|
The Current Situation Worldwide Table
I sets out some basic facts about secondary protection in most countries that
have such laws, including indications as to how long the countries have had
such laws, the name given to the protection (not all countries use the term
"utility model"), the duration of protection and, as an indication of the
usefulness of such protection, the number of such applications filed in 1999,
the most recent year for which statistics are available from WIPO. A summary of
the most important features of the substantive laws in these countries is set
out in Table II.
A
comparison of Tables I and II shows that the countries in which the most
widespread use of utility model protection is made are countries where there
are significant differences between the standards of invention required for
patents and utility models namely: Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan and Germany. In
Germany, there are two additional differences between patents and utility
models: namely, the grace period as noted above and secondly, that for utility
models prior public use outside Germany does not constitute a bar to
protection. As can be seen from the tables, countries where there is a lesser
distinction between requirements for patent protection and for utility model
protection have tended to result in few utility model applications being filed.
It is, however, noticeable from the statistics compiled by WIPO, that utility models, unlike patents in most countries, are
utilized more widely by local residents than by foreigners. One reason for this is that
costs for utility models tend to be less than those for patent applications
because in many countries (although as shown by the table not all by any means)
no substantive examination is carried out for utility model applications.
Dispensing with examination seems to be an increasing trend since, as noted
above, Japan gave up substantive examination of utility model applications last
year. This lack of examination also has the potential advantage of accelerating
the grant of an enforceable intellectual property right. One consequence of a
lack of examination, however, is a feeling that protection should not be
granted for the full term normally granted for patents and so utility model
protection is generally for a shorter period than that granted for a normal
patent.
Typically, utility models differ from patents in one or more of the following
respects:
l. Standard
of invention required; Superimposed
upon this is the fact that the classes of subject matter which may be
protectable by a utility model or other form of secondary of protection may in
many cases be much narrower than the definition of patentable subject matter
for normal patents.
Two
of the advantages perceived by users of the system, namely a lower inventive
height than is required for patents and the lack of examination, are regarded
by its opponents as being major disadvantages of the utility model system. The
argument is that these two features lead to the grant of what are essentially
inchoate rights since it is difficult for competitors to determine what is or
is not the subject matter of an enforceable right. This it is argued leads to
uncertainty and economic inefficiency. These factors led to some interesting
results in a survey carried out on behalf of European Commission in 1993 which
found that on average 50% of industry in the United Kingdom, France, Spain,
Italy and Germany were "partly to greatly dissatisfied by the application of
the utility model system in Europe at present" with the satisfaction being
greater amongst small and medium sized companies as compared to large
companies. The causes of this dissatisfaction were not totally specified but
the fact that different standards exist between various countries was clearly a
contributing factor in addition to any discontent that might
exist about the specific features of protection in any particular country.
Thus, 76% of small or medium size companies surveyed by the Commission
expressed a high interest in the adoption of a community wide utility model
system whereas interest among larger companies was much smaller.
|
|
[Home] [About Ladas
& Parry LLP] [Contact Us] [Search]
[Trademarks] [Domain
Names & E-Commerce] [Patents &
Copyrights]
[Litigation] [IP
Rights Maintenance] [IP as Property]
[News & Bulletins]
© Copyright 2002 John Richards - Posted July 2002
Please read our disclaimer.