P. 1
World Intellectual Property Indicators 2011

World Intellectual Property Indicators 2011

5.0

|Views: 37|Likes:
WIPO's World Intellectual Property Indicators provides a wide range of indicators covering various areas of intellectual property: patents, utility models, trademarks, industrial designs and microorganisms. It draws on data from national and regional IP offices, WIPO, the World Bank and UNESCO.
WIPO's World Intellectual Property Indicators provides a wide range of indicators covering various areas of intellectual property: patents, utility models, trademarks, industrial designs and microorganisms. It draws on data from national and regional IP offices, WIPO, the World Bank and UNESCO.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/08/2016

pdf

text

original

Sections

by offce

This subsection continues to make comparisons across

IP offces by using the number of classes specifed in

applications rather than just the number of applications.

In particular, it compares, side-by-side, an offce’s ap-

plication count with its application class count and the

average number of classes specifed in each applica-

tion. This serves to highlight the difference between the

two counting methods.

As shown in Figures B.3.1.1 and B.3.1.2, the offces of

Brazil, China, India and Mexico each have a single-class

fling system, whereas the remaining offces have a

multi-class fling system. The data underlying these fg-

ures include trademark applications received directly by

IP offces and, where applicable, designations received

via the Madrid system. In the case of China, the class

count fgure is somewhat greater than the application

count fgure due to designations received via the Madrid

system that, unlike the Chinese offce, allows multi-class

flings. For Japan, the total number of classes specifed

in applications is calculated on the basis of the average

fgure of 1.67 classes specifed per direct application

provided by the offce; when combined with Madrid

designation data, this fgure rises to 1.72.

Japan received more trademark applications than the

offces of France and Germany, and OHIM. However,

when comparing on the basis of the total number of

classes specifed in applications, all three of these of-

fces had higher volumes than the Japanese offce.

More generally, the gap between the offces receiving

higher volumes of trademark applications and those re-

ceiving lower volumes is narrower when comparisons

are made on the basis of class counts rather than the

number of applications.

To add perspective to the overall numbers, the Chinese

offce had nearly 2.9 times the equivalent class count at

the USPTO, and the USPTO had 2.2 times the class

count at the offce of the Republic of Korea which, in

turn, had 2.3 times that of the Spanish offce.

A comparison of class counts reveals that the offces of

Germany, Japan and the Russian Federation had very

similar class count numbers of around 200,000 each.

115

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

Figure B.3.1.1 Applications and class counts at the top 10 offces, 2010

Note: *2009 data
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

1,057,4801,080,769

281,867

378,072

93,187

294,515

98,616

279,553

74,339

221,593

124,726

214,680

56,856

206,963

129,486

171,984

141,943

71,466136,320

Office

Average number of classes per application

1.02

1.34

3.16

2.83

2.98

1.72

3.64

1.33

1.00

1.91

Applications / class count

C

h

i

n

a

U

n

i

t

e

d

S

t

a

t

e

s

o

f

A

m

e

r

i

c

a

F

r

a

n

c

e

O

H

I

M

G

e

r

m

a

n

y

J

a

p

a

n

R

u

s

s

i

a

n

F

e

d

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

o

f

K

o

r

e

a

I

n

d

i

a

*

T

u

r

k

e

y

*

Total applications

Total number of classes specified in applications

Figure B.3.1.2 Applications and class counts at selected offces, 2010

Note: *2009 data
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

125,654

45,220

123,581

59,459

107,862

95,044

40,702

92,823

28,945

88,392

36,484

76,637

45,104

75,061

25,799

74,718

47,120

73,612

Office

Average number of classes per application

1.00

2.73

1.81

1.00

2.28

3.05

2.10

1.66

2.90

1.56

Applications / class count

B

r

a

z

i

l

C

a

n

a

d

a

A

u

s

t

r

a

l

i

a

M

e

x

i

c

o

I

t

a

l

y

*

S

w

i

t

z

e

r

l

a

n

d

*

U

n

i

t

e

d

K

i

n

g

d

o

m

C

h

i

l

e

B

e

n

e

l

u

x

S

p

a

i

n

Total applications

Total number of classes specified in applications

116

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

117

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

B.3.2Trademark application class counts

at the top 20 offces

This subsection compares IP offce application volumes

across the top 20 offces by using equivalent class

counts while showing the non-resident share of the to-

tals. Of the offces shown in Figure B.3.2.1, the non-res-

ident shares range from only 10% for China to 56% for

Switzerland, which is the only offce at which applica-

tions fled by non-residents account for the majority of

application class counts.

