TIPO revises design examination rules
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

TIPO revises design examination rules

Graphic designer development process drawing sketch design creative Ideas draft Logo product trademark label brand artwork. Graphic designer studio Concept.

Taiwan's IP Office (TIPO) has revised the current design examination benchmark in a bid to keep pace with the development of emerging technologies, and also to institutionalise the regulations and practices. The amendment which will take effect on November 1 2020 is substantially as follows:

1. The drawing required of a design application

The drawing of a design application should contain a sufficient number of views which are clear and complete to constitute a full disclosure of the appearance of the design. Generally, the omission of a view is allowed only when (i) two plan views are mirror-imaged or symmetrical; or (ii) the appearance of an omitted view would be evident from the other views. So long as the applicant specifies in a design description reasons for omission, the appearance of the omitted view will still be deemed to be part of the design.

Moreover, TIPO will not necessarily designate a deadline for the applicant to submit any omitted view(s); instead, the appearance of the omitted view(s) could be regarded as forming no part of the design. However, a design application will be rejected for not fulfilling the "sufficiency-of-disclosure" requirement if the ornamental features of the claimed design are not clearly or completely illustrated in the drawing on file.

2. Interior designs, and designs for immovable properties, including buildings, houses, bridges and gardens, are positively referred to in the amendment as patent eligible.

3. Divisional filings

According to the current examination benchmark (before amendment), it is not permissible to file a divisional application directed to the non-claimed portion of a design application (original design application) in case only one single article is illustrated in the drawing of the original design application without any showing that the claimed design is applicable to multiple articles.

The amendment will relax this restriction so that a divisional application can be filed for any design which has full support from and does not extend beyond the content of the original design application. The following exemplified divisional applications are all acceptable to TIPO according to the amendment:

1) A divisional application for a design disclosed in the referential drawing of the original design application

taiwan-image001.jpg

2) A divisional application for a component clearly illustrated in the drawing of the original design application

taiwan-image002.jpg

3) A divisional application claiming a scope different from that of the original design if it has full support from the disclosure of the original design application

taiwan-image003.jpg

4. Articles to which a graphic image design can be applied shall include "computer software product"

According to the current examination benchmark (before amendment), articles to which graphic image designs (including computer-generated icons (CGIs) and graphical user interfaces (GUIs)) can be applied only include "screen", "monitor", "display panel" or other display devices. Parallel to information technology, images generated by using projectors or virtual reality technology should no longer be excluded from design protection, especially when most image infringers are not hardware manufacturers but computer software producers. Thus, the amendment sets out the following:

1) CGIs and GUIs are re-defined as two-dimensional or three-dimensional virtual graphics generated by computer software products and displayed or projected through a variety of electronic devices.

2) Articles to which a graphic image design can be applied shall include "computer software product" and acceptable titles of such designs are the following: computer software generated "icons", "graphical user interfaces," "operation menus" and "display screens", to name just a few.

If a "computer software product" is included in the above manner in the title of an application for a graphic image design, in lieu of a specific electronic product, all identical or similar graphic image designs applied to electronic information products will be included in the search for "similarity test." On the other hand, identical or similar designs or patterns on physical items will be excluded from the search.

For instance, if a graphic image design application entitled "a computer software generated icon" is filed, during examination, all prior design patents/applications for "icons on the control console of washing machine," "icons on TV" and so on so forth will be included in the search. This is not the case if the prior designs located are, for instance, "graphics or patterns on wrapping paper or fabrics," or "graphics on physical buttons of mobile phones."

If a graphic image design application entitled "a mobile phone icon" is filed, prior designs for "icons on the control console of washing machine" "icons on TV" etc. will all be excluded from the search.

3) In the drawing of an application for a graphic design, there is no need to illustrate the carrier, such as "screen," "display" or "display panel" with a dashed line so as to show that it is a non-claimed portion of the design. On the other hand, a dashed line can be used to illustrate the non-claimed portion of a graphic image design.

If a graphic image design is formed by multiple separable units, or if it is necessary to clearly illustrate in the drawing what is claimed in a graphic image design application so as to avoid confusion, a boundary line drawn in a dashed or other broken line must be shown in the drawing.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Gift this article