implement the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs, Final Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 17,918.
The Hague Agreement is directed to uniform filing and registration procedures, not substantive law. The U.S. is a relative latecomer to the Agreement, which was first enacted in 1925 and has been amended several times since. Several countries, including the U.S., did not ascribe to early versions of the Agreement because it did not adequately provide for the substantive examination by national offices of all design applications.
The Geneva Act of 1999 amended the Hague Agreement to attract countries such as the U.S. that conduct substantive examination, by extending the notification of refusal period to 12 months and allowing contracting states to set higher fees. These changes provided national offices with time and money to conduct substantive examination, while maintaining a uniform right of priority worldwide. In view of these modifications, Japan also joined the Hague Agreement on May 13, 2015.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?