Germany’s 11% non-resident share of total application

class counts was similar to that for China, whereas

non-residents accounted for nearly double that share

(20-22%) at BOIP, OHIM and the offces of Turkey, the

UK and the US, and even higher for many of the re-

maining offces.

The four so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, the Russian

Federation, India and China) are included in the top 20

list, and nearly half of the other top 20 offces are lo-

cated in Europe.

The graphs also show that the combined class counts

for residents of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Nether-

lands (59,612) fling at BOIP is of the same magnitude

as class counts for those fled by residents of Spain

(62,428) at their national offce. This is also the case for

residents of Australia, Canada and Mexico whose appli-

cations equated to between 68,000 and 70,000 classes.

Figure B.3.2.1 Application class counts

at the top 20 offces, 2010

Note: *2009 data. “Total” is provided where no breakdown with regard to ap-
plicant residency exists. OHIM resident statistics represent applications fled at
this offce by residents of all EU countries.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

1,080,769

378,072

294,515

279,553

221,593

214,680

206,963

171,984

141,943

136,320

Office

Non-Resident share (%)

9.922.0

..

22.410.928.326.724.4

..

21.5

Applications

C

h

i

n

a

U

n

i

t

e

d

S

t

a

t

e

s

o

f

A

m

e

r

i

c

a

F

r

a

n

c

e

O

H

I

M

G

e

r

m

a

n

y

J

a

p

a

n

R

u

s

s

i

a

n

F

e

d

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

o

f

K

o

r

e

a

I

n

d

i

a

*

T

u

r

k

e

y

*

Resident

Non-Resident

Total

125,654

123,581

107,862

95,044

92,823

88,392

76,637

75,061

74,718

73,612

Office

Non-Resident share (%)

18.543.236.727.516.455.921.732.420.215.2

Applications

B

r

a

z

i

l

C

a

n

a

d

a

A

u

s

t

r

a

l

i

a

M

e

x

i

c

o

I

t

a

l

y

*

S

w

i

t

z

e

r

l

a

n

d

*

U

n

i

t

e

d

K

i

n

g

d

o

m

C

h

i

l

e

B

e

n

e

l

u

x

S

p

a

i

n

Resident

Non-Resident

Figure B.3.2.2 shows that four of the fve offces that

had year-on-year decreases in the number of classes

specifed in applications were located in Europe. The

other was the offce of the Republic of Korea. The

CTMO saw its equivalent number of classes increase

by nearly 30% in a single year, with seven other offces

in this selection also seeing double-digit growth in 2010.

When looking at a longer term trend, the growth rate

from 2006 to 2010 was positive for just over half of

these offces, with mixed results across continents. For

example, the offces of Australia (-2.8%), Japan (-1.7%)

and Germany (-2.1%) saw decreases in the numbers of

classes specifed in applications over this period.

B.3.3Trademark application class counts at of-

fces of selected middle- and low-income countries

Figure B.3.3.1 depicts class counts for a selection of of-

fces of middle- and low-income countries as well as

their non-resident shares. The Ukraine offce, although

having higher overall class count numbers than the of-

fce of Viet Nam, had a lower resident class count than

the latter.

The offces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Ser-

bia all had high non-resident shares (exceeding 75%) of

total application class counts. In fact, the majority of

these offces had at least half of their application class

counts attributed to non-residents. Bangladesh, how-

ever, had the lowest non-resident share with 23%.

