As a headline in a local Chinese newspaper (Apple Daily Hong Kong), Dolce & Gabbana stopped pedestrians from taking pictures of their shop in Canton Road, Kowloon and the explanation offered was 'copyright protection'. According to the newspaper, these pedestrians were walking in the sidewalk about 4 metres away from the shop, and whenever they pointed their camera towards the shop, they were stopped and the staff or the security guard blocked the view of the cameras.
The reporters of the newspaper had further tested out other shops selling luxury goods in the area and only Dolce & Gabbana really watched out for anyone with camera near their shop.
Local lawyers were quoted that display of a shop facing the street are subject to photographic snapshot by pedestrians in public area, such as the sidewalk of Canton Road.
Actually this is a very innovative way to use 'Copyright Protection' and 'Protection of Intellectual Property' to restrict the right of those walking in the sidewalk of a busy street in Hong Kong.
New Address
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Consultation on Review of the Patent System in Hong Kong
Today is the deadline to submit our opinion on the subject. Here is summary of our response:
1. We do not support the introduction of OGP system in Hong Kong.
2. We strongly support to keep the existing re-registration system. The re-registration system can be further improved by recognizing examination result of US PTO and EPO in addition to existing arrangement.
3. We support to cancel Short-term patents all together in Hong Kong.
4. We support mandatory substantive examination be required before any legal action taken by the short-term patent assignee, should the Short-term patents system is kept in Hong Kong.
5. We have a lot of concern to regulate patent agency service in Hong Kong, with the uncertainty on the outcome of the patent system review, including the introduction of OGP to Hong Kong. We support that no change should be made at this time.
This is the last day of 2011 and we wish everyone have a great year in 2012.
1. We do not support the introduction of OGP system in Hong Kong.
2. We strongly support to keep the existing re-registration system. The re-registration system can be further improved by recognizing examination result of US PTO and EPO in addition to existing arrangement.
3. We support to cancel Short-term patents all together in Hong Kong.
4. We support mandatory substantive examination be required before any legal action taken by the short-term patent assignee, should the Short-term patents system is kept in Hong Kong.
5. We have a lot of concern to regulate patent agency service in Hong Kong, with the uncertainty on the outcome of the patent system review, including the introduction of OGP to Hong Kong. We support that no change should be made at this time.
This is the last day of 2011 and we wish everyone have a great year in 2012.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Regulation of Patent Agency Services in Hong Kong
We have discussed a couple of time in the past about regulation of patent agent / patent attorney in Hong Kong. In short, there is no restriction on who can act as an agent for others or carry on the business as a patent agent.
Our firm has staff with legal and science qualification, but there is no specific examination or qualification requirement to provide patent agency service in Hong Kong. The current Review of the Patent System in Hong Kong also touches on this subject. However, it may be difficult to regulate as some firms, like ourself, do a lot of work to help customers to file patent (and trademark for that matter) applications outside Hong Kong. We rely on our associated patent attorney in France to handle our patent work for representation before European Patent Office. We instructed patent attorney in other countries for handle works in their respective countries. For this type of work, would it be regulated in Hong Kong in the future? We are closely monitoring the ongoing consultation on the subject.
Our firm has staff with legal and science qualification, but there is no specific examination or qualification requirement to provide patent agency service in Hong Kong. The current Review of the Patent System in Hong Kong also touches on this subject. However, it may be difficult to regulate as some firms, like ourself, do a lot of work to help customers to file patent (and trademark for that matter) applications outside Hong Kong. We rely on our associated patent attorney in France to handle our patent work for representation before European Patent Office. We instructed patent attorney in other countries for handle works in their respective countries. For this type of work, would it be regulated in Hong Kong in the future? We are closely monitoring the ongoing consultation on the subject.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Hong Kong Patent System: Substantive Examination
As part of the review of the Patent System in Hong Kong, the examination system for standard patent is part of the system that is being consideration for revamp.