Figure B.3.2.2 Growth rates of application class counts at selected offces, 2010

Note: *One-year growth is based on 2008-2009, and fve-year growth rate is based on 2005-2009.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

29.8

5.0

13.112.2

-0.9

11.111.4

-5.3

9.011.5

6.4

16.0

-5.0

7.2

-1.8

0.1

18.3

0.0

-4.6

7.1

Growth rate (%): 2006-10

Office

9.0

0.6

6.5

4.1

-2.1

-1.7

8.4

-1.5

13.5

7.3

-2.8

6.6

5.7

..

-4.6

-8.4

5.0

7.2

-4.6

-6.6

0

Growth rate (%): 2009-10

C

h

i

n

a

U

n

i

t

e

d

S

t

a

t

e

s

o

f

A

m

e

r

i

c

a

F

r

a

n

c

e

O

H

I

M

G

e

r

m

a

n

y

J

a

p

a

n

R

u

s

s

i

a

n

F

e

d

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

o

f

K

o

r

e

a

I

n

d

i

a

*

B

r

a

z

i

l

A

u

s

t

r

a

l

i

a

M

e

x

i

c

o

S

w

i

t

z

e

r

l

a

n

d

*

C

h

i

l

e

B

e

n

e

l

u

x

S

p

a

i

n

C

h

i

n

a

,

H

o

n

g

K

o

n

g

S

A

R

V

i

e

t

N

a

m

P

o

l

a

n

d

C

z

e

c

h

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

118

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

Figure B.3.3.2 represents the one- and fve-year growth

rates of trademark application class counts for selected

middle- and low-income offces. Half of these offces ex-

perienced one-year declines in class counts, and for

many of these, this has been a continuation of the fve-

year negative growth they witnessed. Five offces had

double-digit declines in their class counts from 2009 to

2010. Argentina and Panama, however, saw the highest

year-on-year growth with 17% and 24%, respectively.

Bangladesh, Madagascar and South Africa also saw

signifcant growth.

Figure B.3.3.1 Application class counts at offces of selected middle- and low-income countries, 2010

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

57,362

51,387

37,656

30,325

29,848

24,595

23,120

22,136

17,485

13,558

Office

Non-Resident share (%)

49.837.334.241.045.152.135.975.282.574.0

Application class count

U

k

r

a

i

n

e

V

i

e

t

N

a

m

T

h

a

i

l

a

n

d

S

o

u

t

h

A

f

r

i

c

a

M

o

r

o

c

c

o

P

h

i

l

i

p

p

i

n

e

s

P

e

r

u

C

r

o

a

t

i

a

S

e

r

b

i

a

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

o

f

M

o

l

d

o

v

a

(

t

h

e

)

Resident

Non-Resident

12,635

12,563

10,952

10,254

10,231

9,802

9,297

9,131

5,151

4,962

Office

Non-Resident share (%)

49.394.563.063.923.280.157.186.094.160.0

Application class count

C

o

s

t

a

R

i

c

a

.

B

o

s

n

i

a

a

n

d

H

e

r

z

e

g

o

v

i

n

a

U

z

b

e

k

i

s

t

a

n

P

a

n

a

m

a

B

a

n

g

l

a

d

e

s

h

A

r

m

e

n

i

a

U

r

u

g

u

a

y

G

e

o

r

g

i

a

T

a

j

i

k

i

s

t

a

n

M

a

d

a

g

a

s

c

a

r

Resident

Non-Resident

Figure B.3.3.2 Growth rates of application class counts at offces of selected middle- and low-income

countries, 2010

Note: Offces were chosen based on data availability.
*One-year growth is based on 2008-2009, and fve-year growth rate is based on 2005-2009.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

17.1

-6.3

9.9

-8.4

-15.1-13.0-9.1

-14.8

16.0

9.6

5.8

24.1

1.5

-6.1

-14.2

13.9

-13.7

4.3

0.7

-0.2

Growth rate (%): 2006-10

Office

-3.2

-1.0

12.2

-2.7-13.3-2.5-13.412.4

16.9

2.3

5.8

..

-2.6-14.312.5

..

-3.2

1.8

-6.8

3.9

0

Growth rate (%): 2009-10

A

r

g

e

n

t

i

n

a

A

r

m

e

n

i

a

B

a

n

g

l

a

d

e

s

h

C

r

o

a

t

i

a

E

s

t

o

n

i

a

G

e

o

r

g

i

a

L

a

t

v

i

a

L

i

t

h

u

a

n

i

a

M

a

d

a

g

a

s

c

a

r

M

a

l

a

y

s

i

a

P

a

k

i

s

t

a

n

*

P

a

n

a

m

a

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

o

f

M

o

l

d

o

v

a

(

t

h

e

)

R

o

m

a

n

i

a

S

e

r

b

i

a

S

o

u

t

h

A

f

r

i

c

a

T

a

j

i

k

i

s

t

a

n

T

h

a

i

l

a

n

d

U

k

r

a

i

n

e

U

z

b

e

k

i

s

t

a

n

119

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

B.3.4Trademark registration class counts

at the top 20 offces

This subsection compares IP offce registration volumes

across the top offces by using class counts compared

in the same manner as were application volumes in sub-

section B.3.2. In 2010, the CTMO issued registrations

equivalent to a class count of over 1.35 million, which

exceeded the application class count by 25%. This can

be explained by this offce’s efforts to process many ap-

plications that had been fled in years prior to 2010 and

were awaiting examination. OHIM also had a registration

class count exceeding its application class count for the

same year by 5%.

In the right-hand graph of Figure B.3.4.1, it emerges

that, when comparing registration class counts, some

of the offces listed show similar class counts. For ex-

ample, the offces of Australia, Canada, the Republic of

Korea and the UK had registration class counts ranging

from about 74,000 to 76,000. The offces of Mexico,

South Africa and Spain each issued between 63,000

and 65,000 registrations. Brazil and India, for which the

latest registration data are for 2009, also had similar

numbers of between 64,000 and 67,000 registrations.

When comparing registration numbers only without tak-

ing class count into consideration, the variations among

these offces are more distinct.

The shares of equivalent class counts in registrations at-

tributed to non-residents vary greatly among these of-

fces – from 10.5% at the CTMO to 60.6% at the Swiss

offce. However, they are similar to their corresponding

non-resident shares for application class counts (see

B.3.2.1). The exceptions include the Russian Federa-

tion, which had a non-resident registration class count

share of 42.3% compared to a much lower share for

application class counts of only 26.7%. The same holds

true, but to a lesser extent, for the offce of the Republic

of Korea, with 35.7% versus 24.4%.

Figure B.3.4.1 Registration class counts at the top

20 offces, 2010

Note: *2009 data. “Total” is provided where there is no breakdown with regard
to trademark holder residency. OHIM resident statistics represent registrations
issued by this offce to residents of EU countries.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

1,354,177

292,352

227,021

167,233

159,875

132,945

113,925

111,348

88,639

78,284

Office

Non-Resident share (%)

10.522.428.0

..

10.012.625.542.339.660.6

Registration class count

C

h

i

n

a

O

H

I

M

U

n

i

t

e

d

S

t

a

t

e

s

o

f

A

m

e

r

i

c

a

J

a

p

a

n

G

e

r

m

a

n

y

I

t

a

l

y

*

T

u

r

k

e

y

*

R

u

s

s

i

a

n

F

e

d

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

h

i

l

e

S

w

i

t

z

e

r

l

a

n

d

*

Resident

Non-Resident

Total

76,042

75,128

74,135

73,752

67,490

65,350

65,167

64,182

62,989

61,577

Office

Non-Resident share (%)

21.135.745.643.7

..

47.315.8

..

28.8

..