Currently, Hong Kong is using a 'Re-registration system'. Simply put, we don't have patent examiner to examine patent application. A patent that is granted by China or UK patent office can apply for registration in Hong Kong, provided certain procedural steps are followed. For UK patent office, that also applies for applications granted by European Patent Office with UK as one of the designated country.
One way to look at it, any one who have a granted patent in China or UK, the cost to get patent registered in Hong Kong is small. On the other hand, if an inventor intended to seek for protection in Hong Kong only, there was no quick and easy way, the inventor need to first file the same in China or UK. The route is longer and cost more as compared with getting it examined in Hong Kong. And this is the reason why there were suggestion to revamp this system.
As we have pointed out in an earlier blog, there were only 13,000 patent applications per year in Hong Kong. With that size, to keep a broad of examiners to handle various types of patent applications may not be economical. So the consultation paper further suggest to outsource the substantive examination to other examination authority. So it defeats the purpose of training people with the necessary skill to handle patent in Hong Kong.
As an alternative, the current 're-registration system' will go hand-in-hand with 'original grant system', and that will call for different fee structures for different routes. That is, for anyone who seeks for protection outside Hong Kong, and require protection in Hong Kong, would favor the re-registration system so as to save cost. In the unlikely event that an invention that worth only protection in Hong Kong would go for original grant system. Of course, in a case that requires protection in Hong Kong and countries other than China and UK, that may not favor either system. We doubt the popularity as such case, as China and Europe would be major trade partners of Hong Kong.
Further when we look at Europe, they have instituted one examination system, the European Patent Office, as a money saving route to get patent protection in multiple countries. We are of the view that original grant system in Hong Kong is moving in the wrong direction for reducing cost of doing business on a global platform.
It is our view that we don't see the urgency to introduce original grant system and we strongly urge to keep the current re-registration system, so that we still have a choice.
Currently, Hong Kong is using a 'Re-registration system'. Simply put, we don't have patent examiner to examine patent application. A patent that is granted by China or UK patent office can apply for registration in Hong Kong, provided certain procedural steps are followed. For UK patent office, that also applies for applications granted by European Patent Office with UK as one of the designated country.
One way to look at it, any one who have a granted patent in China or UK, the cost to get patent registered in Hong Kong is small. On the other hand, if an inventor intended to seek for protection in Hong Kong only, there was no quick and easy way, the inventor need to first file the same in China or UK. The route is longer and cost more as compared with getting it examined in Hong Kong. And this is the reason why there were suggestion to revamp this system.
As we have pointed out in an earlier blog, there were only 13,000 patent applications per year in Hong Kong. With that size, to keep a broad of examiners to handle various types of patent applications may not be economical. So the consultation paper further suggest to outsource the substantive examination to other examination authority. So it defeats the purpose of training people with the necessary skill to handle patent in Hong Kong.
As an alternative, the current 're-registration system' will go hand-in-hand with 'original grant system', and that will call for different fee structures for different routes. That is, for anyone who seeks for protection outside Hong Kong, and require protection in Hong Kong, would favor the re-registration system so as to save cost. In the unlikely event that an invention that worth only protection in Hong Kong would go for original grant system. Of course, in a case that requires protection in Hong Kong and countries other than China and UK, that may not favor either system. We doubt the popularity as such case, as China and Europe would be major trade partners of Hong Kong.
Further when we look at Europe, they have instituted one examination system, the European Patent Office, as a money saving route to get patent protection in multiple countries. We are of the view that original grant system in Hong Kong is moving in the wrong direction for reducing cost of doing business on a global platform.
It is our view that we don't see the urgency to introduce original grant system and we strongly urge to keep the current re-registration system, so that we still have a choice.
Friday, November 18, 2011
New layout and non-working RSS
We have problem with the RSS, which is not working for awhile, so we were trying to fix it and not successful. While we were trying to fix it, we have changed the layout a bit. Hope you like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)