Registration class count

U

n

i

t

e

d

K

i

n

g

d

o

m

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

o

f

K

o

r

e

a

C

a

n

a

d

a

A

u

s

t

r

a

l

i

a

I

n

d

i

a

*

S

o

u

t

h

A

f

r

i

c

a

S

p

a

i

n

B

r

a

z

i

l

*

M

e

x

i

c

o

B

e

n

e

l

u

x

Resident

Non-Resident

Total

120

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

Figure B.3.4.2 shows that 8 of the top 20 offces had

zero or positive year-on-year as well as fve-year growth

in their registration class counts. Caution should be

used in comparing these offces’ registration growth fg-

ures with those of their application class counts (see

B.3.2.2). In some instances, the growth rates shown in

both graphs are of similar magnitudes. However, several

factors preclude direct comparisons, notably the time

lag between the receipt of a trademark application and

the issuance of a registration, and the existence of pos-

sible backlogs at some offces.

B.3.5Trademark registration class counts at

offces of selected middle- and low-income

countries

Figure B.3.5.1 presents registration class counts for se-

lected offces of middle- and low-income countries. The

registration class counts for these offces are generally

smaller than their application class counts (see Figure

B.3.3.1). This partially refects the fact that not every ap-

plication received by an offce results in a registration.

However, other factors, such as backlogs of applications

awaiting examination, also infuence these differences.

Consistent with their application class counts, most of

these offces’ registration class counts were largely at-

tributed to non-residents, but with even higher non-res-

ident shares. Madagascar and Panama are examples

of exceptions in that they had slightly lower shares of

non-resident registration class counts than that for ap-

plication class counts.

Figure B.3.4.2 Growth rates of registration class counts at selected offces, 2010

Note: *One-year growth rate is based on 2008-2009, and fve-year growth rate is based on 2005-2009.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

61.0

16.3

-5.5

0.3

-2.3

5.1

-6.3

10.8

-7.6

10.1

-4.7

-34.0

-13.7

12.8

0.0

-4.9

0.7

2.6

-15.3

-0.4

Growth rate (%): 2006-10

Office

47.212.0

3.3

0.0

-1.9

54.1

7.1

..

5.0

-4.9

-4.3-22.2-7.3

38.0

1.6

-12.3

5.6

-5.0-10.4

0.1

0

Growth rate (%): 2009-10

C

h

i

n

a

O

H

I

M

U

n

i

t

e

d

S

t

a

t

e

s

o

f

A

m

e

r

i

c

a

J

a

p

a

n

G

e

r

m

a

n

y

T

u

r

k

e

y

*

R

u

s

s

i

a

n

F

e

d

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

C

h

i

l

e

S

w

i

t

z

e

r

l

a

n

d

*

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

o

f

K

o

r

e

a

A

u

s

t

r

a

l

i

a

I

n

d

i

a

*

S

p

a

i

n

B

r

a

z

i

l

*

M

e

x

i

c

o

B

e

n

e

l

u

x

C

h

i

n

a

,

H

o

n

g

K

o

n

g

S

A

R

P

o

l

a

n

d

C

z

e

c

h

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

P

o

r

t

u

g

a

l

121

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

Figure B.3.5.2 shows the annual growth rates for se-

lected offces of middle- and low-income countries. For

many of these offces, annual growth rates of registra-

tion class counts followed the same negative direction

as those for application class counts (see B.3.3.2).

However, the differences are larger, often of more than

10 percentage points. For example, the offce of Estonia

saw a decline of 15.1% in application class counts,

whereas registration class counts fell by 25.7%. How-

ever, these declines in registration class counts from

2009 to 2010 are, in many instances, consistent with

the drops in application class counts witnessed by

many of these offces from 2008 to 2009, attesting to

the time lag between the fling of an application and its

ultimate registration or refusal.

Figure B.3.5.1 Registration class counts at offces of selected middle- and low-income countries, 2010

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

52,758

33,773

23,360

21,830

19,907

18,175

17,937

15,506

13,852

11,388

Office

Non-Resident share (%)

52.644.542.839.282.857.837.788.995.982.5

Registration class count

U

k

r

a

i

n

e

V

i

e

t

N

a

m

C

o

l

o

m

b

i

a

T

h

a

i

l

a

n

d

C

r

o

a

t

i

a

P

h

i

l

i

p

p

i

n

e

s

P

e

r

u

S

e

r

b

i

a

B

o

s

n

i

a

a

n

d

H

e

r

z

e

g

o

v

i

n

a

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

o

f

M

o

l

d

o

v

a

(

t

h

e

)

Resident

Non-Resident

9,646

9,565

8,443

8,228

7,106

6,844

5,740

4,814

4,678

3,949

Office

Non-Resident share (%)

53.650.777.362.468.471.872.595.958.460.1

Registration class count

S

l

o

v

e

n

i

a

C

o

s

t

a

R

i

c

a

U

z

b

e

k

i

s

t

a

n

P

a

n

a

m

a

L

i

t

h

u

a

n

i

a

L

a

t

v

i

a

E

s

t

o

n

i

a

T

a

j

i

k

i

s

t

a

n

M

a

d

a

g

a

s

c

a

r

U

r

u

g

u

a

y

Resident

Non-Resident

Figure B.3.5.2 Growth rates of registration class counts at offces of selected middle- and low-income

countries, 2010

Note: Offces were chosen based on data availability.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

-12.0

40.8

-23.9-21.1-15.3

-25.7-22.4-14.0

-21.6

-36.3

4.1

-6.2

-17.9

-40.2-33.3-33.2

-21.0-19.4-12.1

-14.6

Growth rate (%): 2006-10

Office

-1.2

70.2-13.6-4.8-10.4-14.2-4.0-13.5-12.3-16.522.1

-2.8

-4.1-17.616.5-14.8-10.6-4.5

-4.1

4.5

0

Growth rate (%): 2009-10

A

r

m

e

n

i

a

B

a

n

g

l

a

d

e

s

h

B

u

l

g

a

r

i

a

C

r

o

a

t

i

a

C

z

e

c

h

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

E

s

t

o

n

i

a

G

e

o

r

g

i

a

H

u

n

g

a

r

y

L

a

t

v

i

a

L

i

t

h

u

a

n

i

a

M

a

d

a

g

a

s

c

a

r

M

a

l

a

y

s

i

a

R

e

p

u

b

l

i

c

o

f

M

o

l

d

o

v

a

(

t

h

e

)

R

o

m

a

n

i

a

S

e

r

b

i

a

S

l

o

v

a

k

i

a

S

l

o

v

e

n

i

a

T

a

j

i

k

i

s

t

a

n

U

k

r

a

i

n

e

U

z

b

e

k

i

s

t

a

n

122

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

B.4

NICE CLASSES SPECIFIED IN
TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS
BY OFFICE

B.4.1Share of top 10 classes in total specifed in

applications at selected offces

Following the introduction of the Nice Classifcation in

B.1.3, this subsection goes further in showing the

breakdown of classes in which trademark applications

were classifed at selected offces. The ranking of the

top classes varies among offces, but similarities exist

among offces in the same region.

For example, the top two classes in the US and Canada

are the same (Classes 9 and 35), with both offces having

roughly equivalent shares of each. Of the top fve shared

classes in the US and Canada, three of them are serv-

ice-related (classes 25, 35, 41).

When comparing Mexico and Chile, Class 5 ranks high,

indicating the relatively higher demand at these offces

for marks relating to, among other things, pharmaceu-

ticals. In contrast to many offces, China’s top 10

classes include only one service class, whereas those

of many other offces include at least three. Class 25,

which refers to clothing, holds the top position in China

with nearly 11% of all trademark applications falling into

this category. Similarly, class 25 accounts for 9% of all

trademark applications in Thailand.

The offces of France and Germany share the same top

three classes, all of them service-related.

B.4.2Share of class counts grouped by industry

sectors in total specifed in applications at se-

lected offces

As done in subsection B.1.4, it is useful to analyze class

data by grouping the classes into different industry sec-

tors. In particular, the 45 Nice Classifcation classes can

be grouped into 10 categories or groups (see Note

below Figure B.4.2 for full defnitions). The resulting in-

dicators by class groups for selected offces show the

share of flings attributed to non-residents for each

group, and how the intensity of fling within these cate-

gories differs across offces.

The US and Canada exhibit similar relative intensities

across sectors, each having a higher proportion of

trademark flings in the areas of research and technol-

ogy as well as leisure and education, although Canada’s

shares of flings attributed to non-resident applicants are

higher. Mexico and Chile also have commonalities in

their concentrations of trademark activity across the var-

ious sectors. In China, the Republic of Korea and Thai-

land, the agricultural and clothing sectors rank among

the most prominent. In all offces listed, except for Thai-

land, the chemicals feld accounts for very small fling

shares. Finally, the sectoral breakdowns of the French

and German offces show marked similarities.

123

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

Class 35: 13.4%

Class 41: 7.8%

Class 5: 6.1%

Class 25: 5.7%

Class 9: 5.1%

Class 30: 4.9%

Class 43: 4.5%

Class 36: 4.0%

Class 16: 3.8%

Class 3: 3.8%

Others: 40.9%

Class 35: 7.7%

Class 5: 6.8%

Class 41: 6.4%

Class 9: 4.9%

Class 25: 4.8%

Class 16: 4.7%

Class 30: 4.1%

Class 3: 4.0%

Class 42: 3.7%

Class 38: 3.4%

Others: 49.4%

Mexico

Chile

Class 25: 10.7%

Class 9: 6.1%

Class 35: 6.0%

Class 30: 5.9%

Class 11: 4.5%

Class 29: 3.9%

Class 7: 3.5%

Class 5: 3.4%

Class 43: 3.2%

Class 3: 3.1%

Others: 49.8%

Class 35: 7.6%

Class 9: 7.5%

Class 25: 7.5%

Class 3: 6.2%

Class 43: 5.9%

Class 41: 4.8%

Class 30: 4.3%

Class 16: 3.9%

Class 5: 3.7%

Class 18: 3.4%

Others: 45.0%

China

Republic of Korea

Figure B.4.1 Share of top 10 classes in total specifed in applications at selected offces, 2010

Class 35: 10.4%

Class 9: 10.4%

Class 41: 9.1%

Class 25: 7.4%

Class 42: 5.6%

Class 16: 4.1%

Class 5: 3.9%

Class 36: 3.9%

Class 3: 3.1%

Class 30: 2.7%

Others: 39.4%

Class 9: 8.8%

Class 35: 8.5%

Class 41: 5.7%

Class 16: 5.4%

Class 25: 4.9%

Class 42: 4.5%

Class 5: 3.5%

Class 21: 3.1%

Class 3: 3.1%

Class 36: 3.0%

Others: 49.5%

United States of America

Canada

124

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

Class 5: 17.7%

Class 35: 10.6%

Class 9: 4.8%

Class 3: 4.0%

Class 30: 3.8%

Class 25: 3.7%

Class 37: 3.5%

Class 41: 3.3%

Class 43: 3.1%

Class 42: 3.0%

Others: 42.4%

Class 25: 8.8%

Class 1: 8.1%

Class 3: 7.8%

Class 5: 7.5%

Class 9: 6.9%

Class 30: 6.8%

Class 29: 4.1%

Class 35: 3.8%

Class 43: 3.3%

Class 32: 3.0%

Others: 40.1%

Viet Nam

Thailand

Class 35: 11.7%

Class 41: 8.7%

Class 42: 6.9%

Class 9: 6.1%

Class 16: 4.9%

Class 25: 4.5%

Class 38: 3.5%

Class 36: 3.2%

Class 44: 2.9%

Class 5: 2.7%

Others: 45.2%

y

Class 35: 10.7%

Class 41: 10.6%

Class 42: 5.8%

Class 25: 5.4%

Class 9: 5.0%

Class 38: 4.7%

Class 16: 4.7%

Class 36: 3.7%

Class 33: 3.4%

Class 3: 3.3%

Others: 42.6%

Germany

France

Note: Below is a selection of Class defnitions. For further defnitions, see Annex C for a complete list of the Nice Classifcation.

Class 1 - Chemicals used in industry, science and photography, as well as in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; unprocessed artifcial resins, unprocessed plas-
tics; manures; fre extinguishing compositions; tempering and soldering preparations; chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs; tanning substances; adhe-
sives used in industry.

Class 3 - Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils,
cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices.

Class 5 - Pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use, food for babies; plasters, materials for dressings;
material for stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides.

Class 9 - Scientifc, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signaling, checking (supervision), life-saving and
teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; auto-
matic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fre-ex-
tinguishing apparatus.

Class 16 - Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery;
adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and offce requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching
material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks.

Class 25 - Clothing, footwear, headgear.

Class 30 - Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artifcial coffee; four and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices; honey,
treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice.

Class 35 - Advertising; business management; business administration; offce functions.

Class 41 - Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.

Class 42 - Providing of food and drink; temporary accommodation; medical, hygienic and beauty care; veterinary and agricultural services; legal services; scien-
tifc and industrial research; computer programming; services that cannot be placed in other classes.

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

125

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

Figure B.4.2 Share of class counts grouped by industry sectors in total specifed in applications

at selected offces, 2010

0

5

10

15

20

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

0

5

10

15

20

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

United States of America

Canada

0

5

10

15

20

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

0

5

10

15

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

Mexico

Chile

0

5

10

15

20

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

0

5

10

15

20

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

China

Republic of Korea

126

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

0

5

10

15

20

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

Viet Nam

Thailand

0

5

10

15

20

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

0

5

10

15

20

Percentage of total class count

A

g

r

i

c

u

l

t

u

r

e

B

u

s

i

n

e

s

s

C

h

e

m

i

c

a

l

s

C

l

o

t

h

i

n

g

C

o

n

s

t

r

u

c

t

i

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

H

o

u

s

e

h

o

l

d

e

q

u

i

p

m

e

n

t

L

e

i

s

u

r

e

&

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

R

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

&

T

e

c

h

n

o

l

o

g

y

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

Class group

Resident

Non-Resident

Germany

France

Note: Class groups defned by Edital 2011

Agriculture = Agricultural products and services: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43

Business = Management, Communications, Real estate and Financial services: 35, 36

Chemicals: 1, 2, 4

Clothing = Textiles - Clothing and Accessories: 14, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34

Construction = Construction, Infrastructure: 6, 17, 19, 37, 40

Health = Pharmaceuticals, Health, Cosmetics: 3, 5, 10, 44

Household equipment: 8, 11, 20, 21

Leisure & Education = Leisure, Education, Training: 13, 15, 16, 28, 41

Research & Technology = Scientifc research, Information and Communication technology: 9, 38, 42, 45

Transportation = Transportation and Logistics: 7, 12, 39

Note: For a defnition of the classes, see Annex C for a complete list of the Nice Classifcation.

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2011

127

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

48See the Glossary for defnitions of resident applications and

applications abroad.

128

SECTION B

TRADEMARKS

B.5

TRADEMARK APPLICATION AND
REGISTRATION CLASS COUNTS
BY ORIGIN

Trademark application counts based on the applicant’s

origin complement the picture of trademark activity

worldwide. Trademark activity by origin includes resident

applications and applications abroad.48

The origin of

trademark applications is determined based on the res-

idency of the applicant. The numbers of applications

and registrations abroad are likely to be lower than the

actual number, as some offces do not report detailed

statistics pertaining to the origin of the applicant or

trademark holder.

Applications at regional offces are equivalent to multiple

applications in the states that are members of those of-

fces. This subsection reports fgures based on an

equivalent applications or registrations concept. For ex-

ample, to calculate the number of equivalent applica-

tions or registrations for OHIM or BOIP, each application

is multiplied by the corresponding number of member

states. Thus, for these two offces, each application is

counted as one application abroad if the applicant does

not reside in a member state, or as one resident and

one application abroad if the applicant resides in a

member state.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd