WIPO Economics & Statistics Series

2012
World Intellectual Property Indicators

WIPO Economics & Statistics Series

2012
World Intellectual Property Indicators

.

Similarly. Foreword Against the background of a world economy in turmoil. This year’s Report paints a remarkably similar picture: while the global economy continued to underperform. In addition. more patents were filed at the patent office of China than at any other office in the world. Japan and the United States. showing significant growth of 7. we describe how different countries and industries make use of the industrial design system. these trends nevertheless reflect how the geography of innovation has shifted. trademark filings increased by 13. we provide statistical information and analysis on many other important IP trends. in 2010. For the first time in 2011. this performance bodes well for the future of the world economy. IP filing growth persisted in 2011. last year’s World Intellectual Property Indicators reported a strong rebound. Francis GURRY Director General I would like to thank our Member States and national and regional IP offices for sharing their annual statistics with WIPO. China had already become the top recipient of trademark filings (in 2001) and design filings (in 1999). In the 100 years before 2011. After discussing the growing importance of design in innovation. only three patent offices had occupied this position – those of Germany. Patent filings worldwide passed the 2 million mark in 2011. As in the past. Even though caution is required in directly comparing IP filing figures across countries.8 percent over 2010 and exceeding 7 percent growth for the second year in a row. in intellectual property (IP) filings worldwide.3 percent. and look forward to our continued cooperation. as it signals that companies continue to innovate. This year’s special theme focuses on industrial designs – a form of IP that has recently featured prominently in disputes among information technology (IT) companies. 3 . As I pointed out last year. World Intellectual Property Indicators 2012 includes – for the first time – statistics on the use of plant variety protection systems. the very same growth rate as in 2010. World Intellectual Property Indicators 2012 also contains important news.

mail@wipo. Samiah Do Carmo Figueiredo provided administrative support.int/ipstats Contact Information Economics and Statistics Division Website: www. but are requested to cite WIPO as the source. Data and graphs can be downloaded at www. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent and Hao Zhou. Readers are welcome to use the information provided in this report. The report was prepared by a team led by Mosahid Khan comprising Ryan Lamb.wipo.int/ipstats e-mail: ipstats. Colleagues in WIPO’s Innovation and Technology Sector. Gratitude is also due to Heidi Hawkings and Odile Conti from the Communications Division for editing and laying out the report and to the Printing and Publication Production Section for their services. Bruno Le Feuvre. all from the Economics and Statistics Division. Brands and Designs Sector.int 4 . acknowledgements World Intellectual Property Indicators 2012 was prepared under the direction of Francis Gurry (Director General) and supervised by Carsten Fink (Chief Economist). wipo. and staff from the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) offered valuable comments on drafts at various stages of preparation. Emma Vestesson.

3 100.0 12.8 n.0 4.8 -4. Meanwhile.2 0.8 35.5 3.4 n. 8.3 100.1% in 2008 to 24.a. after having surpassed the Japan Patent Office (JPO) in 2010. application class count data show that the trademark office of China has been the largest in the world since the early 2000s.a.0 45.2 3.2 5.4 11.8 22.0 67.8 0.a. China has received the largest volumes of filings since the late 1990s. the number of designs contained in applications.9 6.0 3. 3. Highlights For the first time in 2011.3 3.9 4.8 Marks 26.3 14. Between 2008 and 2011. i. Again. Industrial design data refer to design counts. n. Trademark and industrial design filings followed a similar trend. -2.6 100.0 2. trademarks and industrial designs.saw decreases in their shares of world totals.0 52.8 3. For example.7 11. = not applicable Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 8.7 4.0 100.0 Average annual growth (%) 2008-2011 Patents 22.2 59.6% in 2011. 1. utility models (UMs). -2. China’s patent office overtook the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2011 to become the largest in the world. 4. OHIM saw growth in trademark and industrial design filings.8 n.9 -7. China had the top-ranked offices for each of the four forms of IP – patents. Conversely.0 29.a. Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.0 37. the share of China in world totals considerably increased for each of these forms of IP.1 n. China received the most trademark filings among middle-income countries.e.1 0.9 9.0 100.a.0 22.1 100.6 3.9 1. Offices of highincome and upper middle-income countries received similar shares of total trademark applications (about 45%).3 Designs 18.6 20. the European Patent Office (EPO). i.0 0.9 52.4 1.0 Designs (design count) 43.3 8. the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and the USPTO saw decreases in their shares of world totals.a. offices of upper middle-income countries accounted for around 60% of design filings worldwide – most of them in China. trademarks and industrial designs The intellectual property (IP) offices of China became the largest in the world. However.8 0. trademarks and industrial designs.5 100.7 -4.7 7. High-income countries accounted for the majority of patent filings. 3.2 3.a.6 n.4 -0. both SIPO and the USPTO saw filing growth in patents.0 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 Marks (class count) 12.a.0 53. In contrast.9 100.6 6.6 n.3 -1. Similarly.a.e. other larger offices . October 2012 5 ..2 100.0 Patents 24.1 11. the JPO saw declines in application numbers for these three types of IP. although its share was smaller than those for patents and industrial designs. In terms of trademarks. However. as measured by the number of applications received for patents.0 15.8 -0. the share of China’s State Intellectual IP filings by office and income group Share in world total (%) 2008 Office and Income Group China European Patent Office Japan OHIM Republic of Korea United States of America World High-income Upper middle-income Lower middle-income Low-income World 15.3 n. utility models.7 16.0 n.5 10.2 3.except the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).0 4..4 23.a.8 100.1 6.6 n.8 2.9 2.3 100.2 16.8 6.0 -0.4 4. Trademark data refer to class counts.0 74.9 23.6 3.0 44.5 3.1 2. the number of classes specified in applications. filings at SIPO increased at a faster rate than at the USPTO. 3. Between 2008 and 2011. according to industrial design count data.0 Property Office (SIPO) in total patent filings increased from 15.1 100.1 7.1 8. the JPO.7 -2.1 43.2 -38. in relation to trademarks .

with 126. Filings for computer technology accounted for the largest number of applications filed worldwide. growth in patent filings for complex technologies (e. The PATSTAT database has a time lag. China received 526. smartphones) has been consistently faster than that for discrete technologies (e.5%. the number of applications for complex technologies worldwide increased 2. and continued to grow by 7. hence 2010 is the latest year for which data are available. patent filings worldwide grew by 293.4-fold.9-fold for discrete technologies. China experienced the largest growth (34.354 applications. patent applications rebounded strongly in 2010 with growth of 7. the majority of the top 20 offices saw growth in patent applications. Patent filings for digital communication technologies grew by 8% Filings for digital communication technologies saw the highest average annual growth rates (+8.1%).9%. China. Chinese resident filings grew by 41.78 million non-resident applications.3%) and Madagascar (+41.g. while filings for pharmaceuticals have continuously declined since 2007.4%. International patent filings set a new record in 2011 International filings through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) set a new record in 2011. Between 2010 and 2011.610 for Japan. Jamaica (-27. Despite this growth. China overtook the US to become the largest patent office in the world In 2011.900.897.8% in 2011.582 for the US and 342.. China’s contribution to overall growth has increased in recent years while that of the other top five offices has declined.6%) saw substantial declines in filings. compared to 1. Filing behavior at middle-income offices showed mixed trends. pharmaceuticals). followed by China Hong Kong. with 182.3%) and South Africa (13. The 11% growth in 2011 was the fastest since 2005. Continuing shift in the geography of patent filings Between 2009 and 2011. the total number of patent applications filed worldwide exceeded the 2 million mark. Following a drop of 3.1%) between 2006 and 2010. In contrast.412 applications compared to 503. The 2. SAR (15.6%) and Jordan (-15. The growth in patent filings in China was mostly due to substantial growth in resident filings.9%) saw double-digit growth in 2011. mainly due to decreases in non-resident filings.1 Since 1995. 1 Technology data are a combination of those taken from the WIPO Statistics Database and the PATSTAT database of the EPO (using the April 2012 edition of the PATSTAT database). The patent offices of Algeria (+11.7%.6%).Highlights Patents & utility models More than two million patent applications filed worldwide in 2011 For the first time in 2011.5%). and 2. the majority of offices received fewer applications in 2011 than at the pre-crisis peak in 2008. The majority of the top 20 offices saw growth in filings in 2011 Between 2010 and 2011. filings at the patent offices of Guatemala (-13.14 million applications filed consisted of 1. while the Republic of Korea and the US saw resident filings grow by 4.36 million resident and 0.6% in 2009. Japan and the US accounted for 82% of this growth. mainly due to growth in non-resident filings..g. Between 1995 and 2010. In 2011. SIPO was the main contributor to growth in applications worldwide – accounting for 72% of total growth. 6 . respectively.

000 to non-residents. 7 .1 million). followed by the USPTO (224. Residents of the Philippines. Continued decrease in pending applications The total number of potentially pending applications worldwide – defined as all unprocessed applications at any stage in the applications process – declined by 4. The USPTO (with 1. the patent offices of India and the Russian Federation had fewer patents in force in 2011 than in 2010. The number of potentially pending applications worldwide stood at 4.800 issued to residents and 390. followed by the JPO (1.8 million in 2011. Around 7.323) granted the largest number of patents.7% in 2011. corresponding to a 35% increase on 2010. The JPO (with 238. KIPO and SIPO saw the fastest growth – with 37. respectively. For example.3% decrease in 2010. China and Thailand also showed high ratios of UM of patent applications. Patents granted worldwide approached 1 million in 2011 In 2011. following growth of 12.9% in 2011.2 million) had the largest number of potentially pending applications. solar and wind . The total number of applications in these categories amounted to 34. This growth was driven by the high numbers of applications received by SIPO. with 606.88 million patents in force worldwide in 2011 The total number of patents in force grew by 6. the estimated number of patents granted approached the 1 million mark. Residents of Japan filed the largest number of applications relating to solar energy and fuel cell technologies.1 million. China Hong Kong (SAR). In contrast. of which a large proportion were destined for SIPO. This estimate is based on data from 81 offices. Chiefly.6% and 27. Among the top five offices. Middle-income countries opt for utility models more frequently than patents Residents of middle-income countries tend to use the UM system more intensively than the patent system. in most of the top offices – also fell substantially in 2011.increased by 8% in 2010 compared to 2009. the JPO had 38.5 million).505). Ukrainian residents filed about four times more UM applications than patent applications in 2011. following a 3. geothermal.700 UM applications were filed across the world.88 million. The USPTO had the largest number of patents in force – in excess of 2. but it has seen considerable growth over the past few years. The number of applications undergoing examination worldwide – and indeed. Residents of Japan and the US filed the largest numbers of UM applications abroad. an estimated 670. A decline in potentially pending applications at the JPO was the main contributor to this trend. while residents of Germany and the US had the largest numbers of applications relating to geothermal and wind energy. The majority of the top 20 offices granted more patents in 2011 than in 2010. The JPO also had a substantial number of patents in force (more than 1. Substantial growth in utility model filings In 2011. Grants worldwide grew by 9.Highlights Continuous growth in applications for energy-related technologies The total number of patent applications for four energyrelated technologies – fuel cells.9% in 2011 to an estimated 7.4% respectively.9% fewer pending applications undergoing examination in 2011 than in 2010. The number of patents in force at SIPO was less than half that of the JPO or the USPTO. This estimate is based on 76 offices.873 in 2010.3% in 2010.

the US (1.5% in 2011.2 million application class counts. Shift in the geography of trademark filings towards Asia Between 2007 and 2011.2 million applications. Brazil (21.711. with a total of 40. Canada. Growth at eight of the top 20 offices was mostly due to growth in non-resident applications.5 percentage points on 2004.6% in 2011. This is up by 3. Asia surpassed Europe as the largest receiver of filings in 2009. Applications (class counts) grew by 9. In 2011. German applicants filed more than 2. 64% of all non-resident applications received by Madrid system member offices in 2011 arrived in the form of a Madrid designation.2 million. In contrast.4 million).0 million) were the only three other origins to have filed more than a million applications each.8 percentage points higher than in 2008. SAR (16. These offices accounted for 55% of filings worldwide in 2011.and low-income origin were domestic filings.4%) and China Hong Kong. the 11 service-related classes accounted for one-third of all classes specified in applications filed in 2011. 7. India surpassed Japan and the Republic of Korea in 2011. demonstrating the continued importance applicants place on protecting their brands in service-oriented industries. the United Kingdom (16. This share is higher when confining the data to Madrid members only. the number of trademark applications filed worldwide doubled from around 2 million to 4. almost returning to the pre-crisis peak reached in 2008.1 million applications worldwide German applicants filed more than 2.and low-income countries.6%). China Hong Kong (SAR) and Switzerland. and in 2011 received 44% of applications worldwide. Middle. which is a percentage point higher than in 2007. with China (31.1 million equivalent applications worldwide in 2011 – based on class counts and regional filings. most notably at the IP offices of Australia. Rapid growth in filings in China has been the main contributor to growth worldwide in recent years.Highlights Trademarks Record number of trademark applications filed in 2011 Between 1995 and 2011.3 million) and France (1. China accounted for 61.2%). following the 9% growth recorded in 2010. 6. In 2011. 4.2 million classes were specified in these 4.1%) recording the fastest growth. applications received in the form of Madrid designations have accounted for around half off all nonresident applications filed globally. Asia saw its share of trademark applications increase by nearly nine percentage points. Most filings of middle. France and the US were filed abroad – partly reflecting the broad country coverage of the Community Trade Mark. One-third of all applications were for “service” marks Together. Latin America and the Caribbean accounted for nearly 10% of filings worldwide. Most of the top 20 offices saw growth in filings in 2011 The majority of the top 20 offices saw growth in filings in 2011 (based on class count data). Of the 6. In particular. Nearly half of all trademark applications received by offices arrived via the Madrid system Since 2004. The IP office of India has also seen considerable growth over the past few years. the majority of the applications originating in Germany. Madrid registrations increased by 8.7 million to non-resident applications. In fact.5 million were attributed to resident and 1. while the share of Europe fell by an almost equal amount.8% of total growth. The bulk of Chinese filings were filed domestically. Residents of China (1.and low-income countries account for majority of trademark filings globally More than half of all trademark filing activity occurred at the offices of middle. 8 . International registrations returned to pre-crisis high International registrations – via the Madrid system – saw a continuation of the growth witnessed in 2010.

The 775.7%).5 million classes were specified.5 million industrial designs were in force at 77 offices. during which registrations more than doubled. The JPO and the USPTO each had more than 1. Turkey (17.5 million – or 24% of these trademarks – were in force at SIPO.Highlights Trademark registrations worldwide decreased by 7. there were an estimated 3 million trademarks registered across the world.1% In 2011.1% decrease on 2010.8%) recording the fastest growth. Turkey. OHIM saw the fastest growth (24. while Italy experienced a 6. Mexico (17. with a combined total of around 1. China (521. which saw 20% growth on 2010.5 million designs in force worldwide in 2011 In 2011.7%).9% growth in 2010. the list of top 20 offices includes 9 offices located in middle-income countries. Applications filed by residents of China have grown rapidly over the past few years. SIPO had the largest number of designs in force in 2011 (37% of the total). which is larger than the number of filings at the JPO or the USPTO. the IP offices of China (23. Of the top 20 offices. More than 5. following 13. India (16. The share of SIPO is of similar magnitude to the combined share of the JPO. SIPO accounted for 90% of total growth from 2009 to 2011. For the top 20 IP offices. KIPO.5%) each saw substantial growth in filings.200 resident and 84.218 filings.1 million (based on equivalent design count data).8% decrease. largely reflecting a substantial decrease in registrations issued by the IP office of China (-23. design filings increased by 16%. around 23 million trademarks were in force at 70 IP offices worldwide. received 41. Most of the top 20 origins saw growth in filings in 2011. with China surpassing Germany to become the top origin in 2011.6%) and Ukraine (17. In 2011. OHIM and the USPTO – the four largest offices after SIPO. while registrations in Italy fell by around 40%. the IP office of China issued more than 1 million trademarks in 2011. Between 2010 and 2011. more than 2.500 non-resident applications. More than 2.2%). Industrial designs Record number of design applications filed in 2011 Industrial design applications worldwide grew strongly over the last two years. the IP office of India saw the fastest growth in registrations in 2011. Despite this. This represents a 7. with Bulgaria (+42.700 industrial design applications filed worldwide in 2011 consisted of 691. income country. The IP offices of Malaysia and Mexico saw the fastest growth in the number of designs in force. including all larger offices except Brazil. Substantial increases in applications at offices of middle-income countries Unlike patents. France and Italy.7 million trademarks in force.2%). Residents of China and Germany filed the largest numbers of applications across the world Residents of China and Germany filed similar numbers of design applications in 2011. another middle9 . More than 20 million trademarks in force across the world In 2011. This considerable growth was mostly due to strong growth in China.468) – a middle-income country – received the largest number of design applications in 2011.8%). for which 4.

GDP and population data were obtained from the World Development Indicators Database maintained by the World Bank. The groups are: low-income ($1. primarily based on WIPO’s Annual IP Survey (see below) and data compiled by WIPO in the processing of international applications/registrations through the PCT. Utility models Trademarks Industrial designs Plant varieties 10 . Economies are divided according to 2011 gross national income per capita. these data. 3 All questionnaires are available in English. resident and non-resident applications.wipo.476 or more). This publication uses the World Bank income classification. The annual IP questionnaires can be downloaded at: www. R&D expenditure data are those from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2 For further details on UN classification. calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. where possible. upper middle-income ($4. utility models. industrial designs and plant varieties are WIPO estimates. 2 WIPO's annual IP statistical survey WIPO collects data from national and regional IP offices around the world through annual questionnaires and enters these in the WIPO Statistics Database. The table below shows data availability by IP type and data coverage.worldbank. data description Data sources The IP data published in this report are taken from the WIPO Statistics Database. see http:// unstats. The geographical terms used by WIPO may differ slightly than those defined by the UN. Estimation procedure for world totals World totals for applications and grants/registrations for patents.1 The report uses the UN definition of regions and subregions. the composition of regions and subregions is identical. design counts.htm.un. and high-income ($12.wipo.475). Only small shares of world totals are estimated.3 The data are broken down by office. applications abroad. Refer to the Glossary for the definitions of key concepts contained in this publication. are used to supplement the survey responses.org/about/country-classifications. Patent family and technology data are a combination of those taken from the WIPO Statistics Database and the PATSTAT database of the European Patent Office (using the April 2012 edition of the PATSTAT database). In cases where offices do not provide data but data are published on their websites or in annual reports. see http://data. French and Spanish.025 or less).org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin. Application data availability (based on 2011 statistics collection) IP type Patents Estimated world totals based on: 125 offices 74 offices 151 offices 133 offices 66 offices Data available for: 91 offices 49 offices 121 offices 108 offices 59 offices Data coverage 98% 99% 95% 99% 98% 1 For further details on World Bank classification. trademarks. Data are available for downloading from WIPO’s Statistics Data Center at: www. Missing data are estimated using methods such as linear extrapolation and averaging adjacent data points. A continuing effort is made to improve the quality and availability of IP statistics and to obtain data for as many offices and countries as possible. However.int/ipstats/ en/data_collection/questionnaire/. origin.035). Data are not available for all offices for every year.026-$4.int/ipstats/. lower middle-income ($1. etc. Madrid and Hague systems. The estimation method used depends on the year and the office in question. class counts. Data are available for the majority of the larger offices.036-$12.

utility model applications and grants. As mentioned above. Please note that due to the continual updating of data and the revision of historical statistics. This publication employs the following terms: patent applications and grants.data description Where an office provides data that are not broken down by origin. as well as statistical reporting practices. International comparability of indicators Every effort has been made to compile IP statistics based on the same definitions and to facilitate international comparability. In the case of patents and utility models. data provided in this publication may differ from previously published figures and from the data available on WIPO’s web pages. trademark applications and application class counts. may differ across jurisdictions. data include filings at national and regional offices and designations received by relevant offices via the Madrid system. it must be kept in mind that national laws and regulations for filing IP applications or for issuing IP rights. However. For trademarks. WIPO estimates the resident and non-resident counts using the historical shares at that office. the data are collected from offices using WIPO’s harmonized annual IP questionnaires. Data for industrial designs include national and regional applications combined with designations received by relevant offices via the Hague system. and registrations and registration design counts. data include direct filings at national patent offices and PCT national phase entries. and plant variety applications and grants. 11 . National and international data Application and grant/registration data include both direct filings and filings via the international systems (where applicable). and registrations and registration class counts. industrial design applications and application design counts.

2 Grants worldwide 41 A. table of contents special section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property .1 43 43 45 A.2 Grants by office 47 52 A.1 Applications by office A. Utility Models and Microorganisms Patent applications and grants worldwide A.1 Applications worldwide A.2 Applications abroad by origin A.4.3.2.3 PCT national phase entries 62 64 65 A.3.4.3 Patent applications and grants by origin A.5.2 PCT applications by type of applicant A.1 Applications and grants by origin A.2.6 International collaboration 68 12 .4 59 Patent Families A.1.2 47 Patent applications and grants by office A.definitional and measurement issues  19 38 Overview of IP Activities section A Patents.5.5 62 Patent applications filed through the patent cooperation treaty A.1 PCT applications A.2 Patent families by office and origin 59 60 A.1.5.3.3 Applications by office and origin 54 55 56 57 A.1 Patent families A.

13.13 90 Utility models A.7 Patents by field of technology A.9 79 Patents in force A.1 Applications by field of technology A.14 Microorganisms 95 13 .1 Utility model applications A.13.10 Opposition and invalidation of patents granted 80 A.8 Patents per gdp and r&d expenditure 76 A.2 Utility model grants 90 93 A. table of contents A.11 82 Pending patent applications A.7.2 Applications in selected energy-related technologies 70 70 74 A.7.12 Patent prosecution highway 86 A.

2 Goods and services classes by origin 118 118 120 B.6.3.4 Trademark application class counts by origin B.2 Registrations by office 106 106 109 B.6.2 Goods and services classes by office 112 112 114 B.5 Madrid applicants B.2 Registrations worldwide B.2 Trademark application and registration class counts by office B.5.1 Madrid registrations and renewals B.6.1 Applications worldwide B.3 Nice classes specified in trademark applications by office B.2.1 Trademark applications and registrations worldwide B.1 Industry sectors by origin B.6.6 International trademark registrations and renewals through the Madrid System B.6 Non-resident applications by filing route 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 B.3.3 Applications by geographical region.4 Registrations and renewals by origin B. income group and Nice class 98 101 103 98 B.8 Trademarks in force 14 .6.1.5.5 Nice classes specified in trademark applications by origin B.2.4.7 Trademark application class count per GDP and population 127 129 B.1.table of contents section b Trademarks 97 B.1 Applications by origin 115 115 B.1 Applications by office B.2 Number of classes and designations per Madrid registration B.3 Registrations and renewals by designated Madrid member B.1.1 Industry sectors by office B.6.

3.2 Industrial design applications by office and origin 141 141 143 C.3 Industrial design applications and registrations by origin C.4.4. table of contents section c Industrial Designs C.3 Non-resident industrial design applications by filing route for selected Hague members 144 144 146 146 C.1 Applications by office C.2 Registrations worldwide 132 135 131 132 C.1.1 Industrial design applications and registrations worldwide C.2.1 Equivalent applications and registrations by origin C.3.2 Industrial design applications and registrations by office C.4.1.2.1 International registrations of industrial designs C.2 Registrations by office 136 136 140 C.4 Industrial design registrations through the hague system C.2 Top Hague applicants C.5 Industrial design registrations in force 147 15 .1 Applications worldwide C.

1 Applications for the top 20 offices D.3.2 Plant variety applications and grants by office D.2 Equivalent applications and grants by origin D.1 Applications worldwide D.1.4 Plant variety grants in force 157 16 .2 Grants for the top 20 offices 151 151 152 D.3 Non-resident applications by office and origin 152 153 154 156 D.3.1.table of contents section D plant variety protection D.3 Plant variety applications and grants by origin D.2.2.3.1 Plant variety applications and grants D.1 Applications and grants by origin D.2 Grants worldwide 149 150 149 149 D.

2011 Table PV1 Plant variety applications and grants by office and origin. and industrial designs in force. glossary and list of abbreviations Annex A Definitions for selected energy-related technology fields 159 159 160 Annex B International classification of goods and services under the nice agreement Class groups defined by Edital® Glossary 163 List of abbreviations 171 172 172 176 179 183 187 190 193 statistical tables Table P1 Table P2 Table T1 Table T2 Patent applications by patent office and origin. and patents in force. table of contents annex. and trademarks in force. 2011 Table ID2 Industrial design registrations by office and origin. 2011 Trademark registrations by office and origin. 2011 Trademark applications by office and origin. 2011 Patent grants by patent office and origin. 2011 17 . 2011 Table ID1 Industrial design applications by office and origin.

.

An increasing. for instance. Thompson et al. HM Treasury (2005). 3 Ibid. It first explores key conceptual and measurement questions. as it determines the ease of use and influences consumer experience of a product. albeit still limited. policymakers have shown greater interest in “industrial designs” as a form of IP. Hargreaves (2011) and WIPO (2011). Design enables firms to differentiate their products and foster a particular brand image. Design Council (2005). The Barcelona Design Centre is considering a new project on “Measuring Design: Developing Strategies for Improving the Evidence Base”. 2 See the following studies. Frequently. Pesole et al. BIS (2010). Firms are therefore sensitive to the copying of their designs. Design Council (2010). As a result of this emerging evidence and the above-mentioned court cases. and then provides a global statistical overview of the formal use of industrial design protection.definitional and measurement issues Introduction Intellectual Property (IP)-related disputes among companies in the high-technology industry have drawn significant attention to design in 2012. or 30 percent of all intangible investments. estimates for the UK put spending on new engineering and architectural design at GBP 44 billion. mostly from the United Kingdom (UK). in particular with the support of the UK Design Council or the UK Intellectual Property Office: DTI (2005). quantifying the importance of design: conceptual and measurement challenges Historically.4 In innovation studies. Box 1. (2012) and OECD (2012a). This special section discusses the importance of design in innovation and as a form of IP. notwithstanding the global economic downturn. Courts worldwide are making decisive judgments on which designs can be protected and what constitutes infringement of a design right. see BCD (2012).special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property special section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property . Industrial design filings worldwide have seen continued growth over the last decade.2 1 WIPO (2012a) 19 . evidence on the role of design as a source of innovation and economic growth is slowly emerging. 4 Awano et al.6. European Commission (2009). software.1 Yet some of the highest profile conflicts relating to smartphones and tablet computers have centered on product designs. often at doubledigit rates. Yet today. training and other knowledge-based investments. (2011). This represents one and a half times firms’ expenditure on training and five times their spending on R&D. innovation studies and efforts to analyze the impact of IP have focused on other forms of IP – especially patents. design is sometimes treated on the same footing as a firm’s expenditure on research and development (R&D). The look and feel of devices – their design – helps drive consumer choice. ultimately establishing a competitive edge in the marketplace. According to Gil and Haskell (2008). as it may lead consumers to purchase other products and result in a loss of market share.3 The fact that firms’ design efforts are a growing and sizeable investment in their intangible assets is well established in high-income countries. number of analytical studies and policy discussions assert the importance of design in the innovation process. these disputes focus on the infringement of patents and the underlying technological inventions. (2010). Design plays an increasingly important role in the world economy.

[. protecting a product design is relatively inexpensive and easier to obtain than a patent. In the case of high-technology products. it also matters to services and processes within firms.. to be registrable the design must be “new” or “original”. the term designer refers to an individual who practices an intellectual profession.icsid. governments and other entities – in fields as diverse as the check-in at hotels.What is an Industrial Design?” www. It is also significantly broader than the legal definition of an “industrial design” (see Box 1 for both definitions). online ordering in supermarkets.”5 A paper for the UK Design Council defines design as “the bridge between the consumer questing for the experiential and the company trying to meet that appetite with an offer that presents the new in a user-friendly and innovative way. Therefore. design is not only relevant for goods. 5 International Council of Societies of Industrial Design definition at: www. it increasingly also relates to the design of graphical user interfaces. for the design profession the concept of design is much broader.special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Analyzing the economic role of design involves non-trivial conceptual and measurement challenges. an industrial design must be registered in order to be protected under industrial design law. interiors and architecture all take part. Furthermore.htm 6 Design Council (2010) 7 “Industrial Designs . as well as considerations such as ease of manufacture sustainability reliability and quality. such as patterns. The design may consist of three-dimensional features.wipo.8 Design involves not only aesthetic elements but also functional ones. or of twodimensional features.9 Design is not preoccupied solely with the physical as- Box 1: Contrasting definitions of design Designers’ definition According to the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID). design is the central factor of innovative humanization of technologies and the crucial factor of cultural and economic exchange. The design community’s definition covers an ever-growing array of economic and social aspects. graphics. processes. with the possibility of further periods of renewal for up to. such as the form of icons on tablet computer screens and other intangible attributes of high-technology products.] Therefore. for instance. Once a design is registered.”6 Industrial Design rights: a legal perspective According to WIPO. design of electoral systems and polling processes. and business processes themselves. “Design is a creative activity whose aim is to establish the multi-faceted qualities of objects. 15 years. and not simply a trade or a service for enterprises. First. services. no official statistical definition exists for the term “design”. such as the shape or surface of an article. services and their systems in whole life cycles. which raises important questions on how best to measure design activity.” ”Thus.org/about/about/articles31.. lines or color. design is an activity involving a wide spectrum of professions in which products. In most countries.”7 In most countries. “an industrial design is the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article.int/designs/en/ 8 European Commission (2009) 9 DTI (2005) 20 . the term of protection is generally five years. The professional design community’s definition of design has not been fully integrated into contemporary innovation metrics and concepts. in most cases. pects of goods. As a general rule. Although often associated with the ‘look” and physical design of goods.

The design community has also started complementary work in this field. physical ergonomics. In this context. within the relevant international statistical bodies. and its impact on firm performance and innovation more broadly. what its main inputs and outputs are. 2011. Gertler and Vinodrai (2004) and the other studies mentioned in footnote 2. there is an important difference between the broad design concept and what is protected by an “industrial design” from a strictly legal point of view.14 Turning to design as a form of IP. Specifically. industrial designs are only afforded legal protection for the aesthetic aspect of a product (see Box 1 for the legal definition). International measurement efforts in the area of R&D and innovation already perceive design as an integral part of R&D and the development and implementation of product innovations.iisd. aiming to identify the industry and profession in official industry and employment classifications. this broad understanding of design has not yet been fully integrated into internationally agreed innovation metrics and concepts. The Oslo Manual describes design as part of the development and implementation of product innovation. 13 The Frascati Manual describes the scope of design as a specific activity within R&D. The role of an industrial designer is to create and execute design solutions for problems of form. The initiative is part of the first Action Plan of the European Design Innovation Initiative to exploit the potential of design for innovation and to reinforce the links between design. WIPO. but also to improving industrial processes and systems. usability. and sales.org/wiki/Industrial_design Following these broad definitions. at the national level and in the design community.org/guest-articles/the-contributionof-design-to-sustainable-development/ 11 http://en. The BCD analyzes and defines the conceptual framework of design in the economic context. 14 The competent body for revising the international definitions as they relate to innovation and R&D is the OECD National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators. overall quality of life and environmental protection.wikipedia. but it may also be used to improve the product’s marketability and production.13 Work is ongoing in this field. “The Contribution of Design to Sustainable Development”.” 11 However. however. brand development. “industrial design is the use of a combination of applied art and applied science to improve the aesthetics. Contrary to the broader design concept. 10 See. July 6. on the occasion of World IP Day. See. Director General. See also OECD (2012a). various national studies have sought to better define what constitutes the “design industry” and the “design profession”. on the role of design for sustainability. processes and other forms of innovation. ergonomics. The latter would need to clearly set out how design relates to products. Francis Gurry.12 Yet. 21 . The definition on Wikipedia 10 This does not imply that the economic value of designs has not been recognized.special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Accordingly. the definitions used in the two key international measurement manuals – the Frascati Manual and the Oslo Manual – are not aligned. See Thompson and Montgomery (2012). 12 See the Frascati Manual – the standard reference tool for R&D statistics – and the Oslo Manual – the standard reference tool for developing innovation surveys. an industrial design does not protect any technical or functional features of the product to which it is applied. and the international guidelines currently do not propose a unified measurement framework for design. innovation and competitiveness. in order to measure it as a tool for user-centered innovation and as an economic factor of production. functionality and usability of a product. marketing. uncsd. specifies that. limited to aesthetic/form elements and as part of marketing innovation. the task of the designer relates to aesthetics and functional product features. BCD (2012) and the work of the UK Design Council. design is limited to the creation of plans or drawings aimed at defining mainly “functional” issues. for example.

Source: Adapted from Gill and Haskel (2008) Due to the complex interrelationship between different knowledge investments and forms of IP. 15 WIPO (2011) 16 Ibid. Also. Differences across countries in the propensity to file for industrial design rights often seem to reflect institutional. it is difficult to accurately capture the level of design activity. there are no data on the share of designs covered by industrial design rights. this section reviews the statistics on global industrial design filings. If designs distinctively identify products or companies. Figure 1 illustrates how different forms of IP can represent a subset of the professional community’s broad design definition. and (ii) the different forms of IP that can be used to protect designs according to the broader design concept. legal and cultural differences. It also illustrates that one and the same design can be protected by different IP forms at the same time. Finally.15 For instance. but also illustrates that certain types of knowledge investment may lead to industrial design protection. copyright law may protect certain designs as works of art. It complements Section C of this report. Other forms of IP play an equally important role. Technical or functional design features may be eligible for patent. Table 1 similarly shows that a design can be protected by various IP rights. design rights could protect the ornamental aspects while patents protect the functional aspects of a design.special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Hence. Furthermore. 22 . the extent to which the existence of narrower industrial design rights spurs invest- Modern design concept Industrial design protection Trademark Copyright Other IP Patents ment in better design in the broad sense and enables firms to protect market share have not been studied. For instance. they may also qualify for trademark protection. utility model or trade secret protection. industrial design rights only cover a subset of the designs falling within the modern design concept. Source: WIPO To help improve our understanding of design activity. the interaction between design activity and the formal protection of designs by different forms of IP is hard to quantify.16 Putting figures on the uptake of industrial design protection Note: The graph illustrates that the modern design concept is broader than the collection of different IP rights. Figure 1: The broad design concept and different forms of intellectual property rights Table 1: Knowledge investment and different forms of intellectual property rights Investment type R&D Software development Design Creative outputs Market research & advertising Patent X X X X X X X Copyright Industrial design X X X X X X Trademark Note: The shading indicates: (i) the types of knowledge investment that can be protected by industrial design rights.

the increased share of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) was particularly pronounced. if one excludes China. accounting for 68% of design filings worldwide in 2011. The difference between application and design count data shares can be explained by the fact that China – the office receiving the largest number of applications – allows only one design per application while IP offices in a large number of high-income countries permit applications to contain more than one design.5% in 2004 to 24. 17 The single existing effort to compile a representative index on countries’ different design capacities shows that industrial designs. Upper middle-income countries accounted for the majority of industrial design filings.9%). at many offices. The data presented below refer to industrial design application data.6% of total design count filings reported – a lower share than for application count data (72%). See Moultrie and Livesey (2009). For comparison. Compared to other forms of IP. However. Table 2 presents the shares of global industrial design applications by income group.18 Time series analysis is based on application counts as there are insufficient historical design count data (see Box 2). statistics on industrial design filings do not capture the broad understanding of design. these data are the only pertinent and internationally comparable source of information when it comes to identifying how active firms.and low-income groups. WIPO collects aggregate industrial design data through its annual IP questionnaires. excluding registration data. 18 Application data are most often used to measure the level of IP activity. individuals or others are in seeking formal IP protection for designs. mostly from middle. However. The rapid growth of Chinese filings also explains the marked decrease in the overall share of high-income countries – from 52. followed by highincome countries and a small share of lower middle.700 in 2011.and low-income countries. The pattern for the income groups described above holds true where the analysis is based on available design count data. Yet.700 in 2004 to 775. 23 . which is higher than for application count data (24. the equivalent patent and trademark shares are also shown. design count data are not available for a number of offices. A few key challenges relating to data availability and comparability complicate the interpretation of statistics on industrial design filings worldwide (see Box 2). registration of an industrial design involves only a formality examination. since. Application trend worldwide by income group The total number of industrial design applications filed worldwide increased from around 344. Statistics for industrial design registrations tend to mirror those for applications. and their combined share declined between 2004 and 2011. 17 Designs are the only form of IP for which offices of highincome countries do not account for the largest share of IP filings. The 2011 design count data (Table 2. last column) show that upper middle-income countries accounted for 59. High-income countries accounted for around 37% of the 2011 reported total. though important. The lower middle-income and low-income groups accounted for less than 4% of all applications. are only one among many variables.special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property As discussed above. the upper middle-income countries accounted for only around 4% of design filings.5% in 2011. hence their true shares are bound to be higher.

At present.g. making comparison across countries tricky. Presently. design counts) rather than the number of applications. the IP office of Germany). the volume of design filings through the WIPO-administered Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs is growing strongly but remains limited.000 10. key IP. Hague system data will then become more meaningful for statistical analysis. OECD (2012b). the Republic of Korea. The latter are impacted by country-specific institutional differences. (iv) Lack of an industrial design unit record database with global coverage: WIPO’s statistical database contains aggregate data collected from national and regional IP offices via annual questionnaires and individual application data (unit record data) for international registrations through the Hague system. Thus. industrial design indicators should report the number of designs contained in applications (i. the Madrid system have attained wide coverage. design count data were available for 55 offices. To enable better cross-country comparability. design counts for a significant number of countries are only available from 2008 onwards. international IP data from the PCT and Madrid systems are comparable across member countries without caveat. In contrast. the United States of America (US) and others are currently considering joining the Hague system.versus multi-class systems for trademarks. Japan. Membership and use of the PCT and. and researchers must rely mainly on national/regional IP filing data. The downward trend in filings at national offices in Europe therefore reflects institutional changes rather than a decrease in the demand for design rights. Consequently.e. a number of European IP offices have experienced decreases in applications received (see Figure 2). In 2011. This clearly indicates changes in applicant behavior. 24 . a database with global coverage containing individual applications filed at national IP offices is lacking.20 In the case of designs. Since the introduction of the RCD. the IP office of China). some offices permit only one design per application (e. Countries such as China. while other offices allow applications to contain more than one design for the same product or same class (e. however. However... 19 See WIPO (2012b) and Section C of this report. rendering long-term historical comparison difficult. This is due to the fact that the Hague system has fewer members than the PCT and Madrid systems. for instance.special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Box 2 – Challenges in interpreting global industrial design statistics The four following key data challenges complicate the interpretation of industrial design statistics: Figure 2: Industrial design applications for selected offices OHIM 25. October 2012 (i) Institutional differences: To protect industrial designs. (ii) Regional office data: In 2003. 20 It is often argued that IP data based on WIPO registration systems are more reliable than national IP data. such as single. researchers can rely on data from international IP systems such as the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT system) and the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks (Madrid system). (iii) Absence of fully representative data on international registrations: In patent and trademark studies. The coming years are likely to see significant expansion of the Hague system’s membership – a welcome statistical development. For 2011. increasingly. The data available from these WIPO systems are representative and meaningful for statistical and economic analysis. This factor should be taken into consideration when compiling data for residents of EU countries. See. the Hague system comprised 60 members.000 20.19 WIPO has made substantial progress in recent years in improving design count data coverage. mostly from Europe.or innovation-related publications rely heavily on data on patents filed under the PCT system in analyzing patenting behavior across countries.. the international IP registration system is only now reaching the level of the PCT and Madrid systems.000 France United Kingdom Spain Italy Applications 15.000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Application year Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database. the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) of the European Union (EU) began issuing the Registered Community Design (RCD).g. the underlying statistics are not sufficiently representative to be used for detailed analysis.000 5. with applicants preferring to use the OHIM system to seek protection for their designs across all EU countries rather than filing separate applications with all or even some national offices. This procedure enables applicants to file a single application for protection across all EU member states.

Despite this. however.9 8. The upper middle-income group had the lowest non-resident share (4.9 0. for all income groups the non-resident share of industrial design applications was smaller than the non-resident share of patent applications.6 33. excluding China yields a share of around 41%.6 3.6 53.2 13.5 78.1 2.0 68.7%).2 1. non-residents accounted for a minority of industrial design applications.special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Table 2: Shares of global IP applications by income group Patents (applications) Trademarks (class count) Designs (applications) Designs (design count) In all income groups.7 14. for low. the non-resident share of total applications was 24.3 2.1 2011 45. Income group 2004 High-income Upper middle-income … China Lower middle-income Low-income 2011 67.2 26.2 0. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.8 20 4.4 33.5 34.1 59. The design count share of middle.2 0. In addition.2 3.6 0.8 80 80 Non-Resident share (%) 60 Non-Resident share (%) 60 40 24.6 2011 24.and low-income countries shows a downward bias due to a lack of data for a number of offices.0 40 38.7 20 0 High-income Upper middle-income Lower middle-income Low-income 0 High-income Upper middle-income Lower middle-income Low-income Note: Office coverage of industrial design and patent data is not identical across income groups.1 Note: Design count data for 2004 are not available. October 2012 Figure 3: Comparison of non-resident shares in total applications for industrial designs and patents (%). non-resident share by income group masks the differences across offices (see Table 3). In particular.8 9.6%. 2011 Industrial designs (application count) Patents 100 100 89. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. For the high-income group.0 2004 52.8 24.9 1.9 72.3 0.5 42. whereas they accounted for a majority of patent applications (Figure 3).1 43.2 82. The distribution of resident versus non-resident applications for industrial designs differed markedly from that of patents.0 29. the resulting bias is likely to be limited as all the major offices are included.9 22. October 2012 25 . Moreover.4 9. resident applicants accounted for the majority of industrial design applications filed in 2011.3 25.3 2011 37.and lower middle-income countries.0 2004 55.4 4.

4% and 9. 26 . Bangladesh and Thailand increased by 23.225 designs contained in applications. with non-resident applicants accounting for the largest share of applications at many middle. However. resident applicants accounted for the largest shares of total applications. Turkey’s design count was 41. Non-resident applicants accounted for only 2. 9.8%. Of all the reported offices. This represents a 5. The share of non-resident applications varied widely. For example. respectively. The possibility to seek protection throughout the EU via a single application at OHIM meant its non-resident share was above that of most high-volume European offices. such as Brazil. for the majority of the reported offices. however. the number of applications filed in a single year increased to around 775. 11. with 23. with 87. As can be seen.6%. Germany. a number of middle. representing 16% growth on 2010.800 applications were filed. Of the top 10 offices. Figure 4 shows industrial design application counts for selected offices from 1965 to 2011.3% per year.3%.7% of the total. By contrast. Applications received by SIPO and the IP offices of Turkey.1. In 2000. SIPO.and low-income offices received a large number of designs contained in applications. Apart from SIPO. SIPO. roughly 290.special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Rapid increase in filings in recent years Applications by office Industrial design filings have increased each year from 2000 to 2011 (see Section C.5% growth between 2003 and 2011.4% increase over 2010.700. which is considerably higher than that of Japan or the US. The table shows that the use of the design system varies widely within and across income groups. By 2011. with 521.468 designs.1.and low-income offices. had a relatively high share of non-resident designs contained in applications.2%. Morocco and Turkey. France. China. Table 3 presents data on the number of designs contained in applications for all national and regional offices for which data are available. India. Except for Japan. along with the offices of Cyprus. received by far the largest number of applications in 2011.218. OHIM saw 10. most of which were filed by resident applicants. for offices of middle-income countries with high design counts. 21 Growth rate refers to average annual growth. Italy and Spain each had low shares of non-resident filings. all offices saw modest growth until the mid-1990s. Spain and Portugal had the lowest non-resident shares. Its non-resident share was around 26.5%) in 2011. after which growth picked up considerably. the US had the largest non-resident share (42.1). 21 OHIM received the second highest number of design filings in 2011. Figure C. between 1995 and 2011.

000 40.000 20. October 2012 27 .000 India Mexico 5.000 1.special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Figure 4: Trend in industrial design applications (application count) for selected offices.000 4.000 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Applications 300.000 Thailand Bangladesh Vietnam Colombia Applications 6.000 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Application year Application year Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 1965-2011 China 500.000 60.000 2.000 400.000 2.000 100.000 Republic of Korea United States of America Japan OHIM Applications 200.000 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Application year Application year Turkey Brazil 10.000 4.000 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Applications 3.000 8.

.5 95.147 13. 117 ..274 18.4 -1.2 17..149 3... (2) = 2010 data. ..7 247.special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Table 3: Number of designs contained in applications (design counts) by office. 110 .. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 -23.7 67.2 35..6 -7. .0 17.2 11.280 1.7 1.600 5.5 8.291 3. .623 1. P.562 1.5 5.9 95.441 35..R.0 0..302 1. of Korea = Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.2 0. 1.343 54. 0 83 79 .. 79 68 70 57 51 5 5 83 79 79 79 77 70 67 51 5 5 118.0 -27.271 12.0 -6.540 14. .4 54.1 .8 24.109 134 943 1. 11.2 1. 2011 NonResident Resident 507.9 52.526 936 .156 3.7 97. 88.966 5.P.538 64. 88.322 2.887 2.937 3.0 84..7 3.0 -15.190 3. (1) = Only Hague designation data are available.5 82.723 2. .077 5.2 790.4 18.985 2.5 98.3 8.4 22.256 49 1.4 77.6 -14.1 19..2 48.0 -11.5 -3. 65.7 98.5 98.7 -4.2 0.069 1.5 66. . OAPI = African Intellectual Property Organization. 472 450 54 237 248 26 274 311 102 51 205 0 200 77 168 166 110 151 139 125 14 89 85 85 Total 752 697 664 632 606 595 573 566 533 450 416 384 334 327 326 311 311 309 240 206 200 194 168 166 162 158 139 125 124 89 85 85 Growth Nonrate (%): Resident Income 2010-11 Share (%) Group 0.0 104.8 . 4.306 18.9 28.0 3. 7.0 .1 51.598 29 87 .3 .3 29.8 5.3 100.638 1.298 1. 1..0 76. .0 0.5 . 13.459 1.8 16.. 9 0 10 .238 1.941 1. 506 697 50 605 23 595 337 .5 42.501 5.0 .216 1.4 139.394 4.094 1.4 0.7 0.735 6..4 .0 .9 26.104 1. of Korea (1) Denmark Finland Guatemala Cyprus Syrian Arab Republic (1) Latvia Namibia (1) Botswana (1) Ecuador (2) China. 100.9 6.2 43.2 3. .021 2.6 .7 26.1 -15.3 7.1 6.6 116. 236 .051 893 848 818 803 765 Growth Nonrate (%): Resident Income 2010-11 Share (%) Group 23..216 6.2 2.6 -3. .3 2... data on application design count by office may be incomplete..4 8..0 0.2 UM H H H UM H H H H H LM LM UM H UM LM H UM H H LM H LM UM H H UM LM H H H UM UM LM UM UM H LM LM UM LM Office Saudi Arabia Oman (1) Bulgaria Azerbaijan Sweden OAPI (1) Belarus Slovenia (2) Lithuania Belize (1) Slovakia Colombia Peru Uzbekistan Iceland D.. 614 27 583 .7 74..024 968 454 1.4 81..4 49.3 16.994 16. R.730 4. 449 24 1. 209 258 35 206 ..8 35. .9 -8. H H UM UM H L UM H UM LM H UM UM LM H L H H LM H LM UM UM UM UM H LM UM H UM L L .7 13. .6 42.445 1.9 62. 25 1.. 67.8 .372 1...206 8.591 1..9 13..0 83.7 15...” = not available..240 3.7 37.041 41.468 87.7 .411 3.6 12.189 107 1. . .6 23.443 28.0 21.0 LM L UM LM UM UM UM LM L L Note: “.1 96.6 -14..3 23.0 132.0 61. H = High-income. 32.658 17.1 0.467 29.2 94.3 7.9 -26.854 1.0 43.488 26.300 41.0 -25.0 -4.795 5..2 0.5 85.149 1.1 -25.225 58.7 17..0 11.5 55. UM = Upper middle-income..9 -10.6 . D.367 1.5 18.1 16. 61 .0 4.4 14.571 54.457 1.445 849 1.4 -4.7 4..5 75.4 -10.818 1.7 3. Macao SAR Ghana (1) Suriname (1) Ireland (2) Gabon (1) Mali (1) Niger (1) Sao Tome and Principe (1) Benin (1) Dominican Republic (2) Senegal (1) Jordan Panama Costa Rica (2) Côte d'Ivoire (1) Rwanda (1) Tajikistan NonResident Resident 246 .0 17.. 52 7 .664 3. Hong Kong SAR Mexico Singapore Croatia Viet Nam Greece (2) Republic of Moldova Argentina (2) Portugal Monaco T F Y R of Macedonia Egypt (1) New Zealand (2) Liechtenstein (1) Czech Republic Serbia Romania Georgia Bosnia and Herzegovina Montenegro Hungary Albania Armenia Algeria Mongolia Total 521.909 663 622 1. therefore.3 13..8 3.0 91. 39. LM = Lower middle-income and L = Low-income. October 2012 28 .060 3.037 138 832 791 104 583 Office China OHIM Republic of Korea Germany Turkey Japan United States of America Italy Spain France India Ukraine Russian Federation Australia Brazil (2) Morocco China.101 737 415 918 . and growth rate refers to 2009-10.164 1.. .3 .0 85..0 -11.444 2..676 1.839 4.2 7.2 -29.805 30.1 97.882 4.218 30.030 206 25 14 755 16 27 699 182 13. . 58..930 22.0 .3 -11.. 362 147 86 301 52 .. OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.4 364...6 0.8 -9.863 3.

0 -30. 23.0 -9.5 -15.8 89.411 1..1 1.525 2.0 H H LM UM H UM UM H H H L LM H H LM H UM L LM LM L L UM UM L H UM H LM UM LM UM H H UM H L Note: See note for Table 3.905 1.. 7 20 23 53 33 20 4 5 10 1 . Thailand (3.6 . This reflects intensive use of the design system at offices in middle-income countries.and low-income offices received a large number of applications in 2011.9 52.437 221 .7 11.... the resident and non-resident breakdown shows that at some offices residents accounted for a high share of total applications.3 -11. Table 4: Number of industrial design applications (application counts) by office.3 8.871) received large numbers of applications in 2011..044 1.7 25.5 .128 31 481 1.749 2.5 -24. 2011 NonResident Resident 790 4. 11 .227 4.2 3.5 55. . For example..0 66..060 914 737 529 309 284 271 167 167 110 109 76 71 64 53 44 20 17 13 10 8 7 6 4 Growth Nonrate (%): Resident Income 2010-11 Share (%) Group 1.2) Yemen Cuba Netherlands Antilles (1. 13 8 .1 12.special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property As mentioned above. 75.4 33.3 60.6 10.. 7 .0 -25.9 4. . Table 4 provides industrial design application data (application counts) for offices for which data on the number of designs contained in applications (design counts) are unavailable..4 12.5 38.6 14. South Africa (2.2) Malta Mauritius (2) San Marino Burkina Faso (2) Total 5..0 55. the offices of Indonesia (4.7 0.. The majority of the reported offices saw growth in applications in 2011 compared to the previous year..0 . 12. 100. Resident applicants accounted for the bulk of applications in Thailand.511 1.0 11. the majority of the applications filed at the offices of Malaysia and South Africa came from non-resident applicants..087 1..9 -3.0 89..0 . 69 51 41 .6 18.1 15.6 -10.044) and Malaysia (1. 9. -72.. 2.6 44. .749). 4 4.871 1.6 72.0 -6...9 7.191 1.9 58.8 89.2 28..196).3 -16.5 .114 853 743 1.196 3.8 58.2 0.0 31.2 ..8 17.6 -24.5 45. while in others the opposite holds true.8 31..030 142 1. October 2012 29 .2 3. . not all offices report design count data.9 . A number of middle.155 533 917 288 755 494 57 307 233 121 17 17 46 . 84. 22.3 2.2 35. .297 1.4 17. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.112 1.4 89. 0 Office Canada United Kingdom Indonesia Thailand Switzerland South Africa Malaysia Poland Israel Barbados Bangladesh Philippines Benelux Norway Pakistan Austria Chile Madagascar Sri Lanka (2) Paraguay (2) Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Uruguay Lebanon Kenya (2) Estonia Jamaica Bahrain (1) Honduras Tunisia (1. .511 4.579 1.5 . However.229 142 579 170 772 159 243 472 2 51 150 150 150 64 . 0.548 1. 844 1.290 .9 .371 1. In contrast...

Chinese residents filed 0. 30 .22 In terms of absolute numbers. residents of the US (15. Despite substantial growth. around 90% of US resident applications were filed abroad. India and the Russian Federation – all middle-income countries – have grown at faster rates than those of Japan and the US.special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Applications abroad Figure 5 shows growth in applications abroad for selected origins. such as OHIM. For example.5% of their applications abroad. followed by residents of Figure 5: Applications abroad (application count with no regional multiplier) for selected origins.384) and the Republic of Korea (4. 2001-11 China Turkey 10 Russian Federation Republic of Korea India Applications abroad (2001=1) 8 6 4 2 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Application year Mexico South Africa 3 Japan Brazil United States of America Applications abroad (2001=1) 2 1 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Application year Source: WIPO Statistics Database. applications filed at regional offices. October 2012 22 To derive equivalent count data. of applications abroad in 2011. In contrast.593) filed the largest number Japan (14. Figure 6 shows applications abroad as a percentage of resident applications. the numbers of applications filed abroad by residents of China.388). However. are multiplied by the number of member states party to the regional system. Data are based on application counts rather than equivalent application counts. residents of these origins filed only a small proportion of their applications abroad. See the Glossary of this publication for the definition of equivalent counts.

7 Share: 2006 97. October 2012 Comparison of resident design counts and resident patent applications Figure 7 shows the ratio of design count for resident applications to number of resident patent applications for the top origins.2 ine 8. The list includes high. 2011 (%) 0.6 0. Of the reported origins. Large high-income origins – such as France.2 9.5 Ch ina Th ail 3.0 a ric 16.1 33.0 y Tu rke 8.3 of Ko rea 8.5 8.1 4.9 3.0 0. and the US – had lower resident design counts than resident patents.2 Applications abroad as a percentage of resident applications 89.and middle.5 * 10.special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Figure 6: Applications abroad as a percentage of resident applications (application count with no regional multiplier) for selected origins.8 8. Germany. residents of Morocco filed 20 times more designs (design counts) than patents in 2011.2 Ind ia 6.1 an d 3.4 ico 9. Origins with resident design counts that are higher than resident patent applications will have a ratio greater than 1.9 2.7 5.3 8. Japan.4 54.7 tio n pa n ex ra zil Af So ut h de ra Uk Br a M pu bli c an ssi Re Origin Note: *2010 data Source: WIPO Statistics Database.as well as low-income origins. Un ite dS Ru ta tes of A Fe me Ja ric a 31 .

Philips (Netherlands). firms such as Samsung (Republic of Korea).7 8.5 2.8 ico 1.0 2.1 1.0 8.6 0. Sony (Japan).6 3.3 7.8 0.8 0. Apple (US) ranks 21st at the USPTO and 13th at OHIM. Research in Motion (Canada). LG (Republic of Korea). At all the offices experiencing intense filing behavior listed in Table 5.8 4.3 1. 32 Bo sn ia an dH erz eg Ice ga lan ta an str d y a .4 5.6 0.2 Resident design count / resident patent applications 1. Electrolux (Sweden). Province of China) consistently emerged as the top users in the electronics. 2011 20. October 2012 Top industrial design applicants at selected major offices Table 5 shows the list of the top 10 industrial design applicants in 2011 for eight selected offices in high-income countries and in China.special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Figure 7: Resident application design count to resident patent application ratios for selected origins. Origins with a design count or with patent applications of less than 10 are not shown in this figure. Microsoft (US) and Foxconn (Taiwan.0 2.0 * 2. ICT and software industries. Panasonic (Japan).5 Resident design count / resident patent applications 10.8 TF Y R 0.0 0. In the case of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).3 rai ne Uk a Sp ain M or oc co on gK o ng Re pu SA bli R co fM old ov a Re pu bli c ria ly Cy pr us m ia Cr oa t Po rtu ga l ed on ia y Tu rke ge ri Ita Slo va k Na Bu lga ce Al ee M ex Vie t of M ac .4 2.7 Cz e 0.6 Gr 0.6 Ge 0. The electronics and the information and communication technology (ICT) industries featured prominently in most of these rankings. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.6 0.5 y ina ia ro re ia o a ina nia ia n a* bia ce str ali tvi ac an ar ia ia Se rb rab Fra n Ch ng Ind eg po ma lom Ric kis rm on La Au hu ov iA ten Hu Au be M Ge sta Lit Ro Co ud on Sin Co Uz Sa M Origin Note: *2010 data.5 or gia 1.6 4.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 Pe ru 2.0 ia 1.7 ch 0.1 1.H Ch ina Origin 1.9 2.9 0.9 3. data refer to the number of industrial designs registered in 2011.

Canada and Singapore. firms belonging to the fashion industry emerged as the top users of the design system. SIPO and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). mainly Asian firms. In the Asian offices covered (China. Japan and the Republic of Korea). interior design and decoration (including lighting) and – to a lesser extent . all three being shoe manufacturers. In the US. In the clothing and fashion industry. differences exist across offices with respect to sector affiliation in the top 10 rankings for these offices. a mix of mainly electronics and textile and fashion industry firms were among the top 10 filers.special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property The other prominent sectors in the top filer lists are the automotive industry. firms in the electronics and ICT industries . however. the top user lists reflected a more diverse mix of industries. In France. 33 . clothing and fashion (including shoes and sportswear). Kia (Republic of Korea).firms in the consumer product industry. namely Procter & Gamble (US) and Colgate-Palmolive (US). with jewelry companies being their most active filers. the USPTO. Toyota (Japan) and firms such as Nissan (Japan). Singapore was the exception among the Asian offices. Sketchers (US) and Rieker (Germany). top filers included Nike (US). made the top 10 list at these IP offices. the only entity of Chinese origin in these rankings is a university. The use of the design system considerably varies across sectors and countries (see Section C of this report for further details). In the case of China. Honda (Japan). and firms in the fashion industry. Interestingly.and to some extent the automotive industry – ranked among the most intensive users of the industrial design system. for the most part foreign firms occupied the top 10 ranks. For OHIM. However. In the automotive sector. A look at the top 30 list shows the presence of firms in the apparel and tools and the tobacco industries – sectors that do not feature in the top 10 lists – in particular for OHIM. Goodyear (US).

LG HOUSEHOLD & HEALTH CARE LTD.494 1... 2011 Rank Office: Canada 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Office: China 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Office: France 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Office: OHIM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RIEKER SCHUH AG MICROSOFT CORPORATION ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION N. VICTAULIC COMPANY LG ELECTRONICS INC. RESEARCH IN MONTION LIMITED SPIN MASTER LTD. data refer to applications filed. MICROSOFT CORPORATION KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N. LTD KIA MOTORS CORPORATION SK JEWELLEY SINGAPORE PTE LTD ASPIAL-LEE HWA JEWELLERY SINGAPORE PTE LTD  SOO KEE JEWELLERY ELECOM CO.V. except the USPTO. (FOXCONN) HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. SANYO ELECTRIC. NIKE INTERNATIONAL. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY HONDA MOTOR CO.041 1... LTD.549 1. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. SONY CORPORATION EGLO LEUCHTEN GMBH PIERRE BALMAIN.LTD ALUTEK CO. SOCIETE ANONYME CREATION NELSON SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD. DAE AN TEXTILE.844 2. PROCTER + GAMBLE COMPANY LG ELECTRONICS INC. LTD. LTD. CO.634 3.. LTD.695 1.special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Table 5: Top 10 industrial design applicants for selected offices. USPTO data refer to the number of registrations in 2011.074 2. LTD LOVE & CO TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD HONDA MOTOR CO.V.172 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MICROSOFT CORPORATION PHILIPS ELECTRONICS LTD. Applications 833 804 791 526 293 224 205 201 194 182 175 99 85 54 52 42 28 27 27 26 64 56 55 53 44 43 40 32 31 28 328 270 236 182 148 130 122 120 114 107 Office: Republic of Korea Office: Singapore Office: United Kingdom Office: United States of America Note: For all offices.314 1. INC. LTD. 34 . APPLE.. LTD PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NISSAN AUTOMOBILE 3. 947 644 500 485 476 437 403 350 319 318 THE KOOPLES PRODUCTION CREATION NELSON COLINE DIFFUSION CARVEN SAS SIMOENS SWAMEE SARL OLIVIER DE SAINT LOUP SOCIETE INNOVATION DU BATIMENT COTON BLANC SOCIETE M COLLECTIONS 585 522 271 256 156 149 114 113 100 95 PANASONIC SAMSUNG LG ELECTRONIC JIANGNAN UNIVERSITY HONDA INDUSTRIAL TOYOTA AUTOMOBILE SONY CORP. HON HAI PRECISION IND. LTD. LTD EITAGOLD MANUFACTURERS SDN BHD AVIRUTH SACHDEV SHOFOO LTD BAILEY WOOD LIMITED AHMET EROL SUSAN HARDING REGISTERED DESIGNS LIMITED (SUTTON COLDFIELD) DG INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD YANWEI SHOU ADNAAN SOLOMON RUBBERATKINS LTD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.335 2.V... LTD. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N. CHENG UEI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO. OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Source: Data were obtained from the respective national/regional IP offices.. AMOREPACIFIC CORPORATION LG HAUSYS. LTD. LTD. DECO TRADE CO. INC NIKE. 253 158 106 60 55 54 52 48 41 40 Name Applications Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Name CJ CORP. LG ELECTRONICS INC...

there is need to agree on a statistical definition of design for the purposes of innovation measurement. India. Morocco and Turkey. have grown at faster rates than those of Japan and the US. This special section has discussed a number of the conceptual and definitional challenges that exist on this front. for offices of middle-income countries with high design counts. even if this information is invariably partial. For the majority of offices. the Philippines and Turkey. design accounts for a substantial share of firms’ investments in intangible assets and innovation.special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Conclusion Today. Due to a lack of data. IP statistics can nevertheless provide valuable information on design activity. Mexico. Although the numbers of design applications abroad have increased over time. Residents of high-income countries tend to file high shares of their total applications abroad. resident applicants accounted for the largest share of total applications. such as Brazil. there are considerable differences across offices in the use of the design system by resident and non-resident applicants. non-resident applicants accounted for the largest share of total applications at many middle.) across developed and developing countries. it would be instructive to undertake a detailed analysis – data permitting – of why use of the system differs so much across countries. The data presented here show that the bulk of design filing activity occurs in the offices of middle-income countries. such a definition would need to capture the economic relevance of design activity. in the legal sense. New measurement tools could then be developed based on that definition. As a result. China has seen tremendous growth in design applications over the past few years. and the design activity undertaken by firms relate to one another. In the future. the Russian Federation and India. It would also reveal how industrial design activity. However. such as Bangladesh. a better data infrastructure is needed. have also seen strong filing growth.and low-income offices. However. clothing and fashion. For a start. 35 . such as China.firms in the consumer product industries use the industrial design system most intensively. policymakers have shown greater interest in better understanding the role of design in innovation and economic growth. automotive. Despite the absence of adequate definitions and metrics. etc. the creation of unit record design rights databases would enable refined analysis and new insights into the behavior of applicants and their economic performance. interior design and decoration industries and – to a lesser extent . applications filed abroad by residents of middle-income countries. Pakistan. However. resident applications constitute the vast majority of total applications at the global level. Despite substantial growth. Offices of other middle-income countries. In order to deepen our understanding of the use of the design system and shed light on how its use affects innovation and economic growth. The data presented on the top applicants show that the electronics and ICT. There has been marked growth in the use of IP to protect product designs. In particular. China. it is not yet possible to investigate sectoral differences (smartphones versus handicrafts. India. In particular. residents of these origins filed only a small proportion of their applications abroad. Product designs and electronic userinterfaces are also at the center of legal disputes in the high-technology industry.

Design in the Knowledge Economy 2020. Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. www. The Cox Review of Creativity in Business. No. Barcelona: Barcelona Design Centre BIS . Ontario: University of Ontario. M. and F. Haskell (2008). J.pdf HM Treasury (2005). University of Cambridge/Design Management Group (United Kingdom). www.org. 2. Vinodrai (2004). Paris: OECD Pesole.org. Economics Paper No. Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Hargreaves. Findings from the UK Investment in Intangible Asset Survey.uk/publications/the-cox-review/ Moultrie. and Copenhagen Business School (Denmark). commissioned by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO). London: BIS. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.dti.Barcelona Design Centre (2012). Creativity. London: United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office.pdf BDC . www. The Economics of Design Rights. J.pdf European Commission (2009). Design and Business Performance. International Design Scoreboard: Initial Indicators of International Design Capabilities.gov. Designing the Economy: A Profile of Ontario’s Design Workforce.pdf Gil. Haskel. Livesey (2009).ipo. Bascavusoglu-Moreau. London: NESTA.uk/pub/CERIBA/ InvestIntangAssetsSurveyLongPaper/Report_59__ Invest_in_Inn_v9. www. Industry-Level Expenditure on Intangible Assets in the UK. An Independent Report. www. London: Business. 2005. Moultrie and F. www. Investing in Innovation. designcouncil. designcouncil. M. A. Tether. OECD Science.. supported by Design Austria (Austria). Haskel and Z . Paris: OECD OECD (2012b). September 2011. Interim Project Findings.UK Department of Trade and Industry (2005). May 2012. May 2011. 15. Technology and Industry Outlook. Commission Staff Working Paper.ca/progris/ pdf_files/DesigningTheEconomy.uk/proipresearch/ipresearch-right/ipresearch-right-design.gov.. and T. BIS Occasional Paper.uk OECD (2012a).coinvest. Analytical Framework Paper: Measuring Design Value.gov.uk/assets/biscore/economicsand-statistics/docs/B/10-1112-bis-occasional-paper-02 Gertler. The Impact of Design on Stock Market Performance. G. London: Design Council Design Council (2010). and J. London: UK IPO. SVID Swedish Industrial Design Foundation (Sweden).org. J. Livesey (2011). (2011). London: Chancellor of the Exchequer. Franklin. Design as a Driver of User-Centered Innovation.utoronto.uk/files/file13654. I. Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (Hungary).htm 36 .ipo. New Sources of Growth: Knowledge- Design Council (2005).special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property References Awano. www. August 2010. B.uk/ipreview-finalreport. Kastrinaki (2010). www. London: Design Council DTI .gov. SEC(2009)501 final Based Capital Driving Investment and Productivity in the 21st Century. V. J.bis.UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2010). E. The Economic Rationale for a National Design Policy. as part of the €Design Project.

special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property Thompson. Study on the Potential Impact of the Work of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks. www. Geneva: WIPO. UK Design as a Global Industry: International Trade and Intellectual Property. May 29 to June 1. wipo.pdf WIPO (2012b). Geneva. Geneva: WIPO. London: UK IPO www. Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) on Industrial Design Law and Practice. July 18.int/econ_stat/en/economics/ wipr/ WIPO (2012a). www. 2012/14. World Intellectual Property Report. The Changing Nature of Innovation and Intellectual Property.uk/pro-ipresearch/ipresearch-right/ ipresearch-right-design. Montgomery (2012). 2012. presented at the twenty-seventh session.wipo. Sissons and L. Geneva: WIPO.pdf 37 . commissioned by the UK IPO and supported by the Design Council. September 18 to 21. S. www. int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_27/sct_27_4. A.htm WIPO (2011).ipo. Geneva. The Surge in Worldwide Patent Applications – Supplement.int/edocs/mdocs/pct/en/pct_wg_5/pct_wg_5_4.wipo.gov. 2012.. SCT/27/4. 2012. prepared by WIPO (Economics and Statistics Division) for the fifth session of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group.

R. Hong Kong SAR Israel (6) Norway (5)(6) Ukraine Romania New Zealand (3) Mexico Singapore Hungary Bulgaria Greece (1)(3)(5) Slovenia (1)(2)(6) Slovakia Liechtenstein (4)(5)(6) Cyprus Malaysia (6) South Africa (6) Thailand (6) Viet Nam Croatia Morocco (2) Latvia Estonia (6) Patents 2 5 3 6 1 7 11 8 4 9 21 18 13 25 17 24 15 12 14 10 16 19 27 36 32 28 46 39 20 23 29 40 30 34 26 38 53 41 45 50 42 56 33 37 43 59 55 70 58 63 Marks Designs 2 1 3 4 10 5 6 8 17 9 7 11 13 12 18 15 22 19 16 14 23 20 21 24 27 30 25 29 45 40 34 28 42 26 38 36 31 35 39 43 49 33 50 44 41 37 56 47 60 51 1 2 6 4 8 7 3 5 10 13 9 12 16 11 15 14 17 23 25 31 20 22 29 19 24 27 18 21 26 32 38 35 33 46 43 34 28 37 30 36 39 42 49 51 58 47 44 40 41 45 Origin Belarus (5) Colombia United Arab Emirates (4)(5)(6) Malta (6) Chile (6) Lithuania Monaco Saudi Arabia (5) Iceland Serbia Republic of Moldova Egypt (5)(6) Uzbekistan Sri Lanka (1)(2)(6) Bermuda (4)(5)(6) Barbados (6) Argentina (4)(5)(6) Peru (2) Kazakhstan (5)(6) Algeria Philippines (2)(6) Indonesia (5)(6) Bahamas (4)(5)(6) Paraguay (1)(2)(6) Panama Mongolia (1)(2) Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)(6) Georgia Uruguay (6) Armenia Seychelles (4)(6) Azerbaijan (5) Ecuador (1)(2)(3) San Marino (4)(5)(6) Jordan Lebanon (4)(5)(6) Bangladesh (6) Costa Rica (3) Andorra (4)(6) Cuba (6) T F Y R of Macedonia (5) D. Trademark data refer to the number of equivalent trademark applications based on class count (i.. '.e.e. the number of designs contained in applications). . applications at regional IP offices are included.. .' not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database.P.P. 76 72 91 68 . however.. Patent data refer to the number of equivalent patent applications.R. 2011 Origin China Germany United States of America France (5)(7) Japan (5)(7) United Kingdom (6) Italy Switzerland (6) Republic of Korea Netherlands Spain Austria (5)(6) Sweden Poland (6) Belgium Turkey Denmark Canada (6) India Russian Federation Finland Australia Brazil (1)(2)(3) Czech Republic Luxembourg Ireland (3)(5) Portugal China. the number of classes specified in applications). (6) Data on industrial design applications at the national IP office are not available. Industrial design data refer to the number of equivalent industrial design applications based on design count (i... 88 84 . (4) Data on patent applications at the national IP office are not available. 65 100 103 73 . applications at regional IP offices are included. D.. of Korea (1)(5)(6) Iran (Islamic Republic of)(4)(5)(6) Bosnia and Herzegovina Mauritius (4)(5)(6) Tunisia (4)(5)(6) Guatemala (2) Qatar (4)(5)(6) Pakistan (5)(6) Kyrgyzstan (1)(6) Patents 31 54 68 64 48 75 75 44 57 66 69 47 61 65 73 52 60 86 35 81 62 49 78 94 88 80 83 72 90 67 84 51 108 89 86 92 97 97 101 73 94 22 79 92 94 108 124 101 77 71 Marks Designs 74 46 52 53 32 58 54 77 76 64 73 92 72 69 67 82 62 48 97 80 57 88 70 55 63 81 59 95 68 83 96 112 61 78 75 90 65 66 88 100 104 144 87 105 86 79 71 85 110 118 59 71 56 60 100 48 54 64 53 57 50 55 62 63 60 69 82 75 78 52 95 77 67 ... The table reports origins for which at least two types of IP data are available. (5) Data on trademark applications at the national IP office are not available. of Korea = Democratic People's Republic of Korea. October 2012 38 . applications at regional IP offices are included. (1) 2010 patent data. however.. (3) 2010 industrial design data. however. (2) 2010 trademark data. Note: The rankings are based on total number of applications by origin.. 88 65 86 81 86 95 74 95 95 70 . Overview of IP Activities Table 1: Overview of total IP activity (resident activity plus activity abroad) by origin. (7) Trademark data are estimated.

57 41 73 68 37 66 45 44 69 72 . 39 . however... 2011 Origin China Germany United States of America Japan (5)(7) Republic of Korea France (5)(7) Italy India Turkey United Kingdom (6) Russian Federation Spain Canada (6) Brazil (1)(2)(3) Netherlands Switzerland (6) Poland (6) Australia Ukraine Sweden Mexico Czech Republic Belgium Portugal Austria (5)(6) Denmark Romania Finland Thailand (6) Viet Nam Chile (6) New Zealand (3) South Africa (6) Morocco (2) Malaysia (6) Belarus (5) China. 47 53 87 54 56 65 70 83 80 58 38 40 . 32 . however.. 44 41 26 46 37 50 42 . Hong Kong SAR Hungary Bulgaria Singapore Patents 1 5 3 2 4 7 9 10 17 8 6 15 16 22 11 13 18 25 23 14 34 36 24 41 19 20 30 21 37 48 47 28 40 61 33 26 60 39 50 35 Marks Designs 1 4 2 8 9 3 10 5 6 11 7 13 14 12 17 21 19 16 23 25 15 22 30 24 46 39 26 36 27 20 18 35 29 32 38 . the number of classes specified in applications)... 64 .. however... The table reports origins for which at least two types of IP data are available.. '. 13 . (2) 2010 trademark data. 43 63 59 .. applications at regional IP offices are included.e.. October 2012 39 .. ' not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database. applications at regional IP offices are included.. 56 61 56 54 68 . 12 20 18 15 17 14 22 24 23 28 19 21 27 30 31 . Industrial design data refer to the number of equivalent industrial design applications based on design count (i. (1) 2010 patent data. (6) Data on industrial design applications at the national IP office are not available. 59 69 60 ... (5) Data on trademark applications at the national IP office are not available.. Trademark data refer to the number of equivalent trademark applications based on class count (i.. 45 25 33 34 36 Origin Norway (5)(6) Slovakia Ireland (3)(5) Israel (6) Saudi Arabia (5) Luxembourg Greece (1)(3)(5) Slovenia (1)(2)(6) Croatia Colombia Uzbekistan Philippines (2)(6) Republic of Moldova Sri Lanka (1)(2)(6) Algeria Peru (2) Latvia Serbia Mongolia (1)(2) Azerbaijan (5) Lithuania Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)(6) Georgia Cyprus Paraguay (1)(2)(6) Estonia (6) Bangladesh (6) Ecuador (1)(2)(3) Armenia Iceland T F Y R of Macedonia (5) Costa Rica (3) Panama Liechtenstein (4)(5)(6) Uruguay (6) Guatemala (2) Jordan Monaco Kyrgyzstan (1)(6) Bosnia and Herzegovina Patents 27 51 32 31 46 45 38 43 52 59 49 57 66 53 69 78 56 58 65 55 66 80 63 74 87 70 81 92 64 68 79 88 83 54 84 92 77 82 62 75 Marks Designs . 29 . 28 42 34 48 1 2 9 6 3 8 4 11 5 10 16 7 . 50 74 49 51 31 52 40 61 55 58 33 64 62 60 .. 63 Note: The rankings are based on the number of resident applications by origin. applications at regional IP offices are included. the number of designs contained in applications). (7) Trademark data are estimated.. 53 .. (4) Data on patent applications at the national IP office are not available.e. (3) 2010 industrial design data.. 35 55 47 51 49 61 52 .. 48 43 . Patent data refer to the number of equivalent patent applications.overview of ip activities Table 2: Overview of resident IP activity by origin.

.

an international treaty administered by WIPO. The procedures for acquiring patent rights are governed by the rules and regulations of national and regional patent offices. skilled in the art. applicants must file an application describing the invention with a national or regional office. The second subsection on UMs explores trends and activity at certain offices. pending patents. a set of exclusive rights to applicants for inventions that meet the standards of novelty. international collaboration. 41 . pendency times. and patent rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the patent granting authority.Section A patents. Disclosure of an invention is a generally recognized requirement for the granting of a patent. UTILITY MODELS AND MICROORGANISMS Over the past two decades. national laws in most countries require that the applicant deposit a sample at a designated International Depositary Authority (IDA). during which patent holders can commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive basis. utility models and microorganisms section A PATENTS. It is valid for a limited period of time (generally 20 years). and use of patent prosecution highways. PCT international applications. that facilitates the acquisition of patent rights in multiple jurisdictions. thus enabling them to appropriate the returns of their innovative activity. It presents a wide range of indicators that offer insights into the functioning and use of the patent and UM systems. This section also provides data on microorganisms. applicants are obliged to disclose their inventions to the public so that others. followed by a breakdown of these at each IDA. They can also file an “international application” through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The microorganism subsection focuses on global deposits. However. These offices are responsible for issuing patents. the decision of whether or not to grant patents remains the prerogative of national or regional patent offices. To obtain patent rights. intensity of patent activity. The Patent System A patent confers. and the rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. Similarly. filings by field of technology. where data are available. non-obviousness and industrial applicability. patent legislation and patenting behavior have become prominent public policy themes. As a result. Where an invention involves microorganisms. The first subsection on patents describes the trend in patent activity worldwide and provides analysis of filings by office and origin. oppositions to patents granted. patents in force. may replicate them. The patent system is designed to encourage innovation by providing innovators with time-limited exclusive legal rights. The PCT system simplifies the process of multiple national patent filings by delaying the requirement to file a separate application in each jurisdiction in which protection is sought. This section provides an overview of patent and UM activity worldwide to enable users to analyze and monitor the latest trends. In return. patent families. by law. the patent system has undergone important changes worldwide. use of the utility model (UM) system for protecting inventions has risen in certain countries.

For example. In this report. the procedures for granting UM rights are governed by the rules and regulations of national intellectual property (IP) offices. Around 60 countries provide protection for UMs. the Budapest Treaty provides that the deposit of a microorganism with any IDA suffices for the purposes of patent procedure at national patent offices of all contracting states. UMs are issued for a shorter duration (7 to 10 years) and. The terms and conditions for granting UMs are different from those for “traditional” patents.Section A patents. during which national (or regional) patent offices decide on the patentability of an invention according to national law.wipo.int/pct/en/. and before any regional patent office that recognizes the effects of the treaty. “innovation patents” in Australia and short-term patents in Ireland are considered equivalent to UMs. 42 . Like patents. For example. during which UM holders can commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive basis. a UM confers a set of rights for an invention for a limited period of time. To eliminate the need to deposit a microorganism in each country in which patent protection is sought. and rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority.wipo. at most offices.int/treaties/en/registration/ budapest/. For further details about the PCT system. Microorganisms under the Budapest Treaty The Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure plays an important role in the field of biotechnological inventions. refer to: www. and concludes with the national phase. the UM terminology refers to UMs and other types of protection similar to UMs. Further details about the Budapest Treaty are available at: www. An IDA is a scientific institution – typically a “culture collection” – capable of storing microorganisms. The Utility Model System Like a patent. utility models and microorganisms The PCT international application process starts with the international phase. Disclosure of an invention is a generally recognized requirement for the granting of a patent. there are 40 such authorities. Presently. during which an international search and optional preliminary examination and supplementary international search are performed. applications are granted without substantive examination.

1 Patent applications and grants worldwide A.14 million by 2011.1 World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 125 offices.4 5.1) – this is noteworthy considering the fragility of the world economy. Patent applications worldwide doubled from approximately 1.500.000 Growth rate (%) 2.1. Figure A.6 6.3 4. Following a drop in 2009 (-3.500.9 3.1 Applications worldwide For the first time. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.6 4.1. patent applications rebounded strongly in 2010 and 2011. The long-term trend shows continuous growth in applications.1.000 -1.6 7.1 Trend in patent applications worldwide Applications 2.1 2. For the first time since 1995. October 2012 1 Throughout this publication. except for declines in 2002 and 2009.0 5. 3.1. This is mostly due to rapid growth in applications filed in China and the United States of America (US). These estimates include direct applications and PCT national phase entry data.1.6 5.5 7.000. “patents” refers to patents for invention.6 4.05 million in 1995 to around 2.000 1.1.1.000.000 Applications 1.1.Section A patents. which include both direct national and regional applications and international applications filed through the PCT that subsequently entered the national or regional phase.8 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Application year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 125 patent offices (see Data Description).6 -3. Figures A.1. 43 .1 .6%).5 8. in 2011. utility models and microorganisms A.3 depict the total number of patent applications worldwide between 1995 and 2011.1 to A. the total number of patent applications filed worldwide exceeded the two million mark. the growth rate has exceeded seven percent for two consecutive years (Figure A.7 8.

000 200.2 breaks down application growth by office for the 1995-2009 and 2009-2011 periods.5 39.0 39. This reflects the shift in the geography of patent applications from the US and Europe towards China.9 38. Since 2005.5 37.3% Others: 10. As an example.1.000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Application year Note: See note for Figure A.1.1 40.2.6 36.000 1. the patent office of China was 2 The contribution of China to total growth in applications has increased in recent years while that of other major offices has declined.1.6 Non-Resident share (%) Applications 800. as it did not account for any growth in worldwide patent applications.accounting for 72% of total growth.7% China: 72.8% Others: 1. October 2012 To determine the source of growth in applications worldwide.2% India: 2.000. 44 .6% European Patent Office: 9. the patent office of China is referred to as “China” rather than the “State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China”.1.6 38.1 36.1. the main contributor to growth in worldwide applications from 2009 to 2011 .1.1.2% European Patent Office: 2. Twothirds of the growth in applications between 1995 and 2009 can be attributed to the patent offices of China and the US.4 38.0 36. utility models and microorganisms Figure A. October 2012 Figure A.2% Republic of Korea: 10.Section A patents. 2 For simplicity.8 Non-Resident 38. Figure A.1.7% United States of America: 16.000 35.3 38. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.3 Resident and non-resident patent applicants worldwide Resident 32.1.1).2 Contribution of offices to growth in patent applications worldwide 1995-2009 2009-2011 China: 37. the total number of patent applications at the JPO has continuously declined (see Figure A.0% Note: The Japan Patent Office (JPO) – third largest in the world – is not included in this figure.000 400.8 1.7 37.1.000 600.0 40.5% United States of America: 28. country names rather than office names are used to label graphs.7% India: 3. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.200. However.4 37.1% Republic of Korea: 5.

1% for trademarks and 10.1. with 606. For both years.11.1. An application at a regional office is considered a resident application if the applicant is a resident of one of its member states.2 Grants worldwide The total numbers of patents granted worldwide have recorded uninterrupted growth since 2001 (Figure A.3%) and the Republic of Korea (20. 4 The non-resident share for patents was 36. non-resident applications accounted for 36. For example.2.3). utility models and microorganisms Figure A. From 2009 to 2011. However.14 million applications filed in 2011 consist of 1.3).800 resident and 390.3).36 million resident and 0. a patent application filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by an applicant residing in France is considered a non-resident application for the USPTO.4 A. the number of grants issued worldwide increased by 23. Growth in nonresident applications in China and the US accounted for 70% of growth in non-resident applications worldwide.1.5 Patent grants grew by 12.1. 5 The distribution of resident and non-resident grants is 61% and 39%. grants worldwide approached the one million mark.7%). For example. 3 Resident and non-resident applications are also known as domestic and foreign applications.Section A patents. In this report. Compared to other types of IP rights. The US accounted for 30. patent applications exhibited the highest non-resident share. This is in contrast to patent application data.1. Growth in resident applications in China accounted for around 96% of the growth in resident applications worldwide.1% of the growth in applications worldwide (Figure A. regional patent office application data are divided into resident and non-resident applications. Figure A.9%. China (23.4%) than non-resident applications (3. The non-resident share in total grants is slightly higher than the non-resident share in total applications (see Figure A. the non-resident share in total applications has followed a downward trend since its peak of 40.6%. compared to 27.1. resident applications grew at a faster rate (10. growth in resident grants accounted for around two-thirds of total growth. followed by Japan (23. both resident and non-resident applications grew in 2011.1.6% of applications worldwide.2).4% of total growth. despite growth in non-resident applications. is due to the substantial growth in resident applications in China. In 2011.1.3 The 2. The substantial increase in the number of grants combined with a drop in the number of applications at the JPO has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of pending applications undergoing examination at the JPO (Figure A.78 million non-resident applications (Figure A. This downward trend. respectively.1% in 2006. 45 .3% in 2010 and 9.1. and it is considered a non-resident application if the applicant is not a resident of one of its member states.1.1). however.3 provides a breakdown of patent applications worldwide by residency of the applicant. In 2011.9%). a patent application filed with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) by a resident of Japan is considered a resident application for the JPO.1.2 provides a breakdown of the growth of patent grants worldwide for the periods 1995-2009 and 2009-2011.2%).2. Compared to 2010.7% in 2011. A non-resident application is an application filed with the patent office of a given country by an applicant residing in another country. according to which China accounted for 72.000 non-resident grants.9% for industrial designs. A resident application is defined as an application filed with a patent office by an applicant residing in the country in which that office has jurisdiction.

6% United States of America: 30.3% Others: 2.2% Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2.1% Republic of Korea: 11.6 0.000 -6.000 200.5 1.2 10.8 3.7 -9.1.5 3.2. These estimates include patent grants based on direct applications and PCT national phase entry data.2% Japan: 22. October 2012 Figure A.1% Japan: 23. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.Section A patents.6 0.9 4.000.000 600.3% Others: 16.1.2 Contribution of offices to growth in patents granted worldwide 1995-2009 2009-2011 China: 32.4 10.9% Republic of Korea: 20.2 .5 19.000 Growth rate (%) Grants 400.2 4.1 Trend in patents granted worldwide Grants 1.3 9.8 12.7 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Grant year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 115 patent offices (see Data Description). 24. October 2012 46 .8% United States of America: 17.2 2.4% China: 23.000 800. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.

6 Application numbers were stable until the early 1970s when the JPO started seeing rapid growth in applications. From 1883 to 1967. these offices received lower volumes of applications.1. patent data for China are labeled “China” rather than the “State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China” (SIPO).Section A patents. Compared to the top five offices mentioned earlier.000 in 2002 to around 42. October 2012 6 State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO). SIPO has experienced substantial growth in applications. a pattern that was also observed for the USPTO from the 1980s onwards. Japan Patent Office (JPO). the USPTO was the leading office in the world by filings.000 in 2011.2 depicts the long-term trend of patent applications for five additional selected offices. For example.000 100. Figure A.2. but experienced strong growth in applications over the past 10 years.2. utility models and microorganisms A. leading it to surpass both the EPO and KIPO in 2005.1 shows the long-term trend in total number of applications for the top five offices.2. since 2005. SIPO has seen rapid growth in applications since 1985.1. The volumes received by these offices are of similar magnitude. A.6% in 2011. 47 .3% in 2010 and 34. but far below those of the JPO and the USPTO.000 more applications in 2011 than in 2002.000 400.000 United States of America Japan Republic of Korea European Patent Office Applications 300. The JPO surpassed the USPTO in 1968 and maintained the top position until 2005. country names (rather than office names) are used to label graphs for national offices.national or regional.1 Applications by office Both the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) have seen increases in the numbers of applications received since the early 1980s. However.000 200.1 Trend in patent applications for the top five offices China 500. the patent office of the Russian Federation received around 8. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). SIPO overtook the JPO in 2010 and the USPTO in 2011 to become the largest patent office in the world. in the past two years. Figure A. For presentational purposes.7 As a result. 7 Patent applications at SIPO grew by 24.1. Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and European Patent Office (EPO). the number of applications received by the JPO has followed a downward trend Figure A. the number of applications received by the patent office of India increased from approximately 11.2 Patent applications and grants by office This subsection provides detailed data on patent applications and grants by office .2. These offices were selected according to their 2011 totals. Similarly.000 0 1883 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Application year Source: WIPO Statistics Database. For example. Furthermore.

6% (Figure A. The patent offices of India and the Russian Federation each received more than 40. 9 SIPO saw growth in both resident and nonresident applications. resulting in an increase in the non-resident share of total applications for these offices.6%). the top five offices accounted for around four-fifths of the world total. As mentioned above.2 Trend in patent applications for selected offices India 50.. Together. The non-resident share ranged from 98. had the largest increases in non-resident shares. the USPTO (23.10 The list of the top 20 offices consists mostly of those located in high-income countries.2. 10 The patent offices of the Russian Federation and South Africa saw drops in resident applications and growth in non-resident applications.2.Section A patents.1. but growth in resident applications outpaced growth in non-resident applications. This is due to substantial growth in resident applications over the past few years.9 The Russian Federation and South Africa.000 40.000 10.610). however.793) also received considerable numbers of applications.000 Russian Federation Canada Brazil Mexico Applications 30. China and India). Among the reported offices.1. SIPO had the largest drop in its non-resident share in 2011 compared to 2010. the JPO (16%).924) and the EPO (142.g.412 applications) overtook the USPTO (503. In contrast. KIPO (178.1. non-resident applications accounted for more than four-fifths of total applications.5%). For 8 of the top 20 offices. Brazil and Mexico also received a large number of applications. The JPO (with 342. KIPO (8. resident applications accounted for the bulk of total applications received by KIPO. 48 .3). but there are also a few in middle-income countries (e. the JPO and SIPO.5% (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) in 2011. 8 The 2011 shares held by the top five offices are: SIPO (24. SIPO (with 526.in terms of applications received.7%). and their combined share has increased over the last decade – from 69.4%) and the EPO (6. The distribution of resident and non-resident applications was almost equal at the EPO and the USPTO. but this differs significantly among offices. the non-resident share of total applications filed was 36.1.000 applications in 2011.000 20. October 2012 Figure A.3 shows the number of patent applications broken down by resident and non-resident applications for the top 20 offices.582) in 2011 to become the largest office in the world . the bulk of which were from non-resident applicants. 8 At the global level. utility models and microorganisms Figure A. Hong Kong SAR) to 0.7% (China.000 0 1883 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Application year Source: WIPO Statistics Database.5% in 1998 to 79% in 2011. resulting in a decline in the nonresident share of total applications for this office.

7 -0.924 142.4 1.6% increase in applications in China. Growth in resident applications is the main factor Applications 342.8 -4.1 -5.291 41.2 -0. To identify the source of growth.6 16.7 -3.7 36.6 0.4 -0.493 9.8 0. For example..4 provides a breakdown of total growth by resident and non-resident applications.2 8. while the EPO (-5. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.4 1.6 15.R. D. October 2012 Figure A. Australia and South Africa).5 1.0 2.9 0.R.9 3.7 2.6 D.7 Contribution to growth Total growth rate (%): 2010 .4 Contribution of resident and non-resident applications to total growth for the top 20 offices.8 -0.5 90.526 behind the growth in total applications in China and the Republic of Korea.8 503.5 -0.886 AR il * ca fri hA e re m ico ly * nc do po Ita gS ex ea az Fra ing Br M on ga dK Sin fK or gK .5 y ca ina an da AR ea il * re m e a fri c ut hA e ali a tio n ico ia ly * ffi c an nc Ind do po Ita or ea eri or Ja p na gS ex Ch Ge rm az tO fK ing Fra str ra Am Ca de Br M Au on ga bli co ten dK Fe gK of Sin .2 -5.610 178. China had the largest growth (34.111 25.7 0 0. Ch ina Office Note: *2010 data.P.P.4 0.6 13.2 9.6 2.H . Applications 16.1 0.6%). October 2012 Ch ina D. Figure A.5 -0.0 526.R pu ssi Un an .6 1.2 -2.o ite Un .7 22.6 5. of Korea = Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 pe Ko an rea Pa ten tO ffi ce Ge rm an y ric a of pu bli c ta tes dS Un ite Eu ro Office Resident 88.754 14.793 59.4 0.4 percentage points of the 34.414 35.245 6.R on So ut Isr ae l Contribution by non-resident applications 3.7 6.2.4 1.9 2.1. 2010-11 Contribution by resident applications 34.6 -1.5 90.6 -1.2. P.721 8.2 -4.444 42.0 -5.5 -1.6 -1. the majority of the offices listed saw growth in applications. growth in non-resident applications was the main contributor to total growth.1 12.2 -0. growth in resident applications accounted for 31.057 7. of Korea = Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Source: WIPO Statistics Database.5 2.9 49.1 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 50.4 -2.5 -5.686 22.1 1. D. 2011 Resident 21.2.o fK Pa tes an ite Sta Re pe Ru ed ro Un it Eu Office Note: *Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.0 0.1 31.259 Ru ssi Re an F Ind ia ed era tio n Ca na da Au str ali a Ch ina Am e Ja pa n of ber of offices (e.1.8 -0.7 -0.6 saw the largest declines in applications.1.g.7%) 86.055 13. P.4 -0.4 98.5 0.9 80.4%) and Israel (-5.H on So Isr ae l 49 .1 22.794 9.0 79.5 92.2 1.0 -3. For a numNon-Resident 89.0 Non-Resident 21.3 6.2 3. Growth in both resident and non-resident applications contributed to the overall growth in the US.3 Patent applications for the top 20 offices.582 16.412 Between 2010 and 2011.4 14.7 0.1 -1.11 31.3 0.Section A patents.

6 Ke La 17.1.2-0.1.6 6.7 1.3 -9.9 64.4 n h ine es m bia nia bia yp co ge tio do rd es ia ta em nk kis es pin Eg lom ma ra Al Jo ra lad Na oc ny iza ua on Pa or at Uk ilip iA Ro Ec Ind Co Vi Gu an M Sri rg Ph ra sia nP at en tO Sa ud Eu . the contribution of resident applications to overall growth outweighed that of non-resident applications (Figure A. Figure A.11 The patent offices of Indonesia and Ukraine each received more than 5.Section A patents.0 Applications 3.2 -27.6).2.1 0.5 60.7 8.0 -2. utility models and microorganisms High-income countries are prominent in the list of top 20 offices (Figure A.8 Contribution to growth Ba ng et 0 0.1 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 49.3 95.5 -1.3 Contribution by non-resident applications -12.1 90.5 897 694 460 400 Non-Resident 98.2 1. a considerable amount of IP activity also occurs in the offices of middle.6 Contribution of resident and non-resident applications to total growth for offices of selected middle.2 6.9 -0.6 84.0 14.and low-income countries.3 5. The Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) and the offices of Viet Nam and the Philippines also received large numbers of applications.0 -10.6 -1.7 83.5 -6.6 41.9 5.9 2.1 -0.560 3. October 2012 11 The selected offices are from different world regions.4 51. non-resident applications accounted for almost all applications filed in Ecuador and Guatemala.196 2.9 11.9 Total growth rate (%): 2010 .3 3.3 0.1 -0.0 ine t ria an r* n at ion a* es nia bia at em ala a* bia yp ica m ia co h ta es Na pin oc Al ge do rd es ma ra Eg ma lom kis nk Uk niz or iA Jo lad on ny Ec ua Vi et ilip Ke La Ind Ro Pa Co ng M Ja rg a ud Sri Gu Ph Ba Eu ra sia nP at en tO Sa Office Note: *Growth rate refers to 2009-2010. However. growth in resident applications accounted for more than half of the 4. except Ukraine and Romania.and low-income countries.8 -12. 2010-11 Contribution by resident applications 3. In all offices listed. October 2012 Figure A.209 1.8 -14.7 3. Data for all available offices are presented in the statistical annex.6 -0. 2011 Resident 90.2.2.3 953 Resident 89.2 1.and low-income countries.4 3.11 55. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.9 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 90.7 5. However. Figure A.1 1.0 -1.463 Applications 331 306 197 113 61 1.6 -1.3).9 91.8 -0.6 2.1 -10.6 -13.5 15.5 2. For example.5 Patent applications for offices of selected middle.8 -31.3% overall growth in Colombia. For example.4 -15. for a number of these offices. non-resident applications accounted for the bulk of total applications.5 6.1.1 -0.3 3. 50 M ad ag as ra ca r ag as ca n t r .4 1.9 -14.5 depicts patent application data for selected middle.2.049 990 an ria r* a* a* ala ica ma Ja M ad 3.9 -5.3 3.3 0.6 94.953 1.1.253 Non-Resident 72.200 applications in 2011.9 82.2 9.560 3.1.8 89.8 -2.2 99.7 -0.and low-income countries.9 4. Office Office Note: *2010 data Source: WIPO Statistics Database.0 90.0 0.838 5.2.

2% Source: WIPO Statistics Database and World Bank.6% Lower middle-income: 12. Figure A.8% in 2001 to 67% in 2011. Over the past decade.025 or less). calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. 51 .1% High-income: 67.Section A patents.7 Patent applications and GDP share by income group Patent applications 2001 2011 High-income: 85. which is substantially higher than their GDP share (54. they accounted for two-thirds of the world total.026-$4.3% Upper middle-income: 11. Despite the decline. patent applications grew more rapidly than did economic output in China. so that the gap between patent applications and GDP shares of the upper middle-income countries narrowed considerably between 2001 and 2011. China saw rapid growth in both patent applications and GDP.1.0% Lower middle-income: 3.2.1% Upper middle-income: 32. upper middle-income (US$4.476 or more).8% Lower middle-income: 2.2% Low-income: 1. Economies are divided according to 2011 gross national income (GNI) per capita.8% Low-income: 0.035).5% Upper middle-income: 24.2% Upper middle-income: 29.6%). Furthermore.8% Low-income: 0. lower middle-income (US$1.7 shows the distribution of patent applications worldwide and that of gross domestic product (GDP) by income group.9% High-income: 54.12 The share of high-income countries in patent applications worldwide declined from 85.1.8% Lower middle-income: 9. utility models and microorganisms Figure A. This resulted in a considerable increase in the share of upper middle-income countries in the world total for both patents and GDP.2. October 2012 12 The income groups correspond to those used by the Word Bank.0% GDP 2001 2011 High-income: 64. The groups are: low-income (US$1.475).036$12.7% Low-income: 0. and high-income (US$12.

However.2. In contrast. large differences emerge. Exceptions include China. when looking at the JPO’s and SIPO’s shares in total applications and grants worldwide. This is due to the substantial growth in resident applications in China. In contrast. the patent office of India received 42. which all have higher non-resident shares for grants than for applications. appear in the top 20 list for grants.1. does not. while the patent office of Mexico received 14.2 26.323) issued the largest number of patents in 2011. 2011 Resident 38. the non-resident share exceeded 80%.2. Excluding data for China.1. A. The number of patents granted by SIPO grew considerably in absolute terms (+37. India showed the largest difference between its numbers of applications and grants. while that of upper middleincome countries declined from 60% to 26. care should be exercised in making direct comparisons between application and grant data. followed by the USPTO (224. The non-resident share ranged from 0. followed by KIPO (+25.8 Non-Resident 78. application and grant numbers for Mexico were of similar magnitude.168 patents.Section A patents. but the JPO witnessed an opposite trend.003).505).485 patents. for most offices. Hong Kong SAR.6% of applications but only 17. Germany and the United Kingdom (UK). resident applications accounted for the majority of total applications (Figure A. the non-resident share increased from around 35% in 2001 to 38% in 2011.3) were of similar magnitude. However. one of the top 20 offices in terms of applications.8).8%.2 Grants by office The combined shares of the top five offices for applications and grants worldwide were nearly equal (around 79%). For a number of offices. 14 In 2011. October 2012 In both high-income and upper middle-income countries.877) and the JPO (+15.003) in 2011.8 Resident and non-resident patent applications worldwide by income. The JPO (238.7% in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to 98.3% of grants worldwide. with 16% of applications and 24% of grants worldwide.8 89. However. For high-income countries. resident applications accounted for around one-fifth of total applications in lower middle-income countries. SIPO had the largest increase in patent grants (+37. but its rank in third position did not change.1. due to the time lag between application and grant dates.5% in China.2. non-resident application and grant shares (Figure A. utility models and microorganisms Figure A. 52 .630).13 Brazil.14 13 In absolute numbers. however. the non-resident share for upper middle-income countries was around 65% in 2001 and 58% in 2011.5 Non-Resident share: 2011 Distribution of Non-Resident applications 100 75 50 25 0 High-income Upper middle-income Office Lower middle-income Low-income Source: WIPO Statistics Database.055 applications and issued 11. SIPO accounted for 24.2.291 applications and issued 5. Of the top 20 offices.

Data for all available offices are presented in the statistical annex.3 -54.323 Non-Resident 32.710 94. of Korea = Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Source: WIPO Statistics Database.9 30.6 37. non-resident grants accounted for the largest share in total grants.5 y ca ina da ca ico AR gS on Ne w n ea ce re e m a ly * ia l an pa tio ali nc Ita Ind do po ea ffi eri or na fri ae Ch rm tO era Fra str Ja Am hA fK ing or Ca M ga Au Ge fK co ten dK Sin ed ut an F bli Pa tes ite P. Figure A.3 7. In percentage terms. ed ro Un it Eu Office Note: *2010 data Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 -5.2. due to declines in both resident and non-resident grants.1 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 51.2.2 Contribution of resident and non-resident patent grants to total growth for the top 20 offices. India also issued fewer patents in 2011 than in 2010 (-27.7 -27. Kazakhstan and Viet Nam. see footnote 13.7 2.2 3.7 91.3 Contribution by non-resident applications 22.P.5 -5.213 Resident 58.6 22.1 illustrates that high-income countries are prominent in the list of top 20 offices for patent grants.and low-income countries.9 1.4 2.9 13.3 6.9 -1. the increases in Australia.5 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 172.9 Non-Resident 89.1 Patent grants for the top 20 offices.8 0.3 33.5 2. P.Section A patents.6%).2.290 5.2 89.16 Among these countries.6 -3.2).6 -4.999 20.2 22.3 -1.H on gK of .6%).050 4.2.7 8.3 12. Am e dK of of pu bli c ta tes dS Re Un ite of Ko 53 .7 10. R.877 11.2 0 1.1%) and Singapore (33. 2010-11 Contribution by resident applications 7.11 23.6 -4. In all offices.R.4 2.o Ze ala ex Isr nd n Ind ia Ch ina Isr .0 9. October 2012 Figure A.9 -0.2. followed by Israel (37. Ch ina .2.9%).762 17.485 rea * Sin ga po re So ut hA fri ca Un ite Eu ro .380 6.1 -6.2 -14. For all offices.7 23. 15 For absolute numbers. KIPO had the highest growth rate (37.6 98.1 -21.0 0.9 0.112 29.4 24.H ae on l gK on gS A R Ne w Ze ala nd ing do m pe Ko an rea Pa ten tO Ru ssi ffi ce an Fe de ra tio n Ca na da Au str ali a Ge rm an y M ex ico Ja pa n Ch ina Fra nc e ric a Ita ly D.2 28.1 8.7 47.0 14. Office Office Note: *2010 data. KIPO and SIPO. followed by Brazil. Mexico and Singapore were almost entirely driven by growth in non-resident grants.720 62.0 97.8 -5.8 3.1 4. October 2012 The majority of the top 20 offices issued more patents in 2011 than in 2010 (Figure A.6 92.0 0.6 Contribution to growth 3.505 34.2 3.113 Grants 7.0 37.173 Grants 6.3 16.0 85.168 5.3 85. the increase in non-resident grants was the main contributor to each office’s growth.4 0. 16 The selected offices are from different world regions. Ukraine issued the largest number of patents. except the JPO.4 1. The majority of reported offices issued more patents in 2011 than in 2010.3 presents grant data for offices of selected middle. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.3 3.2 -60.3 7.R So pu Sta ssi Un an Re pe Ru D.104 5.949 5. D.1 238.5 93.9 -10. 15 Figure A.719 11.4 0. 2011 Resident 17. Italy saw a substantial drop in patent grants (-60.6 30.2 4.9 31. except Kazakhstan.6 224.2.4%) in 2011.2 27.3 11.296 5.2. For example.4 Total growth rate (%): 2010 .2.8 22.3 -0.0 2.2.

the number of applications and grants by origin reported here is likely to be lower than the actual number. October 2012 17 See Glossary for the definition of resident application and application abroad. to calculate the number of equivalent applications or grants for the EAPO or the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI). Applications at regional offices are equivalent to multiple applications in the respective states members of those offices.5 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 90.844 1.3 Patent grants for offices of selected middle.2 4. This method might underestimate the number of applications at the EPO or ARIPO.3 92.4 99.251 A.887 1.Section A patents. for these two offices.9 62.2. For instance. Note: *2010 data Source: WIPO Statistics Database.17 The origin of a patent application is determined based on the residency of the first-named applicant. each application is counted as one application abroad if the applicant does not reside in a member state.2.4 94.8 97. Non-Resident 82. Thus.6 99.3 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 385 252 154 151 85 40 39 equivalent applications or grants concept.and low-income countries. or as one resident and one application abroad if the applicant resides in a member state.3 Non-Resident 65. t bia ba a* an rd Jo Gu n ru as h ta Pe Eg Cu ra ur es La Pa iA nd lad Sri ud Ho .546 1.4 483 93.1 94.1 84. each application is multiplied by the corresponding number of member states.5 87. Uncertainty and lack of data on designations or validations in member states are the main reasons for limiting the number of applications abroad to one for these two offices. As some offices do not provide data broken down by origin.0 Grants 1. as applications at these offices may lead to protection in more than one jurisdiction.061 3.5 92. Sa Office Ba ng at em kis nk ala yp the EPO and the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) do not issue patents with automatic region-wide applicability. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.3 Patent applications and grants by origin Patent application counts based on the applicant’s origin complement the picture of patent activity worldwide. 2011 Resident 53. This subsection reports figures based on an ra ine 56.7 93.258 1.3 14.8 469 Grants Eu ra sia nP Al at ge en ria tO rg an iza tio n Ph ilip pin es M or oc co Th ail an d Co lom bia az il * Ka za kh sta n Vi et Na m Uk Br Office Resident 97.135 979 900 617 Patent activity by origin includes resident applications and applications abroad. 54 .3 504 87. By contrast.

All European countries.1 Equivalent patent applications for the top 20 origins..7 -3.3. In da en um ia ly Ru ssi a ali ae l data.433 Fra n itz erl Kin Ge th e Un ite d Sta Re first for origin data.764 65.376 31. Large differences in the numbers of applications abroad for China and Japan partly explain the differences in the ranking between office and origin data (See Figure A.0 -1. October 2012 Among the top 20 origins.0 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 1.3 -4. most countries saw growth in applications between 2010 and 2011. shares of applications filed abroad ranged from 87% for Israel to 57% for Germany. 20 . the fall in resident applications was the main factor for the overall decrease.528 21.2 3.417) in 2011. Finland and Switzerland saw considerable declines in applications. and Israel filed a high proportion of their total applications abroad.417 Figure A. Australia.516 11. Residents of Japan filed the largest number of applications across the world (472. overtook the US to become the second largest country for origin counts.19 The ranking of the top three origins is different than that for offices.8 -1. In terms of ofAm fK Abroad -0.3 5.3 -0.1 presents equivalent patent application data for the top 20 origins.1 Applications and grants by origin Figure A. The majority of origins filed fewer than 50.3% increase in 2011. As for Switzerland. but Sw of bli Ne tes pu k ia ar d an Fe d co era fices. Residents of China filed fewer than 20. China.8 3. Au str Isr tions abroad (i. China was the only country with double-digit growth.565 11. In the case of Finland.e. 19 If the present trend continues.4 -1. In contrast. which saw a 41.3.608 432.000 Canada.427 11. 2011 Resident 0.349 49.480 15. China will soon overtake Japan to become the top origin.3 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 41.Section A patents. but it ranked second for origin ny ca n or ea ce om d a ds rla n Ch in eri rm a Ja gd tio n pa an 55 . due mostly to growth in resident applications.0 the Russian Federation are the only three middle-income origins in the top 20 list.2.938 37.477 32.1 4. the drop in applications abroad was the main contributor to the overall decline. 20 For these offices.3.9 -3. Japan and the US each filed around 184.393 11.298 Applications 187.18 China.821 lan Ita Ind na ed str nm lgi Sw Ca Fin Be Au contrast.4 435. applications abroad.717 Abroad -11.8 27. China ranked first.1.1.1).454 172.000 applications in 2011.5% of all applications worldwide).9 472. 18 The sum of resident applications and applications abroad.679 24.3. utility models and microorganisms A.0 -4.8 -4.348 10. Japan ranked third for office data. India and Applications Un ite d Origin Resident -0. 4.9 -0.000 applica- 11. De Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database.

For example.5 6.1 7.1 304.6 6. by far.217 5.R. care should be exercised when comparing application and grant data as it takes time (several years) to process applications.617 an Abroad -9. the impact of globalization on IP protection strategies. Italy and the Russian Federation – the number of equivalent grants increased between 2010 and 2011. Once those applications are processed. 56 De nm str ar k . compared to 201.263 6. However.3. in recent years there has been substantial growth in applications filed by residents of China.0 39. 21 These three origins saw drops in equivalent applications and grants in 2011.9 14.158 97. P.3.2 Equivalent patent grants for the top 20 origins. 2011 Resident 6.8 Abroad 3.2 5.2 Applications abroad by origin ny ca n or ea ce om d an itz erl a Ch in tio n pa Fra n eri rm a Ja Am fK era Kin Ge gd Ita ly Sta Re Ru ssi Un ite d tes pu The volume of filings abroad reflects.564 16. the applications and grants profiles of China and the US differ significantly.068 4.766 22.158 118.21 Thirteen of these -34.1).3 20 origins were granted the majority of their patents by foreign patent offices.1. Grants 201.3 28. Companies that expand operations to foreign countries might have a business need to seek IP protection in those countries.1.604 For all origins reported – except Finland. D. equivalent patent grants show similar trends to those for equivalent applications.158 for US residents. However.22 Residents of Denmark and Switzerland obtained more than four-fifths of their total patents from offices other than their national patent office.8 3.1 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 5.212 A.260 filing more than 184.275 17. filed the largest number of applications abroad – each Fe d co bli Un ite d Origin Resident 3.R . Residents of China received 118.905 10. October 2012 For the majority of origins.Section A patents.o fK Origin Note: *2010 data.4 2.2 8.8 -6. but there was a substantial difference in their numbers of grants received.714 72. hence EPO members have a high share in total grants abroad. patent applications abroad provide some indication of how companies are expanding their businesses into overseas markets. These two origins had similar numbers of applications (Figure A. D. to some extent.7 Grants 6. 23 It goes without saying that expanding operations abroad does not necessarily mean that companies will seek additional patent rights.23 Therefore.6 7.9 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 2. China’s grant total will increase. of Korea = Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Source: WIPO Statistics Database.5 2.185 equivalent grants in 2011. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.P.3. 22 Eleven of the 13 origins are members of the EPO – a regional office.346 34. companies might rely on other types of IP protection.924 10. Japan and the US. Furthermore.6 6. en da um ain ds ia str Au a * d ali an ed na ea lan lgi Sp Sw Ca Fin erl or Au Be th Ne . Patents granted by the EPO are counted as grants abroad.827 Sw of 5. or IP protection might not be necessary at all due to the nature of the business activity.855 4.162 5.177 18.000 applications in 2011.

German residents accounted for the largest share.3. applications of US origin accounted for the largest shares of total patent applications in all reported offices. the Republic of Korea. 2011 -5.1. at the patent office of India.3 14. the 2011 data show that there are signs of recovery. where there was an equal distribution between resident and nonresident applications. A similar profile is visible at the offices of Australia. Japan and the Republic of Korea).9%.0 -2.797 8.8 Ne th e Ca n Ja fK ad a Excluding resident filings.420 applicants consider factors such as market size and geo41. saw decreases in applications abroad at the start of the economic downturn in 2008. At the patent offices of China and the Republic of Korea. Canada. residents of the US filed more applications than domestic applicants. In a number of offices.3. The US is an exception. China ranked first.1 Applications abroad for the top origins 1995 3. except the US.24 When deciding where to seek patent protection.1. the largest shares belonged to residents of Japan. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.831 29.3 0. reflecting the relatively small number of applications that residents of China file abroad.062 29. The top five origins.181 19. The share of China at most offices was less than 2%. At larger patent offices (e. Tables A.718 Republic of Korea.9 29.295 8.774 graphical proximity. For example.779 19.3.3% and 6.6 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Applications abroad 99. for the applications abroad measure it ranked below Japan. ny ca n d or ea ce om ds a Ch in pa Fra n eri rm a an rla n gd Kin Ge itz erl Am co Sw of Sta Un ite d Re Un ite d tes pu bli Origin 1995 -4. All top origins.9 15. China.1 and A.837 184.4%.2 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 -0.876 5.475 24.4 5.Section A patents.7 0. respectively. while in France.193 7. 24 “Origin data” refers to simple application count rather than equivalent application count as presented in Figure A. Data are reported for top offices and top origins. except China.7 -0.0 -3. 12. Germany.2 -2. en ia um ali lan Ita ar str Isr Ind ed lgi nm str Sw Au Be Fin .461 8. However. a closer look at the data for 2009 to 2011 reveals the negative impact of the economic downturn.505 6.2 present a breakdown of patent application data by origin (source) and office (destination).3.3. Mexico and Singapore. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. Residents of Japan accounted for the largest share of non-resident applications at the patent offices of China.6 14. applications abroad for Japan. All reported countries saw substantial growth in applications abroad between 1995 and 2011.965 8.2. however.3. between 2008 and 2009.3.548 A.866 2011 -14. 57 . the US and several larger European countries. However. the US and Germany – the top three origins – declined by 6.5 -0. Origin De Au Sp ain l a ly d k ae ia residents of the US accounted for a larger share of total applications than residents of India.4 -0.7 -3. the Republic of Korea and the US. For example. France and the Applications abroad 9..3 Applications by office and origin To provide a detailed picture of patent flows across countries. resident applicants accounted for more than three-quarters of total applications. filed more applications abroad in 2011 than in 2008 (2008 being the peak year).5 8.903 -0. October 2012 For the resident applications measure.3 5. except Austria and China.5 184.548 49.g.

HK (China.8 2.901 1050 13.9 1.3 43.0 AU 9.0 0.0 0.9 100.3 1.0 HK 1.055 HK 172 54 162 353 544 124 75 312 931 50 118 196 1.935 4.8 1.6 0.034 31 573 1.568 5.0 0.8 1. KR (Republic of Korea).3 1.1 0.1 Number of patent applications by office and origin: top offices and origins.7 0.975 10.0 RU 0.2 1.5 3.793 DE 16 836 53 35 91 24 116 230 46.0 2.9 8.548 5.5 1.4 0.302 56 97 409 1.2 Distribution of patent applications by office and origin: top offices and top origins.1 0.1 3.291 RU 70 195 192 197 393 149 225 1.1 0.499 1122 59.4 79.571 9.9 0.0 SG 1.457 3413 526.2 0.231 2.9 5.526 GB 109 35 241 203 118 76 52 127 372 24 96 29 616 203 143 4 77 242 15.097 8.575 1724 42.0 Note: See note for Table A.889 168 3.5 0.7 20.669 4.6 0.582 JP 464 288 457 751 1.7 15.0 0.750 31177 503.0 0. AU (Australia).1 0.4 0.6 0.876 28.7 11.401 418 319 3.1 1.7 100.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 CA 1.5 4.8 1.4 0.3 0.9 3.5 1.773 170 413 753 287.5 0.2 1.0 0.447 6.849 2.383 212 281 548 383 287 172 806 1.610 6.3.3 0.1 6.8 1.5 2.734 1.1 0.4 0.007 38 1.1 0.0 0.2 8.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 87.048 1.8 2.495 340 803 404 3.230 473 1.1 0.9 11.6 1. IN (India).129 120 1.974 2.7 5.1 2.1 0.986 12 15 109 3.2 0.418 27.412 US 3.4 3.3.6 0.0 GB 0.342 1657 35.610 KR 167 190 263 466 752 187 334 1.9 9.598 109 212 358 15.2 83.1 1.6 2.4 0.4 5.1 1.8 0. 2011 Origin Australia Austria Belgium Canada China Denmark Finland France Germany India Israel Italy Japan Netherlands Republic of Korea Russian Federation Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Other / Unknown Total Office CN 0.580 2.140 4.2 0.9 3.2 49.4 100.3 2.2 100. DE (Germany).4 0.8 0.4 5.0 0.7 0.9 1.4 4.7 4.8 1.8 2.707 1109 41.5 5.3 1.2 1.2 0.3 1.8 100.0 13.343 2.2 1.9 1.002 1629 25.2 6.994 2.9 1.342 2.1 0.1 0.4 1.4 0.723 141 308 498 1.7 0.5 3.282 85.6 100.7 43.4 0. 2011 Origin Australia Austria Belgium Canada China Denmark Finland France Germany India Israel Italy Japan Netherlands Republic of Korea Russian Federation Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Other / Unknown Total Office CN 621 598 592 1.414 CA 462 243 324 4.4 0.0 4.4 0.8 1.3 6.3 0.184 4.214 11.0 2.729 188 86 23 243 732 450 5.6 2.0 MX 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.999 8. utility models and microorganisms Table A.793 2.436 4.6 0.1 68.1 0.0 0.0 FR 0.8 64.4 3.0 0.0 36.5 0.1 0.610 4.9 100.1 1.2 7.4 2. CA (Canada).3 24. October 2012 58 .4 1.6 4.7 18.286 15.7 7.2 1.691 606 339 16 441 1.3 100.8 1.234 1.252 80 88 241 759 445 183 13 206 820 403 6.764 34.289 719 4. EP (European Patent Office).2 0.794 666 338 47 472 1.973 11.0 0.1 0.405 4.753 3.2 5.8 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 0.8 100.4 1.3 0.754 MX 123 62 180 278 203 169 62 546 1.3.1 1.7 0.0 0.139 1669 178.924 EP 837 1.9 1.7 3.4 6.5 0.3 6.5 0.982 20.7 2.4 0.652 1.414 3323 342.8 43.525 1624 22. JP (Japan).0 0.9 0.Section A patents.6 1.9 0.0 EP 0.4 0.1 1.1 100.0 1.5 100.0 12.841 330 700 5.7 100.9 0.8 0. Hong Kong (SAR)) and SG (Singapore) Source: WIPO Statistics Database.829 781 964 3.1 0.2 0.931 989 318 26.1 0.6 1.8 5.0 0.632 26.6 77.987 7594 142.6 0.053 3.665 1.279 247.6 0.4 2.259 FR 8 17 76 8 71 8 4 14.739 23.4 1.9 16.0 0.6 1.7 0.9 0.033 415.045 138.9 13.4 0.2 7.0 100.1 2.9 0.0 US 0.8 1.5 1.033 2.1 5.1 7.4 0.111 1.5 5.2 1.1 0.4 1.1 2.794 Note: CN (China).5 12. FR (France).1 0.4 1.3 7.111 AU 2.0 1. MX (Mexico).7 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.5 0.9 100.086 11.2 79.3.1 1.551 10.0 9.346 2.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3.9 1.182 1760 14.2 0.5 5.7 2.0 KR 0.1 2.3 0.548 1.4 2.7 0.3 0.0 0.493 SG 188 34 88 126 167 75 40 422 667 55 83 99 1269 173 105 8 149 516 388 3594 1548 9.115 11.001 65 999 39 232 853 111 4.698 169 240 298 1.2 6.5 0.4 4.0 IN 0.1 0.8 1.5 0.7 4.6 1.7 0.5 0.0 4. October 2012 Table A.2 0.8 14.8 0.8 0.1 6.3 0.326 1.1 0.5 6.245 39.8 0.142 10. GB (United Kingdom).0 JP 0.0 1.0 2.4 0.0 0.5 0.4 3.4 3.9 0.8 5.1 0.2 6.3.4 0.545 1.1 0.7 25.444 IN 341 269 323 583 976 411 451 1. US (United States of America).3 3.754 352 312 273 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.513 737 55 854 1.3 0.0 DE 0.5 5.139 1.3 4.655 590 2 3 61 128 20 39 18 21 213 69 417 326 16.767 1.8 0.9 2.073 737 12.1 0.6 1.9 1.730 2.1 0.4 2.3 0.422 202 532 1.3 100.374 5.798 1.9 0.8 0.9 44. RU (Russian Federation).9 0.563 27.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.

26 By contrast.000. patent applications withdrawn before publication) and provisional applications are not included in the patent family count. the total number of patent families continuously increased. continuation-in-part.Section A patents.1 Trends in patent families Patent families 1.1. utility models and microorganisms A. “Foreign-oriented patent family” is defined as a patent family having at least one filing office that is different from the office of the first-named applicant’s country of origin.000 -4. (2) one patent application may belong to more than one patent family due to the existence of multiple priority claims.g. addition or division.. The drop in the total number of patent families in 2009 coincided with the economic downturn.8 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Application year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Note: The patent family dataset includes only published patent applications.4. October 2012 25 In this publication.1 shows the number of patent families worldwide for 1995-2009. Unpublished patent applications (e. which include only patent families having at least one filing office that is different from the office of the applicant’s country of Figure A. A. 2009 is the latest available year for which complete patent family data exist.7 2. as applicants may choose to file directly with a foreign office. patent families include only those families associated with patent applications for inventions and exclude families associated with utility model applications.8 2. To account for this.4. 27 Patent family data are based on published applications.7 2.000 Growth rate (%) 750.7 4. and was consistent with the drop in patent applications worldwide (Figure A. continuation.1 Patent families Figure A. There is a minimum delay of 18 months between the application and publication dates. 59 . For this reason.27 Between 1995 and 2008. continuation.2 4.5 4. consists of foreign-oriented patent families.7% drop in 2009.000 Patent families 500.1. A special subset of patent families 25 origin.4 Patent Families Applicants often file patent applications in multiple jurisdictions. WIPO’s patent family dataset has the following features: (1) each “firstfiled” patent application forms a patent family. leading to some inventions being counted more than once in patent counts. followed by a 4. addition or division. internal priority.4 2.1.7 4. if a Canadian applicant files a patent application directly with the USPTO (without previously filing with the patent office of Canada).1.2 4. 26 Some foreign-related patent families contain only one filing office. defined as a set of patent applications interlinked by – or by a combination of – priority claim. that application. domestic patent families are patent families having only one filing office that is the same as the office of the first-named applicant’s country of origin. “Patent family” is defined as a set of patent applications interlinked by – or by a combination of – priority claim. PCT national phase entry.6 1.5 10.8 6. For example. PCT national phase entry.4. WIPO has developed indicators related to so-called patent families.1 5. and applications filed subsequently with the USPTO. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database.3 4.1). all subsequent patent filings are added to that family. continuation-in-part. form a foreign-oriented patent family.

the distribution of domestic and foreign-oriented families differed considerably.638 534.7 Foreign-oriented share (%): 2005 .1.118 15.833 Domestic 79.2 million families – followed by the US. Patent families originating in Switzerland (91. 22.6 62.357 28.3 79.09 42.1.3 100 75 50 25 0 2.8 2.3%).5%) and Sweden (45.0 11. Ne Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database. the largest number of patent families originated in Japan – the only origin with more than 1.4 1. large shares of patent families originating in European countries.4 85.3 Foreign-oriented share (%): 2005 . A small fraction of total patent families originating in Brazil (1.8%) and the Russian Federation (8.3%) were predominantly foreign-oriented.8 3.8 Foreign-oriented 74. Between 2005 and 2009. A.5 33.308 63. less than 6% of all patent families originating in China were foreign-oriented.2 Domestic and foreign-oriented patent families for the top origins. Figure A. 2005-09 1 Office 2 Offices 2.4.601 Foreign-oriented 65. However.Section A patents. there was considerable variation among the top origins. The majority of patent families contain only one office.4.8 8. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database.4 Average number of offices in foreign-oriented families: 2005-09 Distribution of number of offices 2.2.6 89.191 95. China (4.104 17. Sweden (89%) and Israel (85.09 Patent families 747.512 274. In contrast.1 Distribution of total patent families by number of offices. such as France (49.838 45.1. In contrast. October 2012 Figure A.2 2.051 42.2 Patent families by office and origin Figure A. most often the national patent office of the applicant.227.5 2.7%).4.773 11.799 561.1 91.4 5 Offices 2.8 75. October 2012 60 ite Origin Ne Sw lic d Sw Ca Fr an ce l ly d Po lan d Au str Ko Am e rm Br Isr .2.122 20.4.5 More than 5 offices 2.984 28.4.252 Patent families 20.9 16.900 an y ed era tio n ric a Ca na da Ja pa n Ch ina rea Fra nc e ing do m Ita ly ed en az il Fin lan d Sp ain an d an ds ali a ae l ia 2.5 61.6% of patent families created worldwide between 2005 and 2009 included at least two patent offices.4.438 81.797 10.2 presents the number of domestic and foreign-oriented patent families for the top origins for 2005-2009.5%) included at least two patent offices. However.114 20.9 1.8 2. China and the Republic of Korea.1.4 71.5 2. On average.8 2. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.5 2.9 ica y Au str itz erl Sw Ge of Origin ed en ina da il n d a om tio n ta ds Br az Ko re pa an lan lan Ita Ch ng d lan To na er rm ra Ja itz er Fin m th er de of A Fe Ki Ge of ss ian pu b es Re Ru Un ite d St Un at Note: The definition of a patent family is explained in the note for Figure A.4 th erl pu bli c an F dK of Sw ta tes Un ite dS Ru ssi Re Un ite Origin .0 49.5%).4 5.1 shows the distribution of total patent families by number of offices for selected origins. More than 40% of total patent families originating in the US were foreign-oriented. included at least two patent offices.2 51. for these origins.8 3 Offices 2. 2005-09 Domestic 20.9 4 Offices 3.

146 57.909 9.049 6.053 2.445 Israel 354 123 347 377 125 154 1.485 7.409 1.616 359 1.167 928 3.983 10.762 912.786 1. Japan and the Republic of Korea had a high tendency to file at SIPO – more than two-fifths of total foreign-oriented families from these origins included filings at SIPO.046 1.621 3.436.377 20.464 1.146 9.903 3.838 68 570 1.886 5.602 21.644 447 3.014 140.415 8.057 89.650 30.924 New Zealand 2.203 7.278 579 455 360 116 66 294 493 1.844 373 702 1.457 22.131 9.506 446 979 1.143 1.110 9.494 5.Section A patents.230 2.589 3.095 72 750 1.568 176.365 504 179 1.489 67.140 38.119 1.513 11.690 51.498 106.660 Brazil 442 189 352 485 310 395 2.4.859 34.931 3.1.816 201.170 1.637 28.2 illustrates the flow of patent filings from source countries to destination offices.321 11.2.596 4. The USPTO is the most popular destination for foreignoriented patent families – around 67% of foreign-oriented patent families from non-US residents included at least one filing at the USPTO.405 1.603 1.450 50.998 125.426 Japan 2.293 11.014 8.536 1.233 10.813 250.520 15.413 13.189 1. More than four-fifths of foreignoriented patent families originating in Japan and the Republic of Korea included filings at the USPTO.128 641.928 5.080 590 1.097 1.554 62.315 26. The percentage of foreign-oriented families by non-resident applicants that had filings at SIPO was around 35%. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database.306 1.599 1.394 1.116 111.380 6.161 6.923 4.186 1.151 63.730 435 640 450 645 983 1.677 1.967 20.853 3.756 9.739 10.434 5.239 14.422 5.632 3.935 199.623 203 1.136 1.026 7.106 7.448 1.635 13.256 104.100 3. 61 .3 due to data consolidation – that is.884 22.276 5.218 138.145 3. Data reported in this table give lower numbers than the applications abroad data reported in subsection A.004 23.685 2.719 513.138 317.4.082 4.850 259 1. a small proportion of foreign-oriented families included filings at the patent offices of France.309 64.137 China 4.984 9.449 25.681 2.2 Foreign-oriented patent families for selected offices and origins.382 2.1.416 11. About 38% of foreign-oriented families from non-EPC members contained applications at the EPO.440 European Patent Office 4.793 United Republic Russian of Korea Federation Kingdom 1.860 128 494 12. Israel and New Zealand.061 2.501 9.838 68.741 864 1.788 45. Germany and the UK.155 3.177 United States of America 8.201 6.501 60.139 128.709 2.140 4.518 12.614 43.601 15.442 79.281 17.069 42.272 100.348 81.349 109 342 478 134 85 784 1.532 7.767 1.886 159.704 Mexico 512 230 562 1.210 1.190 974 5.339 763 805 334 193 572 1.268 30.077 3.933 8.146 1.388 3.807 75.048 598.777 1.490 20.287 573 85 1.369 7.090 15.091 2.565 83.236 635 1.835 1.504 13 241 1.28 Table A.644 535 746 47 383 897 1. This can be explained by the fact that applicants have the option of filing at the EPO. which later (after the granting process) reaches the national patent offices of EPC member states.363 5. A small proportion of foreign-oriented patent families by non-resident applicants included filings at the patent offices of Brazil.573 2.075 83.470 39.817 2.059 14. repeated filings at the same office within the same patent family are counted only once.774 8.293 141 338 414 475 109 58 153 509 1. October 2012 28 Similarly.189 2.944 378 289 2.808 317.432 3.683 14.207 5. 2005-09 Office Origin Australia Austria Belgium Canada China Finland France Germany Israel Italy Japan Netherlands Republic of Korea Singapore Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Others Total families Australia 5.847 418 16.185 Total families 14.223 25.308 Canada 2. refer to the note for Figure A.052 Note: For the definition of a patent family.340 268.667 1.898 1.549 1.797 25.112 1.256 255 245 632 517 1.583 4.107 257 449 2.976 1.742 2.899 5.153 Germany 96 3.749 690 1.372 16.284 7.939 3.4.303 13.051 France 14 97 333 65 298 32 32.519 31.450 16. whereas 60% of those owned by EPC members had EPO filings.328 1.080 6.397 180.2.650 1.158 98.935 25.166 35.405 91 396 4 257 146 361 158 1.000 33.016 209.947 8.904 150.726 24.874 29.400 7.529 1.869 773 473 2.555 5.756 24.007 572 386 602 1.633 4.677 18.433 8. utility models and microorganisms Table A.

5. The main advantages of the PCT are that applicants and patent offices of PCT contracting states benefit from uniform formality requirements.0 4.2 refer to the international phase of the PCT procedure.Section A patents.5. international search. Figure A.5. 62 .3 refer to PCT national phase entries.4 6.29 Since the system’s establishment.5 18. PCT application data presented in A.000 150.5 13. Counts are based on the international application date. utility models and microorganisms A.5 Patent applications filed through the patent cooperation treaty The PCT.1 2.3 17.1 depicts the total number of PCT applications filed between 1995 and 2011. followed by a slowdown in growth between 2002 and 2004. and centralized international publication. This can lead to time and cost savings for applicants.5 9. The long-term trend shows that the number of PCT applications grew at a double-digit rate until 2001. however. offers patent applicants an advantageous route for seeking patent protection internationally.5.000 50.7 11.5.1. optional supplementary international search and preliminary examination reports. Japan and the US accounted for 82% of total growth.8 17. Despite difficult economic conditions. while data presented in A. Patent applications originating in China.354 applications.1 16.000 0 Growth rate (%) PCT applications -4. PCT applications set a new record in 2011 with 182. This represents an 11% increase on 2010 and the fastest growth since 2005. It serves as an alternative to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (the Paris Convention) for pursuing the acquisition of patent rights in different countries. PCT applications have rebounded strongly in the past two years.9 2.9 22. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4 11.1 5.1.1 Trend in PCT applications A.5. as well as expanded PCT membership.0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Application year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: Data refer to the international phase of the PCT system.4 6.000 100. there were 144 PCT members in 2011. October 2012 29 The double-digit growth in PCT applications during this period was partly due to an increase in the use of the PCT system.1 and A. 2009 was the only year in which there was a drop in applications.1 PCT applications Figure A. Starting with only 18 members in 1978. an international treaty administered by WIPO.0 20. PCT applications 200.

4 2.8 -1. applications filed by the US grew by 8.3% Republic of Korea: 5.729 1. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.9%) and Austria (+18%).8 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 PCT applications PCT applications 2.9 7.3% France: 4.874).009 3.9% Note: See note for Figure A.9% China: 0.8% Germany: 12.1.9% United States of America: 26. October 2012 30 The share of high-income countries in total PCT applications was around 88%.5.2% Sweden: 1.2 Source: WIPO Statistics Database. was the 30 For the top 20 origins. with the Netherlands recording the largest drop. October 2012 Figure A. Origin Origin Note: Data refer to the international phase of the PCT system.5 8.9% in 2010 and -13.051 applications.852) and China (16.Section A patents.8 4.447 7.1. De erl Be lgi um a l ly d da ae y n d e ia k 63 .5 -13.874 20.5.9% Germany: 10. 2011 8.9 49.5. Among the top four origins. Four countries – three of which are European – saw decreases in applications in 2011. followed by Japan (+20. However.31 Following three consecutive years of decline.314 1.5% United Kingdom: 7. 31 Over the past two years.0% Japan: 21.7% United Kingdom: 2.2 provides a breakdown of PCT applications by country of origin.438 4.695 -2.1.848 4.452 1.1.503 3.462 ain ia ina lan ca en ea ds Ita ali m str pa an na nc Sp Isr Ind an ar nm do eri an ed str or rm Ch Fra erl Ca Ja Fin Au fK ing Am Au Ge co itz dK Sw of bli tes pu ta ite dS Re Un ite Ne th Sw Un .9% in 2011.9 7.3 33.402).9 12.5.3 Country share in total PCT applications 1995 2011 United States of America: 42.4 8.3% China: 9.6 18.739 1.051 38.2% Sweden: 3.5% Netherlands: 3. the number of applications filed in 2011 was still below the pre-crisis peak reached in 2007. the Netherlands saw a considerable drop in PCT applications (-8. China (+33. The list of top 20 origins consists mostly of high-income countries – China and India being the exceptions.346 1.929 1. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.852 16.5% Others: 14. Germany (18.0 3.191 18.9% Others: 14.079 1. largest user of the PCT system in 2011. with 49. The US.4%) saw the fastest growth in applications in 2011.0 2.6 -0.330 1. the US and Japan each had more than twice as many applications as Germany or China.8% in 2011).7% Netherlands: 1.8% Japan: 6.7% Switzerland: 2. Counts are based on residency of the first-named applicant and the international application date.0% France: 4.9 -2. followed by Japan (38.1% Switzerland: 2.402 10.6 2.4 -1.2 PCT applications for the top 20 origins.4 11. Figure A.8% Republic of Korea: 0.

shares ranged from 54.8 90. except China.9 94.7 62. Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha of Japan ranked fourth. university. 64 Un ite d Origin Sta tes Un it pu Sw of itz Fin fK erl Ja pa n a e l k . government and Figure A.9 75.5 Business share: 2011 Distribution of PCT applications by type of applicant 100 75 50 25 0 da ia ain ca y ina en ed Sw ea d om um ia ly ae nc ali an ar ds an d Ind eri Sp Isr na Ch gd lgi nm Fra rm str an or erl lan Ita str Au Am Ca Kin Au Be Ge co De Ne th bli ed Re Note: Data refer to the international phase of the PCT system.1%) and the Republic of Korea (10%). the business sector accounted for more than 80% of total applications.3 67. counts are based on publication date. leading the company to surge from 20th position to the top spot. Due to confidentiality requirements.7 Research/Government 80. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1. with the highest ranked applicants.1 presents the distribution of PCT applications for the top 20 origins broken down by four types of applicants – business.2 University 77.0 67. For China.5. Japan and the Republic of Korea in total PCT applications grew by 28 percentage points between 1995 and 2011. overtook Panasonic Corporation of Japan. The combined share of China.5% for Japan.7 88.5. based on the residency of the first-named applicant and publication date. The top five applicants saw considerable growth in published applications in 2011. Between 2009 and 2011.2 78. which ranked first in 2010. China.1 PCT applications by type of applicant for the top 20 origins. Overall. Israel (13. applications from ZTE Corporation increased five-fold. the highest ranked US applicant.3 Individual 88.2 92. ZTE Corporation of China. This reflects the shift in geography of PCT applications from the US and Europe towards Asia. Japan.2. France and Spain had a high share of applications from government and research institutions – around 10%.4 91. with 2. and Koninklijke Philips Electronics of the Netherlands recorded the largest declines in 2011. and individual. October 2012 Table A. In contrast.3 depicts the country share in total PCT applications for the top 10 origins for 1995 and 2011.826 published applications. had the largest number of applicants ranked among the top 50. has only three different applicants in the top 50 list. the business sector share remained more or less stable between 2006 and 2011. For all origins.3 94.5.5.0 77.7% over the same period.5 82.2. the share of the business sector varied across origins. the share increased from 58% to 78.5. also seeing considerable growth in published applications over the same period.2 PCT applications by type of applicant research institution.2 lists the top 50 PCT applicants. A. Figure A. For all European countries. However.7% for Spain to 94. Universities accounted for a large share of total applications for Spain (16. with 21 different applicants. It shows that in 2011.2 66. 2011 Business 54. Qualcomm Incorporated. the 2011 share was lower than the 1995 share.3%).9 71. the US share declined by 16 percentage points.2. except Switzerland. For the top 20 origins. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.8 82.Section A patents.

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) NEC CORPORATION SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION BASF SE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO... INC. 32 The share of resident PCT NPEs out of total NPEs stood at around 15% in 2011.069 932 569 739 596 663 401 554 688 190 327 401 817 341 373 328 644 353 509 413 318 264 304 45 362 235 375 313 249 254 176 296 359 177 307 283 142 321 2010 1. LTD. NTT DOCOMO. October 2012 A. KG BOSCH-SIEMENS HAUSGERATE GMBH HONDA MOTOR CO.433 1...831 1.891 1. SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION QUALCOMM INCORPORATED TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA LG ELECTRONICS INC. utility models and microorganisms Table A. PCT national phase entry (NPE) statistics shed light on international patenting 65 .3 PCT national phase entries strategies.675 1.826 2. LIMITED GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ALCATEL LUCENT SANYO ELECTRIC CO.. FUJIFILM CORPORATION DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.301 1. counts are based on publication date.5. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY SCHAEFFLER TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO.494 1.297 1. LTD.5.153 1.Section A patents.068 1. LTD. MURATA MANUFACTURING CO. if a PCT application filed by a resident of China enters the national phase procedure at SIPO.147 1. Due to confidentiality requirements. The PCT application process starts with the international phase and concludes with the national phase.241 1.847 997 1. LIMITED E.. LTD.039 834 773 757 698 661 591 563 547 517 499 494 488 480 471 446 446 424 422 421 418 414 399 382 356 353 336 332 327 323 318 309 308 303 291 291 287 285 277 Change compared to 2010 958 310 304 469 217 -181 322 39 -285 -31 -50 209 108 -44 183 66 245 27 -23 175 198 120 19 129 89 124 -24 123 -28 255 50 109 139 111 306 77 147 29 -13 163 25 13 108 -5 -8 111 17 12 156 -27 Note: Data refer to the international phase of the PCT system.868 2. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. LTD. SONY CORPORATION MICROSOFT CORPORATION SUMITOMO CHEMICAL COMPANY. resident application data for the national phase are excluded. 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY HITACHI.588 1.I.. KYOCERA CORPORATION PANASONIC ELECTRIC WORKS CO.2. LTD. The NPE data presented here refer only to non-resident applications – that is. LTD. Top applicants are selected according to the 2011 total.463 1. NOKIA CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. INTEL CORPORATION APPLIED MATERIALS.P. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Origin China Japan China Japan Germany United States of America Japan Republic of Korea Netherlands Sweden Japan Germany Japan Germany Republic of Korea Finland United States of America United States of America United States of America Japan Japan Japan Japan United States of America Japan Japan United States of America Japan United States of America Germany Germany Japan Japan United States of America Japan Japan Japan United States of America Finland China Japan Japan United States of America United States of America France Japan United States of America France Japan United States of America PCT applications 2009 517 1.518 1. LTD.286 1. KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOSHIBA CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA FUJITSU LIMITED PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES.336 1.2 Top PCT applicants Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 46 48 49 50 Applicant's Name ZTE CORPORATION PANASONIC CORPORATION HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.295 1. THOMSON LICENSING ASAHI GLASS COMPANY. it is excluded from the statistics reported here.32 For example..755 1.056 1. The national or regional patent office at which the applicant enters the PCT national phase initiates the granting procedure according to prevailing national law. INC.106 830 726 817 574 632 416 564 586 372 319 379 475 359 391 347 470 323 452 167 371 309 275 288 76 279 206 307 345 164 298 305 201 313 311 180 274 275 129 304 2011 2.527 1. L.280 1.116 1.090 1.148 1. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N. LTD.V.417 1. LTD. BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS OY HUAWEI DEVICE CO.095 1.

694 17.565 630 313 200 458 1.3.897 1.192 12.5.1 12.486 JP 347 210 361 562 954 314 234 2.621 373 802 1. IN (India).284 136 254 386 1.950 1.3.082 682 2.Section A patents.084 9.108 64.483 202 428 961 16.883 525 11.000 100.304 760 2.058 7.550 268 4. 2011 Origin Australia Austria Belgium Canada China Denmark Finland France Germany India Israel Italy Japan Netherlands Republic of Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Others / Unknown Total Office US 1.372 216 308 538 3. ZA (South Africa).766 801 1.106 76 79 215 649 409 162 164 186 743 368 4.000 Growth rate (%) Non-Resident PCT national phase entries 400.189 11.3 8.275 CN 507 479 481 801 2.336 14.289 600 766 3.731 856 1.470 1.526 748 31.048 7.992 946 363 112 492 931 707 10.472 621 178 828 1.899 5. MX (Mexico). SG (Singapore).131 28.927 2.528 2.206 2. KR (Republic of Korea).9 6.055 104 190 296 8.320 51.1 -6.235 80.1 3.287 MX 108 56 155 229 184 149 58 496 1.1 Trend in non-resident PCT national phase entries Non-resident PCT national phase entries 500.076 1.525 2. IL (Israel).8 22. MY (Malaysia) and NZ (New Zealand) Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4 43. CA (Canada).759 AU 996 175 249 422 342 236 156 695 1.642 3.432 149 173 247 1.000 200.345 1.2 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: WIPO estimates Source: WIPO Statistics Database.140 IL 67 12 3 55 61 31 18 162 22 33 418 15 214 48 32 19 51 12 211 2.688 4.5.651 572 6.255 545 290 148 399 920 1.938 2.307 2. CN (China).0 10.008 874 1.8 9.000 SG 134 29 75 88 147 66 32 327 515 51 56 59 865 117 71 34 114 444 279 2.622 3.525 MY 108 19 58 47 109 42 22 281 462 58 1 47 766 156 151 23 99 288 263 1.146 23.972 198 1.233 1.512 3.039 IN 329 239 316 516 915 384 374 1. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.847 RU 67 162 139 185 369 136 195 906 1. RU (Russian Federation).000 0 -1.129 1.506 307 303 251 1.960 52 87 325 1.324 2.727 1.155 26.156 5.782 97. October 2012 66 .761 4.429 3.1 19. AU (Australia).000 300.627 1. JP (Japan).471 937 266 127 329 696 369 3.687 NZ 335 16 66 92 40 76 11 165 328 54 31 56 186 101 31 41 112 212 274 1.9 19.786 1.303 16.359 1.232 25. US (United States of America).519 KR 158 172 256 403 585 171 320 1.165 1.8 10.726 ZA 57 195 108 117 120 88 101 357 723 103 54 90 291 155 37 57 154 419 506 1. October 2012 Table A.982 154 283 524 15.850 337 1.905 503 6.182 925 6.017 12.120 1.883 1.561 EP 704 726 704 1.120 3.2 PCT national phase entries by office and origin for top offices and origins.045 Note: Data include both resident and non-resident NPEs.1 7.434 1. EP (European Patent Office).052 2.696 5.489 2.774 12.456 CA 430 201 298 1.591 2.524 1.903 3.020 18.8 6.375 312 4.9 7.040 469 12.455 1.

3 Share of PCT non-resident national phase entries in total non-resident applications for selected offices. The US was the main source of NPEs at all reported offices.5.5 90.2 82. Growth in NPEs partly reflects the increasing trend of protecting inventions abroad. except the JPO and the USPTO. SIPO and JPO each received more than 50. Mexico and South Africa. Use of the PCT system is popular for filing applications in offices of middle-income countries.4 64.2 presents PCT NPE data broken down by the top offices and top origins. The EPO.6 85.2% increase on 2010 (Figure A.4 91. residents of Japan accounted for the largest share of total NPEs.5.1 Non-Resident Direct applications Distribution of applications 100 75 50 25 0 83. At the global level.5%).0 92.000 NPEs in 2011.3.0 56. October 2012 In 2011.1 Share of non-resident PCT national phase entries in total non-resident applications (%): 2011 Ca na da an Fe de ra tio n Au str Re ali pu a bli co fK or ea Sin ga po re me ric a dK ing do m Un ite Ind on es Ch ina tio n pa n Ind ia ric Na ys ala Isr ex ffi rg an iza ala en tO et Ze M So ut h en tO nP at Ne Ru ssi Eu ro pe a nP at Eu ra Office Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 2011 Non-Resident PCT national phase entries 93.3 86. as well as increasing PCT membership which has made the PCT system more attractive to its users. followed by SIPO (14.4 84. resident and nonresident NPEs. Table A.4 90. the number of non-resident PCT NPEs totaled 424. the share of PCT NPEs in total non-resident applications was around 54%.400 in 2011. except 2003 and 2009.Section A patents. The long-term trend shows strong year-on-year growth in non-resident NPEs for all years.6%) and the EPO (10. At the EPO and SIPO.2 31. also received large numbers of NPEs. South Africa and Viet Nam were above 90%.8 23. also known as the Paris route) for selected offices. utility models and microorganisms Figure A. Residents of Germany and Japan accounted for around 40% of all NPEs at the USPTO. Offices of middle-income countries. Figure A. while at the JPO.1 77. such as India.800.3. 33 The total number of PCT NPEs – resident plus nonresident – amounted to around 500.33 The USPTO received the largest number of PCT NPEs in 2011 (19% of the total).5.3 18. It provides information on the “flow of patent applications” across countries.3. The USPTO was the most preferred office by destination in 2011. the largest number of NPEs originated in the US. For example.0 73. as facilitated by the PCT system. Note that this table includes all PCT NPE data – that is. the PCT NPE shares at the patent offices of Indonesia.5.1). but it varied across individual offices. representing a 3.1 84.561 NPEs. with 97.3. Un ite sia dS ta tes of A Vi w Ge M rm Af Ja an y a ae ico nd ce l m ia ia 67 .3 depicts the distribution of total nonresident applications by filing route (PCT NPEs and direct applications.7 63.1 75.

there was a considerable increase in the share of PCT NPEs at the USPTO – from 20% in 2007 to 31. a country different from that of the PCT applicant. Very often. Figure A. the level of cross-border collaboration varied across countries.e. In contrast. KIPO had the highest share of PCT NPEs in total non-resident applications.2 also depicts the percentage of PCT applications having at least one foreign inventor.3. In 2011. residency in a foreign country) for the top 20 applicants’ countries of origin.2). as PCT applicants often enter the national phase at the EPO instead of at national offices. around four-fifths of applications filed by Swiss companies included at least one foreign inventor. SIPO and the USPTO are the top five offices in terms of number of non-resident PCT NPEs (Table A.35 However.6. the Republic of Korea and the US contributed to foreign PCT applications. 68 . Around two-thirds of Indian inventors named in PCT applications were associated with foreign PCT applications. Canada and the UK. it requires collaboration across countries. 35 The low share of PCT NPEs at the USPTO does not accurately reflect usage of the PCT system at that office. the JPO. 36 A. all reported origins except China saw increases in the share of PCT applications with at least one foreign inventor. India. 36 National offices in European countries exhibited low shares of PCT NPEs. which is counted as a direct filing. However. In such cases. On average.. the PCT application is converted into a continuation or continuation-in-part application.34 In contrast. Figure A. The share of inventors associated with foreign PCT applications was also high for Belgium.6 International collaboration Developing modern technology is an increasingly complex undertaking. as many PCT applicants took advantage of a special legal provision in US patent law allowing PCT applications to proceed directly to the USPTO (the so-called “by-pass route”).8% in 2011. PCT NPEs accounted for less than one-third of all non-resident applications at the USPTO. 26% of PCT applications included at least one foreign inventor in 2011. utility models and microorganisms Among the five largest offices. Such collaboration involves joint research among institutions across countries. less than 10 percent of PCT applications originating in China.5. This subsection presents two indicators of cross-country collaboration based on published PCT applications.1 illustrates the share of published PCT applications with foreign inventors (i. compared to larger European countries.6. KIPO. In contrast. Japan and the Republic of Korea included foreign inventors. Between 2006 and 2011. and employing scientists and engineers from foreign countries.Section A patents. fewer than 10 percent of inventors from Japan. but here the data are broken down by the top 20 inventors’ origins. Another way to look at cross-border collaboration is to ask how many inventors from around the world reside in 34 The EPO. Medium-sized European countries (such as the Netherlands and Finland) and North American countries had a high rate of collaboration with foreign inventors.

5 4.6 28.5 4.3 43.4 3.2 59.3 26.1 32.2 Inventors in foreign companies (%) Ge itz 66.1 10.3 31.2 21.1 21.3 6.1 37.4 27.3 27.8 6.Section A patents.6.5 19.6 na da an y ia en ric a ain d ina ae l ali a an d Fra nc nm ar an ta ea or fK m m ia ly d Ind do lgi u ed Isr Sp Ch To Ge rm lan Ita str itz erl Am e str Au ing Be Au De Sw Ca Fin erl ite Sta tes Un Country of inventors Note: See note for Figure A.3 37.3 47.1 8.1 31.2 19.5 26.2 Inventors in foreign-owned PCT applications. October 2012 Figure A.2 42.7 30.4 7.2 9.6 18.6 46.2 11.9 35.5 9.5 41.0 26.9 49.6 27.0 15.4 21.6 53.5 15.0 Ja 2.1 ia dK ing do m Au str ali a Ca na da ed en an y a Sp ain an d Ch Re ina pu bli co fK or ea an ds Be lgi um Fin lan d Au str nm a me Fra erl rm Isr Ind ia To ta Ita th erl Sw Sw Ne of A De Un ite dS ta Un ite tes Country of companies Note: Counts are based on corporate applicants only (thus excluding natural persons).2 38.6.7 8.9 43. 2011 75.3 Share (%): 2006 57.4 29.0 32.7 3.5 19.3 8.3 23. 2011 66. October 2012 Un ite d Re pu bli co Ne th dK Sw of Ja pa n e k s l pa n nc e l rk l ae ric ly 69 .5 20. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.6 24.6 6.2 26.6 30.4 27.2 Filing with foreign inventors (%) 79.0 23. Due to confidentiality requirements.5 9.7 26.4 33.2 53. PCT data are based on the publication date.1 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.5 4.3 23.7 35.1 Share of PCT applications with at least one foreign inventor for the top 20.6.9 46.2 Share (%): 2006 49.6 26.0 25.1 24.3 10.6 33.8 48.9 45.3 20. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.5 47.9 8.3 25.4 42.

7. For this reason. Table A.054 while that for micro-structural and nano-technology grew by only 988. 41%). while telecommunications and audio-visual technology both experienced declines during the same period. as some technologies depend more heavily on the patent system than others. the Republic of Korea (84%. each representing one field of technology (so-called “fractional counting”). describe products or processes that consist of a single or relatively few patentable elements and for which patent ownership is more concentrated.4-fold between 1995 and 2010.2 shows the number of patent applications worldwide by field of technology. Since 1995.37 Figure A.896) accounted for the largest numbers of applications. Where a patent application relates to multiple fields of technology. In 2010.7. Patent data can be broadly categorized as complex or discrete technologies. For example. 16%) and the US (65%. Every patent application is assigned one or more International Patent Classification (IPC) symbols. 31% discrete). There is a minimum delay of 18 months between the application and publication dates. the volume of applications for complex technologies increased by 2.1 Applications by field of technology ceuticals are considered a discrete technology. 39 The micro-structural and nano-technology field saw the highest growth (11%) in 2011. utility models and microorganisms A. The number of applications for digital communications grew by 19. Data for the latest available year. A. available at: www. Germany (65%. This could partly explain the downward trend for some origins. but it accounted for only a low number of applications.int/ipstats/en). refer to annex A of World Intellectual Property Indicators. All the data reported in this subsection relate to published patent applications. this section presents data by field of technology.wipo. reflecting the shift towards widespread use of digital technologies. Digital communication recorded the highest annual growth rates between 2006 and 2010. Japan (77%.Section A patents. 2011 edition.39 Pharmaceutical patent applications have continuously declined since 2007. 35%).1 shows the application trends for these two categories for the world total and the top five origins. growth in patent applications for complex technologies has been consistently faster than that for discrete technologies (since 2003 for China). Discrete technologies.9-fold for discrete technologies.7 Patents by field of technology Patent applications span a wide range of technologies. 23%). compared to 1. The data presented here are based on this concordance table. computer technology (126. are partial and incomplete. WIPO has developed a concordance table to link these IPC symbols to corresponding field(s) of technology (see www.wipo. in turn.38 At the global level. the tendency to file patent applications differs across technologies. Furthermore.1. it is divided into equal shares. 35%). All reported origins showed similar trends. 2010 is the latest available year for statistics on patents by technology field. Applications with no IPC symbol are not considered. To understand activity patterns and trends across technologies. smartphones fall into the category of complex technologies.7.int/ipstats/en/wipi/ 38 The distribution of complex and discrete technologies for the 1995-2009 period is: World (69% complex.1. China (59%.897) and electrical machinery (112. whereas pharma37 For a definition of complex and discrete technologies. Complex technologies are usually defined as those for which the resulting products or processes consist of numerous separately patentable elements and for which patent ownership is typically widespread. 2010. 70 .

5 China Discrete applications 30 Complex applications Discrete applications Index: 1995 = 1 Index: 1995 = 1 2 20 1.int/ ipstats/en/wipi/. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database.5 Japan Discrete applications 1. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.1.Section A patents.6 Complex applications Discrete applications Index: 1995 = 1 Index: 1995 = 1 2 1.5 10 1 1995 2000 2005 2010 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Year Germany Complex applications 2. Data for the latest available year. This could partly explain the downward trend for some origins.5 Index: 1995 = 1 Index: 1995 = 1 10 2 5 1.2 1 1995 2000 2005 2010 1 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Year Republic of Korea Complex applications 15 United States of America Complex applications 3 Discrete applications Discrete applications 2. October 2012 71 . available at: www.1 Trend in complex and discrete technology patent applications for the top five origins World Complex applications 2.7.wipo. refer to annex A of World Intellectual Property Indicators. 2011 edition.5 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 1 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Year Note: For a definition of complex and discrete technologies.5 1.4 1. are partial and incomplete. The data refer to published patent applications. 2010.

8 2.069 65. and telecommunications. telecommunications accounted for the largest share of all applications originating in Canada and the US.7.9 -0.6 Note: The IPC-technology concordance table (available at: www.143 65.425 54. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database.7 3.385 73.419 61.1 -1.893 73.6 4.289 25.158 27.6 11.3 4. 72 .905 68.431 26.696 70.227 69.099 42.905 10.295 35.910 34.4 1.281 33.3 reports patent application data by field of technology for the top origins.6 1.2 5.362 63.9 4.003 35. pumps.650 120.089 2008 102.1. coating Micro-structural and nano-technology Chemical engineering Environmental technology Mechanical engineering Handling Machine tools Engines.int/ipstats/en) was used to convert IPC symbols into 35 corresponding fields of technology.4 6.4 4.499 32. apparatus.720 24. games Other consumer goods Civil engineering Publication Year 2006 96.286 41.650 27.207 26.912 36.829 46.242 69.999 18. October 2012 The aggregate data reported in Table A.353 49.228 2010 112.904 31.309 26.032 68.516 20.313 28.165 47.746 35.950 10.5 -0.320 26.564 68.937 63.789 73.416 71.722 31.876 43.2 Patent applications worldwide by field of technology Field of Technology Electrical engineering Electrical machinery.071 59.802 21.653 40.840 41.979 31.1 3.587 40.7.499 15.897 22.568 29. For example.893 30.464 39.706 44.648 34.1.553 27.213 46.678 43.972 1.049 51.991 20.981 27.033 29.087 78.083 52.315 32.952 24.9 4.947 88.288 83.437 2.777 2.604 17. applications are concentrated in the fields of computer technology.815 69.182 24.290 52.055 36.311 68.242 10.871 2.560 50.096 131.177 43.271 32.637 54.4 2.445 16.650 22.351 32.480 35.147 31.8 0. For a number of origins.wipo.896 78.986 72.533 21.316 66.167 16.630 49.649 26.284 61.186 41.9 8.323 21. metallurgy Surface technology.213 62.506 55. turbines Textile and paper machines Other special machines Thermal processes and apparatus Mechanical elements Transport Other fields Furniture.662 46.627 11.422 73.633 75.089 10.6 1.914 42.779 49.284 26.8 2. However.810 41.161 66.9 1.189 26.2 provide an overview of applications by field of technology.320 28.1 4.2 -0.539 23.542 129.049 44.298 41.030 41. digital communications. For Finland and Sweden. The data refer to published patent applications.137 37.948 43.145 51.192 32.471 18.205 29.1.7.624 35. polymers Food chemistry Basic materials chemistry Materials.881 35.305 41. energy Audio-visual technology Telecommunications Digital communication Basic communication processes Computer technology IT methods for management Semiconductors Instruments Optics Measurement Analysis of biological materials Control Medical technology Chemistry Organic fine chemistry Biotechnology Pharmaceuticals Macromolecular chemistry.807 39.4 -5.504 67.709 73.264 42.511 25. Switzerland and the UK tended to file large numbers of applications for pharmaceuticals.126 62.123 24.471 16.989 63.841 50.085 31.302 55.472 38.670 31.833 73.7 7.495 27.706 41.977 72.739 47.308 94. they do not provide any insight into the innovative strength of countries in relation to different technology fields.273 67.992 27.978 72.919 126.020 31.222 2.045 28.797 42. Table A.178 33.723 117.889 90.810 74.049 Growth Rate 2006-10 (%) 4.0 -0.802 66.722 2009 109.515 37.0 -1.348 46.820 22.9 0.6 3.Section A patents.522 33.9 -4.5 -3.875 45.1 -4. digital telecommunications constituted the largest share.354 76.651 32.2 1.645 2007 98. utility models and microorganisms Table A.

Section A

patents, utility models and microorganisms

Table A.7.1.3 Patent applications by field of technology and for the top origins, 2006-10
Field of Technology Electrical engineering Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy Audio-visual technology Telecommunications Digital communication Basic communication processes Computer technology IT methods for management Semiconductors Instruments Optics Measurement Analysis of biological materials Control Medical technology Chemistry Organic fine chemistry Biotechnology Pharmaceuticals Macromolecular chemistry, polymers Food chemistry Basic materials chemistry Materials, metallurgy Surface technology, coating Micro-structural and nanotechnology Chemical engineering Environmental technology Mechanical engineering Handling Machine tools Engines, pumps, turbines Textile and paper machines Other special machines Thermal processes and apparatus Mechanical elements Transport Other fields Furniture, games Other consumer goods Civil engineering AU CA CH CN DE FI FR Origin GB IT JP KR NL RU SE US Others

1,016 888 905 657 122 2,891 1,185 444 708 1,731 652 1,064 4,225

3,723 2,612 4,967 8,228 817 9,799 1,886 683 1,178 3,739 1,020 1,571 4,399

7,214 2,506 1,249 1,554 654 4,110 1,135 1,298 1,721 10,408 2,236 2,288 15,805

39,158 25,838 29,921 60,273 4,116 40,283 4,545 14,638 14,793 33,987 3,712 11,725 13,206

59,646 20,975 14,447 16,598 6,276 33,565 4,077 24,102 15,173 45,059 5,404 16,023 35,251

1,805 2,467 6,530 11,655 726 6,255 595 464 586 1,918 330 572 996

15,832 12,310 9,152 15,300 2,463 14,444 1,630 5,541 5,271 12,623 2,592 4,513 10,485

7,455 4,751 4,431 5,609 1,206 9,915 2,060 1,950 2,823 8,844 2,643 3,479 11,095

4,661 192,766 929 183,468 1,163 1,755 396 91,761 50,637 26,357

61,066 70,297 57,046 31,782 7,644 58,339 18,568 77,636 46,079 18,003 2,026 9,223 13,215

8,061 14,966 3,779 5,460 2,544 11,579 703 6,414 7,475 8,832 1,393 1,756 7,698

3,860 851 1,413 430 894 1,325 275 775 879 8,007 1,789 1,587 9,374

2,243 2,630 8,353 13,933 1,088

75,511 54,372 68,690 81,701 20,743

63,718 48,144 26,082 20,539 10,278 64,031 13,109 41,582 29,349 40,487 7,155 18,756 47,403

2,315 156,855 358 17,880

5,490 223,694 646 471 973 3,305 972 1,335 40,160 61,347 38,123 70,201 18,358 32,693

1,065 147,908 1,049 191,867 3,009 560 1,612 4,661 96,125 7,354 38,090 50,829

6,335 145,420

942 2,413 3,485 368 906 985 1,764 717 100 1,392 797

2,705 3,225 6,137 759 1,056 1,888 1,562 1,315 92 2,138 1,452

15,811 6,586 21,478 3,199 4,243 6,385 1,928 2,336 132 4,064 1,464

18,730 16,163 43,967 10,733 20,180 24,854 29,455 11,239 1,375 16,148 13,211

37,794 16,232 30,781 18,848 5,144 33,583 15,966 15,290 1,291 24,386 13,132

550 769 909 2,281 393 786 1,601 1,002 105 1,792 758

19,488 7,208 16,911 3,952 2,459 5,568 5,995 4,467 550 6,816 4,608

11,740 6,661 14,854 1,597 2,283 6,450 2,227 2,365 129 5,207 2,608

4,323 2,161 7,069 2,375 1,074 1,494 1,461 1,586 89 2,810 1,414

36,941 20,210 27,743 44,887 13,267 41,648 43,091 52,075 2,401 32,561 27,430

9,504 8,229 8,654 7,394 11,028 10,433 11,047 9,085 2,168 11,855 12,305

5,807 4,903 5,904 4,284 6,058 6,738 1,703 1,805 198 4,630 2,216

2,007 1,754 5,344 886 13,484 3,234 7,430 1,700 367 4,220 2,178

5,277 1,713

73,308 62,881

42,537 27,269 67,124 14,639 23,926 26,595 25,735 17,245 1,296 25,297 17,372

7,433 118,744 296 332 643 1,421 1,210 110 2,165 1,025 28,988 19,211 45,944 18,639 34,817 2,066 37,869 18,397

1,745 1,136 1,038 2,794 2,010 813 1,635 1,491 2,440 1,301 3,883

2,316 1,980 2,511 567 4,021 1,377 2,098 3,705 3,032 1,833 6,476

9,830 3,401 3,017 4,435 4,419 1,861 3,072 2,665 3,733 4,158 3,542

9,219 17,622 11,859 10,827 18,103 15,361 12,301 12,965 10,512 11,340 22,845

27,487 32,113 43,358 22,597 28,399 15,628 51,797 70,171 15,602 18,393 29,187

2,751 1,022 498 2,772 1,494 885 821 746 409 407 1,792

8,695 5,262 12,093 3,083 9,341 3,926 10,636 25,817 5,923 6,810 11,513

6,043 2,747 5,375 1,995 4,676 2,000 5,555 6,331 6,729 5,284 9,448

7,299 3,706 3,135 2,763 5,464 2,652 3,962

58,572 48,140 67,864 73,057 52,611 36,098 68,069

11,481 13,147 13,194 8,878 16,680 19,303 12,438 31,383 20,112 24,954 31,358

4,534 1,490 1,211 2,362 5,316 1,466 2,064 2,950 2,996 2,128 7,880

1,639 4,280 4,773 632 6,614 2,297 3,185 4,557 1,037 1,572 7,755

2,267 3,550 2,214 990 2,407 1,504 3,974 6,051 1,783 1,135 3,902

40,821 31,695 37,580 20,834 40,184 14,704 34,338 45,770 46,017 29,254 46,797

31,484 32,449 24,789 16,504 41,020 19,761 26,989 32,981 50,137 27,089 57,872

5,736 102,613 4,204 3,892 5,538 52,539 30,176 42,090

Note: The IPC-technology concordance table (available at: www.wipo.int/ipstats/en) was used to convert IPC symbols into 35 corresponding fields of technology. Assigning a field of technology to a patent family is done based on all applications associated with that family rather than just first applications. The data refer to published patent applications. AU (Australia), CA (Canada), CH (Switzerland), CN (China), DE (Germany), FI (Finland), FR (France), GB (United Kingdom), IT (Italy), JP (Japan), KR (Republic of Korea), NL (Netherlands), RU (Russian Federation), SE (Sweden) and US (United States of America) Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database, October 2012

73

Section A

patents, utility models and microorganisms

A.7.2 Applications in selected energy-related technologies The development of energy-related technologies, such as those associated with renewable energy, plays an important role in tackling climate change. This subsection presents statistics on patent activity for selected energyrelated technologies – namely, fuel cells, geothermal, solar and wind energy. Annex A provides definitions of these technologies according to IPC symbols.
40

In 2011, the total number of patent applications for these four categories amounted to 34,873, representing 8 percent growth on 2009. Applications related to solar energy accounted for the largest share (57%), followed by fuel cell technology (26%) and wind energy (15%). The number of applications for geothermal energy was low. Figure A.7.2.2 shows the source of energy-related patent applications for the 2006-2010 period. Japan had the highest share of applications related to solar energy (29.2%), followed by the Republic of Korea (17.2%) and the US (14.3%). Japan accounted for more than half of all patent applications for fuel cell technology; the US also filed a substantial number of applications in this field. Germany and the US were the two top origins for wind and geothermal energy patent applications. Compared to fuel cell technology, patent applications for wind and geothermal technologies were more evenly distributed among several origins.

The total number of patent applications in the four energyrelated fields grew continuously between 1995 and 2010, except for a small drop in 2006. Solar, geothermal and wind energy showed upward trends in applications, while fuel cell technology grew only until 2007; whereafter it has declined each year.

Figure A.7.2.1 Patent applications in energy-related technologies
Solar energy
40,000

Fuel cell technology

Wind energy technology

Geothermal energy

30,000

Applications

20,000

10,000

0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002 2003 Publication Year

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Note: For definitions of the technologies, refer to Annex A. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database, October 2012

40 The correspondence between IPC symbols and technology fields is not always clear-cut (i.e., there is no one-to-one relationship). It is therefore difficult to capture all patents in a specific technology field. Nonetheless, the IPC-based definitions of the four energy-related technologies employed here are likely to capture the vast majority of patents in these areas.

74

Section A

patents, utility models and microorganisms

Figure A.7.2.2 Share of patent applications in energy-related technologies for the top origins, 2006-10
Solar energy Fuel cell technology

JP: 29.2% CN: 10.2% GB: 0.8%

Others: 17.6% DE: 6.5% CA: 0.7%

KR: 17.2% FR: 1.6% ES: 0.7%

US: 14.3% NL: 1.2%

JP: 52.9% Others: 5.8% CA: 1.4%

US: 14.5% CN: 3.4% DK: 0.6%

KR: 9.7% FR: 2.1% IT: 0.5%

DE: 7.8% GB: 1.4%

Wind energy

Geothermal energy

Others: 22.9% JP: 9.4% GB: 3.2%

US: 17.1% DK: 7.2% FR: 2.0%

DE: 14.9% KR: 6.5% RU: 2.0%

CN: 11.0% ES: 3.8%

Others: 24.3% JP: 10.5% GB: 2.9%

DE: 14.3% CN: 9.5% SE: 2.2%

US: 13.9% CA: 4.4% CH: 1.9%

KR: 12.7% FR: 3.4%

Note: For definitions of the technologies, refer to Annex A. Country codes: CA (Canada), CH (Switzerland), CN (China), DE (Germany), DK (Denmark), ES (Spain), FR (France), GB (United Kingdom), IT (Italy), JP (Japan), KR (Republic of Korea), NL (Netherlands), RU (Russian Federation), SE (Sweden) and US (United States of America) Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database, October 2012

75

Section A

patents, utility models and microorganisms

A.8
Patents per gdp and r&d expenditure
Differences in patent activity across economies reflect their size and level of development. For purposes of cross-country comparison, it is instructive to express patent applications relative to GDP and business sector research and development (R&D) expenditure. Both
41

The global patent applications per GDP and per R&D expenditure ratios (20.3 and 1.7, respectively) mask considerable variation across origins. For the top 20 origins, patents per GDP varied from around 100 for the Republic of Korea to 8 for Armenia (Figure A.8.3). The majority of origins tended to file 20 or fewer resident patents per billion GDP. Switzerland (26.6) and Germany (26) were the two highest ranked European countries. China recorded the largest increase in patent application-to-GDP ratio between 2006 and 2011 – jumping from 20.2 to 41.6. In contrast, Japan saw a considerable decline during the same period – from 87.7 to 73.4.43 The Republic of Korea, with 3.7 resident patents per million R&D expenditure, had the highest patent-to-R&D expenditure ratio (Figure A.8.4). China filed more patents per R&D expenditure than Japan, which was not the case for the patent-to-GDP ratio. For both indicators, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea ranked higher than European countries and the US. R&D expenditure in the US was more than double that of China, but the patent-to-R&D ratio of the US was considerably lower than for China. Between 2006 and 2011, the patent-toR&D expenditure ratio for reported European countries and the US remained more or less stable. The ratios for China and Poland increased, while they declined for Japan and the Republic of Korea.

indicators are frequently referred to as “patent activity intensity” indicators. Figure A.8.1 shows the trend in resident patent applications, GDP and R&D expenditure (left-hand graph) and resident patents per GDP and per R&D (right-hand graph). Since the mid-2000s, business sector R&D expenditure has grown at a faster rate than have resident patents, with the result that the number of resident applications per R&D dollar (R&D productivity) has followed a downward trend since 2007. Both resident applications and GDP have increased at a similar rate; however, starting in 2009, resident patent growth has since outpaced GDP growth. As a result, the patent application per GDP ratio has increased for the past two years. Figure A.8.2 shows R&D productivity for the top five origins. For these origins, R&D productivity was more or less stable until 2002, followed by a sharp upward trend for China, the Republic of Korea (until 2006) and the US (until 2007). In contrast, Germany and Japan have seen persistent declines in R&D productivity.42

41 Both GDP and business sector R&D expenditure are in constant 2005 PPP dollars. 42 Of the top five origins, China is the only origin for which R&D productivity continuously increased between 2003 and 2011.

43 Between 2006 and 2011, the patent-to-GDP ratio for China increased from 20.2 to 41.8 due to substantial growth in resident applications. Japan saw a considerable drop in resident applications which caused the patent-toGDP ratio to fall from 87.7 to 73.4.

76

Section A

patents, utility models and microorganisms

Figure A.8.1 Trend in resident patent applications worldwide per GDP and R&D expenditure
Resident patent applications Business sector R&D expenditure
2.0 20 18 16 14 12 10 1995 2000 2005 2010 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 2 1.8

GDP

Resident patent applications per billion USD GDP (2005 PPP) Resident patent applications per million USD R&D expenditure (2005 PPP)
3

1995 = 1

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0

Year

Year

Note: GDP and R&D expenditure are in constant 2005 purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars. R&D data are lagged by one year to derive the patent-to-R&D ratio. Patent-to-GDP and patent-to-R&D ratios are presented as a three-year moving average. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database, UNESCO Institute for Statistics and World Bank, October 2012

Figure A.8.2 Trend in resident patent applications per R&D expenditure for the top five origins
United States of America
1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

China

Japan

Republic of Korea

Germany

2000 = 1

Year
Note: R&D expenditure is in constant 2005 PPP dollars. R&D data are lagged by one year to derive the patent-to-R&D ratio, which is presented as a three-year moving average. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and UNESCO Institute for Statistics, October 2012

77

Resident patent per R&D

Resident patent per GDP

Section A

patents, utility models and microorganisms

Figure A.8.3 Resident patent applications per GDP for selected origins, 2011
108.8 87.7 20.2 26.0 27.4 18.6 17.2 14.8 20.8 16.2 20.4 12.9 16.0 6.2 15.3 11.9 11.8 7.6 11.0 12.3 13.5

Resident applications per billion GDP (2005 PPP $)

100.7

Resident applications per billion GDP: 2006
73.4

41.8 26.6 26.0 20.3

18.7

18.7

18.5

16.9

14.6

14.3

13.2

12.8

12.8

12.7

12.4

11.2

9.9

9.1

8.0

an y

of Ko rea

Ch ina

ed en

pa n

an d

mb ou rg

nc e Slo ve nia Un * ite dK ing do m

ru s

ine ra Uk

ia

a

Fin lan d

or ld

an ds

nd *

tio n

ric

Be la

Au str

nm a

me

th erl

Ge

de ra

Sw

ala

Fra

erl

itz

of A

De

Ze

Lu xe

Re pu bli c

Sw

w

Ne

tes

Ne

Un ite

dS

Origin

Note: *2010 data. GDP data are in constant 2005 PPP dollars. For the resident patent-per-GDP indicator, countries were selected if they had a GDP greater than 15 billion PPP dollars and more than 100 resident patent applications. However, not all countries that fulfill these criteria are included in the graphs due to space constraints. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and World Bank, October 2012

Figure A.8.4 Resident patent applications per R&D expenditure for selected origins, 2011
Resident applications per million R&D expenditure (2005 PPP $)
5.3
3.7

2.5
3.5

2.4

3.5

4.3

1.7

2.3

1.7

1.6

1.6

0.8

..

1.0

Ru ssi

ta

an

1.0

Fe

1.1

0.9

0.9

0.6

0.7

0.9

Ar

me

rm

Ja

W

Resident applications per million R&D expenditure: 2006
3.2 2.9 2.8 2.1 1.9

1.7

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

y

*

ay

ina

pa n

nc e

om

en

ea

*

*

rk

ld

ds

an

rke

ly

*

d

n

d

ra tio

lan

ine

eri ca

ma

nia

nd

an

rw

or

Ch

gd

ed

lan

Ita

or

ala

No

Uk ra

bli co

Fe

Ne

Slo

Am

Ze

th

Ne w

an

of

Re

ssi

Origin

Note: *2010 data; '..' not available; R&D expenditure is in constant 2005 PPP dollars. For the resident patent-per-R&D expenditure indicator, countries were selected if they had R&D expenditure greater than 500 million PPP dollars and more than 100 resident patents. R&D data are lagged by one year to derive the patent-to-R&D expenditure ratio. However, not all countries that fulfill these criteria are included in the graphs due to space constraints. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and UNESCO Institute for Statistics, October 2012

78

Un it

ed

Sta

Ru

tes

Un it

pu

ed

De n

Kin

de

Ge

Sw

Fin

fK

erl

ve

Au s

rm

Po

Fra

Ja

W

Tu

tri

a

y

nia

rk

0.7

0.7

3 23.003 * il * * o ico ly ali ac ia d lan ex Ind en str pin on az Au Sw .7 5. utility models and microorganisms A.915 168.44 Figure A. patents in force at SIPO and the USPTO were almost equally distributed among resident and non-resident holders. the Republic of Korea and the US.463 9.253 137.900 36.4 5.' not available.939 678. 2011 4.7 . These estimates.628 8. -5. October 2012 44 The global number of patents in force is a WIPO estimate based on data from 81 offices.1 million patents. 46 Un ite 2011. The JPO also had a substantial number of patents in force (1.992 88. Ph ilip Note: *2010 data.096 696.113.9 Patents in force Patent rights last for a limited period – generally 20 years from the date of filing. In contrast. France and Sweden.044 80. are 7.9.527 51.1 depicts the number of patents in ta tes Un ite dS Office 9.558 143. Monaco and the Russian Federation recorded declines in patents in force for the same period. 45 Between 2005 and 2011.542. it surpassed that of the Republic of Korea. In contrast. The estimated number of patents in force worldwide Figure A. Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Ch ina Ja pa n Ko of rea Am e Ge rm 79 . India..7 11. Apart from China.4 3. patents in force in China grew by around 25% a year.9.45 Residents owned the bulk of patents in force at the JPO (87%).0 -0. in 2011. Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.Section A patents..3 Ru ssi -12. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.18 million for 2009 and 7. M Office Br Fin M Ire ed lan Ita es d a Fra nc e* ed era tio n Sw itz erl an d Ca na da 3.2 -7.368 an y ing do m dK ric a of pu bli c force by office for the top 20 offices. '. Patents-in-force indicators provide information on the volume of patents currently valid as well as the historical “patent life cycle”.380 435. 46 The number of patents in force also fell in Brazil. Ireland and Switzerland were the only two offices listed to see double-digit growth between 2010 and 2011.88 million in Patents in force in force at SIPO has increased rapidly over the past few 89.0 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Patents in force 1.005 527.022 38. but the data refer to 2009-2010.1.132 52.007 41. which is far above the growth rates of Japan.1 Re an F increased from 6..361 40. The number of patents years and.917 445.4 -21.9 2.3 16. The USPTO had the largest number of patents in force – in excess of 2.7 .88 million in 2008 to 7.8 2.54 million).4 -7.1. which cover data from the same offices.1 Patents in force by office for the top 20 offices.37 million for 2010.5 105.

2 depicts the distribution of patents in force in 2011 as a percentage of total applications in the year of filing.3 29. The graph is based on data from 65 offices.9 39. and the content of the patent extending beyond the content of the application filed. Unfortunately. The EPO utilizes a post-grant opposition system whereby any party can contest a patent granted not only on prior art grounds of patentability but also on other substantive grounds. October 2012 Patent holders must pay maintenance fees to keep their patents valid. so data are comparable over time only within a particular office.7 2.7 0.6 32. However. This also provides an alternative to potentially lengthy and costly judicial proceedings.1.0 49.3 55.10 Opposition and invalidation of patents granted The purpose of opposition procedures is to provide third parties with the possibility to oppose the grant of a patent.4 8. grounds for opposition include: the subject matter of the patent not being patentable.4 0.6 46.7 3.Section A patents. 80 .6 0. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.6 Percentage of applications 39.1 0.9. A. the USPTO uses a re-examination system.5 19. 47 According to Article 100 of the European Patent Convention (EPC). the invention not being sufficiently disclosed to allow a person skilled in the art to carry it out. For example.9.3 44. Depending on technological and commercial considerations.4 30.1.6 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Application year Note: Percentages are calculated as follows: number of patent applications filed in year t and in force in 2011 divided by the total number of patent applications filed in year t. Requests for opposition provide an important avenue to ensure patent quality.9 50.9 18.4 43.47 Differences in opposition procedures make it difficult to directly compare opposition-related statistics across patent offices.1 22. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. whereby third parties can present evidence of prior art and request that a patent be re-examined by the office.6 29. Figure A.3 53.2 Patents in force in 2011 as a percentage of total applications 54.2 0. the data available show that more than half of the applications for which patents were eventually granted remained in force at least eight years after the application date. not all offices provide these data.6 46. The exact legal mechanism for achieving this differs from office to office. patent holders may opt to let a patent lapse before the end of the full protection term. Around 18% of these lasted the full 20-year patent term.

000 Grant 2.000 Grant 60.000 250 200 150 100 1995 2000 2005 2010 100.000 200 50.000 14.000 20 2000 2005 2010 1.000 20. the procedures are called “invalidation requests” and “trials for invalidation”.000 40.000 150.Section A patents. At the USPTO. October 2012 Grant Grant Grant Grant 81 .000 3.000 Invalidation Re-examination 1.000 150.000 120 100 80 2000 2005 2010 12.1 Opposition and invalidation of patents granted Australia Opposition 180 160 140 14.000 2.000 China Grant 18.500 1995 2000 2005 2010 30.000 Grant 0 2000 2005 2010 0 Year Germany Opposition 1.000 400 100. At SIPO and the JPO.000 Year Republic of Korea Opposition 700 Year United States of America Grant 120.10.000 800 600 400 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year European Patent Office Grant 22.000 800 600 400 200 1995 2000 Invalidation Grant 250.000 80. it is referred to as “re-examination”.000 Opposition / Invalidation 300 200. respectively.000 Opposition / Invalidation 40 4.000 Invalidation Opposition 3.000 12.000 16.200 1.000 10.000 100.000 2005 2010 Year Year Note: Different procedures exist across patent offices for opposing or invalidating patent granting decisions.000 Invalidation Opposition 350 Invalidation Grant 250.000 30 2.400 1. the procedure is called “opposition”.000 Year Israel Opposition 50 Year Japan Grant 5.200 1.500 50.000 Opposition / Invalidation Opposition / Invalidation 16.000 Grant 150. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.000 1.000 18.000 Opposition / Invalidation Opposition / Invalidation 600 500 400 300 200 2000 2005 2010 200.000 Opposition / Invalidation Opposition / Invalidation 3.000 40. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.000 60.000 100. At the EPO and the patent offices of Germany and India.000 Invalidation Opposition 600 Invalidation Grant 200.500 Invalidation Grant 70.

Patents granted by the EPO can be opposed within nine months of the publication of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin. the opposition-to-grant ratio at KIPO has increased since 2007. where offices require separate examination requests. it is important to know how many patent applications are pending. post-grant opposition has been integrated into the invalidation procedure and applies to all patents granted after June 2007.3%. the JPO has maintained a single opposition procedure that allows anyone to file an appeal for revocation of a patent. Statistics on pending patent applications undergoing examination include only those applications for which the applicant has requested examination (where such separate requests are necessary). such as the USPTO. Patent offices need to carefully assess whether the claims described in patent applications meet the standards of novelty. differences in procedures across patent offices complicate the measurement of pending applications (see Box 1). However. Therefore. it has witnessed a decline in patent invalidation requests. Similarly.48 This ratio was similar to that for SIPO. at the EPO. the JPO had a dual opposition/ invalidation system in which only certain parties could file an appeal. The number of opposition and invalidation requests usually correlates positively with the number of patents granted. The number of oppositions or requests for re-examination (or invalidation) appears small compared to total patents granted. pending application data for both definitions of pendency are presented below. including those applications for which applicants have not filed a request for examination (where applicable). Since July 2007. at any stage in the process. Similarly. while the number of patents granted has been increasing.49 In other words. it seems appropriate to count as pending all applications that await a final decision. 50 A.and resource-intensive. JPO is another exception in that. at the USPTO. it may 48 The opposition. Since 2004. However. non-obviousness and industrial applicability as set out in national laws. For example. the 4. 50 From 1994 to 2004. For example. because the numerator and denominator do not cover the same period. For example. At the USPTO. where the number of invalidation requests to patents granted stood at around 0.10.7% opposition ratio at the EPO was derived by dividing the number of oppositions filed in 2011 by the number of patents granted in 2011. there has been an increase in the tendency of third parties to challenge patents granted by KIPO and the USPTO. statistics on potentially pending applications include all patent applications. applicants have up to three years to file such a request. the re-examination ratio – requests for re-examination divided by the number of patents granted – stood at 0. 4. utility models and microorganisms Figure A. since 2004. 49 There was a change in the opposition procedure at KIPO in 2006. For operational planning and to assess the effectiveness of the patent system more broadly. In some offices. be more fitting to consider pending applications to be those for which the applicant has requested examination. there are a few exceptions. To take account of this procedural difference. 82 . there has been an upward trend in the re-examinations-to-patents granted ratio since 2002.5% in 2011.and re-examination-to-grant ratios presented here are rough approximations.11 Pending patent applications The processing of patents is time. For offices that automatically examine all patent applications. the number of oppositions filed in 2011 could refer to patents granted in 2010 and 2011. Unfortunately. that await a final decision by the patent office.7% of patents granted were opposed in 2011.1 presents data on opposition and invalidation requests for selected offices and compares them to the number of patents granted. In particular. patent applications automatically proceed to the examination stage unless applicants withdraw them. patent applications filed at other offices do not proceed to the examination stage unless applicants file a separate request for examination. In contrast.Section A patents. in the case of the JPO.

The EPO.000 Japan 600. and the number of potentially pending applications has since remained more or less stable. The majority of top 20 offices had fewer potentially pending applications in 2011 than in 2010.000. utility models and microorganisms Since the early 2000s.11. awaiting a final decision by the patent office. Japan accounted for almost the entire drop in backlogs.000 European Patent Office Germany Republic of Korea 1.000 300. but still had a backlog of more than 1.000 500. Figure A.000 1. In absolute terms. a number of offices have seen a rise in the number of pending applications.1 million in 2010 to 4. which include the top 20 offices except those of China. The total number of potentially pending applications across the world declined from 5. the US had the largest number of potentially pending applications in 2011 (Figure A. However. The world total is based on data from 76 patent offices. Japan saw a 19% drop in 2011. including those applications for which applicants have not filed a request for examination (where applicable).500. The drop was due to decreases in the number of new applications received and an increase in the number of applications processed.1 million applications.Section A patents. the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and India.9%). followed by a decline from 2008 onwards.11.1 Trend in potentially pending applications for the top five offices United States of America 2.000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Year Note: Potential pending applications include all patent applications.000 400. at any stage in the process. Figure A.8 million in 2011. 83 . the largest office in terms of patent applications.11.51 The JPO saw a dramatic increase until 2006. notable exceptions being Viet Nam (+13%) and Germany (+4. The USPTO saw a substantial increase until 2008. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 200.2).000 500. October 2012 51 SIPO. is not included due to data unavailability.1 presents potentially pending application data for the top five offices.000. growth in the number of pending applications has varied across offices. Germany and KIPO each witnessed upward trends.

.312 100.8 4.3 Potentially pending applications Potentially pending applications 1. Potentially pending applications include all patent applications.1 -19.9 Ne w Ze ala 1.7 4.1 -80.2 -38.922 87.271 385.433 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 55.7 1.027 170.901 1.3 -7..7 1.782 40.081 50.5 Vi Office et -1.206 27.901 3.5 2.2 4.5 3.3 3.2 4.3 2.3 Pending applications undergoing examination. including those applications for which applicants have not filed a request for examination (where applicable).2 4. 0..6 -6.738 88.802 5.034 3.6 2.4 2.274 620.2 fK M 1.374 2.919 -10.9 -0.0 . -5. utility models and microorganisms Figure A.8 2. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.122.8 2.290 ine m ia * d y t l ica da e n ea a ico ly n * ae an pa ali tio an fic Na Ita ile str ar yp or na ra Of rm ail Ind str Ja Au Ch ra ng Eg ex Isr er Am Ca Ge Au nt de Th co Vi Hu Uk of bli Fe te Pa ian es at an pu pe Re St d ite Un Eu ro Ru ss Office .8 4.208. This is due to its recent membership in the PCT.7 6.2 4.208. 2011 Potentially pending applications to patent applications ratio Pending applications undergoing examination to patent application ratio Pending-to-application ratio 11.2 Potentially pending applications.6 7.9 0. October 2012 84 Un at an ite d Ne w of Pa bli g Ze Uk Ca M ra ine ny da ica n ce ea R y lia m ico ly nd * n d y 0.4 Pending applications undergoing examination ratio.H on St pe Ru ite ro Un Ch Eu ina d Office Note: The 2011 ratio is calculated using applications pending in 2011 divided by the average number of applications received by the office during 20092011.0 4.0 3.7 2. '.6 3. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. -14.361 4.' not available. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.9 -12.2 13.6 .685 -0.3 8. -5. October 2012 Figure A. Un at ite d Note: *2010 data.0 1.3 4.738 351.11.134 4.853 50. The average number of applications for Thailand refers to 2007-2009.1 1.7 2.721 12.7 2.339 308.. '.5 3.7 22.4 .11. Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.8 1.8 Po lan pa ad do Ita ia d y .Section A patents.439 284.2 174.1 -2.' not available.0 50.7 . following which the number of applications received declined temporarily as non-resident applicants switched from using the Paris route to the PCT system.994 16.2 et 0.388 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 40.437 29.682 15. October 2012 Figure A.. 2011 -0. Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.0 -2.277 163.633 45.0 2.8 5.791 9..1 2. at any stage in the process.5 11.101 161.3 -10.2 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Pending applications undergoing examination Pending applications undergoing examination 13.11.5 2.8 52.3 -3.124 506.9 -12.267 20.5 1.084 27. Ch in ro a.9 -1.6 1. Office Note: *2010 data.877 68. that await a final decision by the patent office.267 4.9 -1.0 5.233 SA R nc e* ex ico ay rw No m m el d ly ica fic e n ea a az il * lia * an ion an tra Of rm at Ca n In d ail Ja ng Isr a er Na or Am fK ng Au s M Fr a Br er Ge nt Th Ko Ki of Fe d te co bli Pa g ian es Ho n pu an pe Re St ss ed Ru Un it Eu Office . 2011 -0.611 55.8 nd ia * y am ae l wa pa SA tio Of fi ma str a na lan do or Ita ala er ex ke d et N an Isr No r fK ng Am ng Po Tu r Ja ra Ge r te nt Au de ail co Ko Ki Fe Th Vi ss ian es Re pu .

uk/pro-ipresearch. For example. which prompted a sharp fall in applications received by the national patent office as users switched to using the EPO route.html. The patent offices of Thailand. owing to different rules and processes employed in making patenting decisions.776 (2011). to date. 85 .000.ipo. Receipt 2. 1.htm Figure A: Stocks of patent backlogs Stock 1 Stock 2 Stock 3 1. these offices had a high ratio of potentially pending applications to total patent applications.52 For example. In the US. Results of the UKIPO-USPTO backlog study will be made available in early 2013 at: www. Figure A. The framework identifies four milestones in the examination process common to most patent systems. Further. or inventories. but also aids in highlighting the relationship between application stocks and examination pendency. Each of these definitions has its own reasonable logic but.428) received between 2009 and 2011. Disposal 52 The potentially pending applications to patent applications ratio is high for Norway. Similar problems arise in comparing examination pendency across offices. as well as misunderstanding of their causes and consequences. The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the USPTO have jointly conducted a study on patent application backlogs. By utilizing detailed information on measured stocks.wipo.gov/ip/officechiefecon/index. utility models and microorganisms The number of pending applications undergoing examination shows a trend similar to that of potentially pending applications.Section A patents.4 depicts the number of pending applications relative to incoming applications.8 times higher than the average number of patent applications (3. it is possible to further distinguish those applications awaiting a patent office action and those awaiting an applicant response. but of all of these offices. 3. The majority of reported offices had fewer applications undergoing examination in 2011 than in 2010.11. Norway became a member of the EPO in January 2008. Ripened 3. Germany had the highest potential pending applications-to-patents ratio. 53 WIPO is grateful to the UKIPO and USPTO for providing the content in Box 1. Decision 4. The fall in application numbers resulted in a high ratio for Norway. the lack of standardization in measurement has led to an inability to compare backlogs.jsp and www. applications undergoing examination in Japan declined by around 224. Understanding these relationships is critical for better evidence-based policymaking.uspto. at the patent office of Viet Nam. As part of that study – and with input from WIPO’s Patent Economists Group54 – the offices have developed a framework to facilitate cross-country comparison of backlogs. 54 See www. The total numbers of patent applications filed at the patent office of Norway were: 5. while in the UK the backlog is generally considered to be the number of applications that remain unexamined after a certain time period.813 (2010) and 1.437) was 11.430 (2008). offices can more precisely estimate pendency at any phase of the examination process. Box 1: Measuring patent backlogs: A new framework for cross-country comparison53 National offices tend to think about patent backlogs differently.604 (2009). the joint UKIPO-USPTO study shows that changes in the different stocks have differential impacts on patent pendency and on abandonment rates. The number of potentially pending applications in Germany was far below that of Japan and the US. However. the backlog is typically defined as the quantity of unexamined applications. This taxonomy not only facilitates cross-country comparison. of applications (see Figure A).int/econ_stat/en/ news/2010/news_0001.gov. These milestones divide the overall patent application inventory into three distinct stocks. Norway and Viet Nam showed small absolute numbers of potentially pending applications. Within each of these stocks. the number of potentially pending applications (40.

The JPO and the USPTO received 95% of all PCT-PPH requests (Table A. This section presents statistics relating to the use of the PPH system at several offices.025 or 15%). In particular.jpo. In such situations.703 or 69%). PCT-PPH requests showed a similar trend.1 shows the number of PPH requests made up to the end of December 2011 (cumulative total from the date on which PPH became operational). Although there are substantial differences among national patent laws.jp/cgi/ cgi-bin/ppph-portal/statistics/statistics.12. a patent application for the same invention filed in multiple jurisdictions. This includes positive search and examination results from the office of first filing. inventive step and industrial applicability.12. KIPO and the USPTO accounted for 88% of total PPH requests (13. So-called Patent Prosecution Highways (PPH) have institutionalized such cooperation between offices. patent offices may find it difficult to process applications in a timely manner. With the increasing number of applications and limited resources.cgi 86 . To avoid unnecessary duplication of work and improve the efficiency of the examination process. 55 For further information and a definition of PPH statistics refer to: www.817 applications for which applicants subsequently filed a PPH request..go.12.272). Since offices handling subsequent filings would use the work done earlier by other offices. the written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) or the international preliminary examination report issued within the framework of the PCT – a practice referred to as PCT-PPH.1). the Canadian patent office received the largest number of PPH requests (44%).55 Table A.Section A patents.11). The majority of offices received a low number of PPH requests (Table A.12 Patent prosecution highway As described earlier. the USPTO received the largest number of those requests (4. the same application is examined multiple times by different patent offices. This is reflected by the large stock of pending applications across the world (See A. followed by KIPO (1. utility models and microorganisms A. patent offices increasingly seek to make use of the search and examination results of other offices. they can shorten processing time and contribute to better examination quality. the JPO. Therefore the same set of questions – whether the invention is new. followed by the JPO (33%). the criteria for granting patents are similar: novelty.2). It can also include the positive results of a written opinion by the International Searching Authority (ISA). whether it is obvious and whether one can make industrial use of it – is asked multiple times. The Canadian office. The largest number of PPH requests occurred between the JPO and the USPTO. A PPH refers to a bilateral agreement between two offices that enables applicants to request a fast-track examination procedure whereby patent examiners can make use of the work of the other office.e. there has been an increase in the number of cross-border applications – i. As for applications filed at the USPTO. the JPO received 6.

and for related reasons. the grant rate for PCT-PPH applications is higher than “regular” PPH applications. applications filed at the office of second filing may only contain claims that correspond to those claims which have already been found to be patentable by the office of first filing.025 42 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 7 40 5 80 2 0 0 13 0 0 4 1 0 0 107 0 90 191 19 65 3 0 1 0 0 0 8 2 0 European Patent Office Russian Federation Republic of Korea United Kingdom Singapore Denmark Australia Germany Portugal Hungary Norway Canada Finland Iceland Austria Mexico Others Japan China Israel Spain Total 109 1 111 1 102 231 25 169 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 Australia Austria Canada China Denmark European Patent Office Finland Germany Hungary Iceland Office of first filing Israel Japan Mexico Norway Others Portugal Republic of Korea Russian Federation Singapore Spain United Kingdom United States of America Total n/a 20 4.537 52 60 6.3 presents grant percentage and average pendency time figures. the average pendency – both first office action and final decision – for applications using PPH and PCT-PPH procedures is significantly shorter than average pendency for all applications. Due to significant differences in examination procedures and legislation across offices. For all reported offices.12. the grant percentage when requesting the PPH procedure is 87% (excluding PCT-PPH) at the USPTO.1 Number of PPH requests.438 15 1. cumulative total up to the end of December 2011 Office of subsequent filing United States of America 109 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a 0 0 1 11 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 73 53 2 394 1 495 0 0 n/a 0 0 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 160 3 0 0 52 146 146 0 0 1. October 2012 87 .jpo.922 0 1 3 254 648 1 3 40 536 1 1 0 0 0 0 1. based on data from the JPO.013 53 1. For example.791 16 2 2 39 39 0 0 0 19 475 0 1 9 9 17 0 1 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 36 0 1 0 4 0 1.817 851 1.388 2.354 13.go.cgi Source: WIPO.Section A patents. Similarly.jp/cgi/cgi-bin/ppph-portal/statistics/statistics.022 11 2 0 205 277 n/a 4.272 Note: For a definition of PPH statistics refer to: www. utility models and microorganisms Statistics on examination procedures can shed some light on how PPHs affect office performance.703 6. Table A. the data presented here do not allow for direct cross-office comparisons. Table A. in order to benefit from PPH acceleration. compared to 49% for all applications (PPH and non-PPH). This may be at least partly due to the requirement that. The grant percentages for applications having made use of PPH and PCT-PPH procedures were higher than for those using the normal examination procedure.12.

utility models and microorganisms Table A.12.Section A patents.jpo.jp/cgi/cgi-bin/ppph-portal/statistics/statistics.118 0 0 0 8 20 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 4 21 137 Nordic Patent Institution European Patent Office Russian Federation Republic of Korea Denmark Australia Sweden Norway Canada Finland Iceland Austria Mexico Japan China Spain Australia Austria Canada China Denmark European Patent Office Finland Iceland ISA or IPEA Japan Mexico Nordic Patent Institution Norway Republic of Korea Russian Federation Spain Sweden United States of America Total 3 338 0 0 0 1. cumulative total up to the end of December 2011 Office of filing United States of America 88 0 20 0 8 3 2 814 0 35 537 3 963 7 0 0 5 5 8 0 0 20 0 7 0 0 11 199 0 0 0 0 10 1. October 2012 88 Total 91 8 23 2 0 3 0 .2 Number of PCT-PPH requests.498 0 0 12 0 0 0 975 7 4 27 172 2.cgi Source: WIPO.997 Note: For a definition of PPH statistics refer to: www.go.622 3. based on data from the JPO.152 35 0 7 0 188 0 0 765 0 0 0 1.

1 100 (-) 33.) -2.06 -1.) (-) -0.3 1.5 3.9 0 -9.66 0.46 ( .17 -1.12.5 5.go.8 (-) 1.7 (-) 0.4 1.1 -45.8 0.6 ( .8 81.9 1. July – December 2011 PPH procedure.94 (-) -33 ( .2 1.6 Russian Federation Grant Rate {%} 100 (-) 91 -64 42 -4.8 0.8 87 -49 26 -14 6.cgi.2 27.6 (-) (-) 76.3 ( .13 -0.5 from PPH Request to Final Decision ( .65 ( . The numbers in brackets refer to all applications (i.7 2.5 (-) -71.55 0.9 -11.8 -10.) -33.3 0.) -22.9 6.1 -8.3 Grant rate and pendency time for patents filed using the PPH procedure.8 (-) 0.8 11.3 95 100 (-) 100 (-) (-) 100 -35 3.6 (-) 4.1 -12.9 -11.5 -32.6 4. excluding PCT-PPH Office of subsequent filing United States of America PCT-PPH Office of subsequent filing United States of America 91 -49 19 -14 4.8 -11 1.1 ( .) -40.6 6 -60 1 (-) -76.) -40. utility models and microorganisms Table A..4 -64 -58.3 Average Pendency 0.5 1 1.83 (-) 0.14 2.3 (-) 0. PPH and non-PPH data).5 {months} Average Number of Office Actions 0.9 100 (-) 66 (-) (-) 5.jpo.6 -1.e.1 -41.1 -26.) -23.4 (-) -10.3 -74 75 58 -66.1 -16.2 1. based on data from the JPO. Source: WIPO.2 4.5 Action {months} Average Pendency 1.8 -18 ( .4 -22.7 -4.5 (-) -23 97.3 7.9 2.9 -66.1 50 First Action Allowance Rate {%} 44.83 (-) 0 (-) 100 -57 87.5 -9.7 1 22.2 -10.2 -8.) -2 -2.7 ( .8 (-) 81.6 1 from PPH Request to First Office ( .7 -22.Section A patents.6 0.6 ( .6 Note: For a definition of PPH statistics refer to: www.6 -24.4 -58.) -22.2 -26.7 -32.8 1. October 2012 Russian Federation Republic of Korea Republic of Korea United Kingdom Singapore Australia Australia Germany Hungary Canada Canada Finland Mexico Others Japan Japan Spain 89 .1 90.6 -2.8 -25 -33.2 1.) -1.5 1.) -1.3 -80.3 -23.6 7 1.3 -16.jp/cgi/cgi-bin/ppph-portal/statistics/statistics.5 100 95.8 1.

13.1.4 -3. each of the other offices received fewer than 8.1 shows data on the total number of utility model (UM) applications filed across the world from 1985 to 2011.467 applications – or 87% of the world total – in 2011.9% growth on 2010.000 Growth rate (%) 500. the IP offices of the Russian Federation and Ukraine also saw growth.4 35.1 15.13.1 2.1. received around 16.000 Applications 300. Apart from the top five offices. This was due to considerable declines at the JPO.6 -6. the second largest office.0 27. Between 1985 and 1998. utility models and microorganisms A. Excluding Chinese office data.000 100.7 6.7% in 2010 and 2% in 2011.5 -26.4 24. SIPO received 585.8 12.6 .3 9.7 -2. saw an estimated 670. while the number of applications fell in those of Germany and the Republic of Korea.2 depicts the number of UM applications for the top 20 offices. The latest year.1 Trend in utility model applications worldwide Applications 700.1.000 -5.0 -1.4 -12. Since 1998.000 applications – only a fraction of the number received in China.2 8. October 2012 90 .Section A patents.9 9. mainly reflecting sustained growth in filings at SIPO. where applications fell from around 204. From 2008 to 2011. These estimates include direct applications and PCT national phase entries. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 2011.800 in 1985 to 10.9 -11.700 UM applications filed worldwide. UM applications worldwide followed a downward path.5 -10.7 1. In 2011.1 Utility model applications Figure A.000 applications. Figure A.5 9.13. World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 60 offices. Figure A.6 15. which include direct national and regional applications and international applications filed through the PCT that subsequently entered the national or regional phase. it has been the largest office in terms of applications. During this period.13 Utility models A. the world total actually showed a decrease of 1. corresponding to 42. there was substantial growth in applications worldwide.9 8. UM applications have continuously increased. 2.13. corresponding to a 35% increase on 2010.7 -8. Since 1997.8 11.0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Application year Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 60 patent offices (see Data Description).900 in 1998. Growth in applications has been entirely due to an increase in applications received by SIPO. Germany.

Section A

patents, utility models and microorganisms

Figure A.13.1.2 Utility model applications for the top 20 offices, 2011
Resident
42.9
585,467

Non-Resident
-8.0 8.1 -1.6 0.3 -36.3 15.4
1,690

Resident
2.4
1,646 1,342 1,090 1,003

Non-Resident
-7.9 8.5 0.2 -4.8 4.5 Growth rate (%): 2010-11

-5.8

8.0

-13.2

-2.4

1.1

0.1

6.1

Growth rate (%): 2010-11

Applications

Applications

812

674

615

16,024

581

13,241 11,854 10,431 7,984

506

3,280

2,598

2,470

1,988

rm an y ed e ra Re t ion pu bli co fK or ea

ra ine

Ja pa n

Sp ain

y

Ch ina

az il *

Ita ly

Au str ia Ch Ph ina ilip ,H pin on es gK on gS AR

ali Cz a ec hR ep ub lic Th ail an d

Au str

Be

Po lan d

Uk

Br

Ge

.

Ru ssi

an F

Office

Office

Note: *2010 data; Growth rate refers to 2009-2010. Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Figure A.13.1.3 Utility model applications for offices of selected middle- and low-income countries, 2011
Resident
-54.5
292 247 233 224 182 143 140 107 99 86

Non-Resident
7.5 -6.7 32.1 -43.4 24.6 -1.3
79

Resident
19.0
75

Non-Resident
-20.8 -30.0 40.0 -13.3 -37.5 Growth rate (%): 2010-11

-3.1

23.9

25.8

-13.7

-29.7
71

-12.3

6.7

Growth rate (%): 2010-11

64

Applications

Applications

48

42

21 14 13 10

ria co fM old ov a Ka za kh sta n Ta jik ist an M ala ys ia Uz be kis ta n

sia

m

bia

ile

nia

gia

an

ay

M a Ric sta

nia

ru

ia

Na

ala

Ch

Se rb

on e

lga

Pe

gu

lom

Ar me

Ge or

aij

Ro ma

at em

Vi et

Ur u

Ind

Co

erb

Bu

Gu

Co

Az

Re

pu

bli

Office

.

Office

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Unlike patents, UMs are primarily used by resident applicants to protect inventions at their respective national patent offices. In 2011, resident applicants accounted for 98% of the world total, a share that has remained relatively constant over the past 25 years. For the top 20 offices, France is the only one where non-resident applicants accounted for the majority of applications. The non-resident share in total applications at SIPO was less than one percent in 2011. However, in absolute terms, SIPO (with 4,164) received the largest number of non-resident UM applications in 2011, considerably higher than the 1995 level (354 applications). The majority of non-resident applications filed at SIPO originated in Japan and the US.

SIPO is the only office with considerable growth in UM applications in 2011. It received 175,631 more applications than in 2010. This exceeds twice the amount of applications received by all other offices combined in 2011. Between 2010 and 2011, the IP offices of Australia, the Russian Federation, the Philippines and Turkey recorded high growth, while Austria, the Republic of Korea and Japan experienced considerable declines.

Ky

rg

yz

sta

n

Fra nc e

us

Tu rke

ex ico

lar

91

Section A

patents, utility models and microorganisms

Figure A.13.1.3 shows the numbers of UM applications received by offices of selected middle- and low- income countries. Similar to the trend observed for the top 20 offices (Figure A.13.1.2), resident applications accounted for the largest share of total applications. Resident shares varied from 55% in Kazakhstan to 100% in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The majority of these offices received fewer applications in 2011 than in 2010. Even though the UM system is mostly used by local residents, some applicants seek UM protection abroad. Figure A.13.1.4 presents the total number of applications filed abroad for selected origins. Residents of the US (1,703) and Japan (1,646) filed the largest numbers of UM

applications abroad, a large proportion of which were destined for SIPO. Table A.13.1.5 shows the breakdown of Japanese and US applications abroad at SIPO and at other IP offices. The use of UMs by Japanese and US applicants to seek protection in China has considerably increased. In 2000, residents of the US filed 128 UM applications (or 23.7% all applications abroad) at SIPO; by 2011, this number stood at 1,076, constituting 63% of all US applications abroad. Applications abroad data for Japan exhibit a similar trend. China had the largest number of resident applications (582,140) by origin, of which 581,303 were filed at SIPO and only 837 were filed abroad.

Figure A.13.1.4 Utility model applications filed abroad for selected origins, 2011
25.7
1,703

133.8
1,646

11.9

33.1

9.9

-5.9

4.7

9.2

94.7
255

-0.4
238

30.8

22.2

-4.0

8.2

12.3

-4.3

Growth rate (%): 2010-11

Growth rate (%): 2010-11
208

Applications abroad

Applications abroad

193 145 145 137 134

837 643 511 432

310

286

y

ca

ina

ia

n

d

ea

ly

ine

ain

lic

R

m

us

pa

an

an

Ita

nc

eri

ub

do

Ch

ra

rm

Ja

erl

Au

fK

Fra

Sp

lar

Am

ing

Ge

itz

co

Uk

hR

Ko

Sw

bli

ec

ng

tes

pu

Cz

Ho

dS

Re

Un

Origin

.

Ch ina ,

ite

Origin

Note: The actual numbers of UM applications by origin might be higher than those reported due to incomplete data, and/or because a detailed breakdown by origin is not supplied by some offices. Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Table A.13.1.5 Utility model applications filed abroad by residents of Japan and the US
Origin: Japan UM applications Office China Others Total 2000 87 99 186 2005 566 27 593 2011 1,465 181 1,646 UM applications (%) 2000 46.8 53.2 100.0 2005 95.4 4.6 100.0 2011 89.0 11.0 100.0 2000 128 412 540 Origin: United States of America UM applications 2005 360 374 734 2011 1,076 627 1,703 UM applications (%) 2000 23.7 76.3 100.0 2005 49.0 51.0 100.0 2011 63.2 36.8 100.0

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

92

Un

ta

ite

dK

of

Fin

ep

ng

Be

lan

or

SA

str

d

e

Section A

patents, utility models and microorganisms

Figure A.13.1.6 Resident utility model applications as a percentage of resident patent applications, 2011
400

300

(%)

200

100

ra ine Ph ilip pin ,H es on gK on gS AR Cz ec hR ep ub lic Slo va kia

Fin lan d Ge rm an y

Sp ain

ia

Ch ina

Au str

of Ko rea

an d

tio n

Be la

Au str

Po lan d

Tu rke

ex

Ita

Th ail

Fe

de ra

Uk

M

Ch ina

Office

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

To illustrate the use of the UM system, Figure A.13.1.6 shows resident UM applications relative to resident patent applications. Compared to the patent system, the UM system is used intensively by residents of Ukraine, the Philippines, China Hong Kong (SAR), the Czech Republic, Slovakia, China and Thailand. For example, Ukrainian residents filed about four times more UM applications than patent applications in 2011. Residents of middleincome countries tend to use the UM system more intensively than the patent system. In contrast, residents of high-income countries, such as Germany and Japan, use the patent system more frequently.

A.13.2 Utility model grants Contrary to applications, UM grants worldwide showed a slight upward trend from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s, followed by a steep increase from 2006 onwards. UM grants worldwide grew substantially in 1992 (44.6%) and 2010 (55.1%). The 1992 growth was mainly due to the large number of grants issued by the JPO, while the high growth in 2010 resulted from the many grants issued by SIPO. Indeed, the fast growth in grants worldwide since 2006 was almost entirely due to SIPO. The total number of grants worldwide is estimated at around 477,100 in 2011, corresponding to 16.3% growth on 2010. The world total, excluding SIPO data, shows more modest growth over the past two years (+8.2% in 2010 and +5.1% in 2011). SIPO issued by far the largest number of grants (408,110) in 2011. It accounted for 85% of the world total which, however, is two percentage points below its share in applications worldwide. The IP offices of Germany, the Russian Federation and Ukraine each issued more than 10,000 grants in 2011. The resident and non-resident grant distribution for all reported offices is similar to that of the application distribution, with resident applicants receiving the bulk of total grants in 2011. The majority of the listed offices exhibited growth in grants between 2010 and 2011. However, Austria, Germany and Japan recorded falls in both applications (Figure A.13.1.2) and grants (A.13.2.2).
93

Ru ssi

Re pu bli c

an

Ja

pa n

y

ru s

0

a

ali

ico

ly

October 2012 Figure A. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.6 8.486 5.000 100.230 11. 29. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.853 2.2 Utility model grants by office for the top 20 offices.5 928 Non-Resident 30.000 -4.3 -1.0 15.5 7.7 0.4 -5.3 -4.2.110 Non-Resident 166.3 13. October 2012 94 Ph Office Au Th M ex ico ny in n ly d y c .977 1.545 str ia lar us R es il * kia d lia str a ine or ea tio n ina rke an bli Po lan pa Ita Sp a SA rm a pin Slo va Uk ra Ch ep u ail Ja de ra Au Tu Ko ng fK Be az ilip Br Ge bli co hR Fe ssi an pu Cz Ru Re Ch .6 18.595 6.8 16.2 -0. 6.079 10.2.13.5 -7. 2011 Resident 18.1 16.13.6 -0.2 -0.5 408.1 4. ina .000 Growth rate (%) Grants 200. These estimates include UM grants based on direct applications and PCT national phase entries.2 -3.4 -7.Section A patents.2 .4 -23.9 7.1 15.000 400.6 22.5 2. *2010 data.0 15.1 Trend in utility model grants worldwide Grants 500.9 55.291 7.H on g ec Office Note: '.0 6.9 44.7 9.3 10..0 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Grants Grants 605 524 517 395 377 360 315 207 14. utility models and microorganisms Figure A..9 952 Resident 35.549 1.8 .' not available.4 -11.6 10.3 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Grant year Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 60 patent offices (see Data Description).2 1.8 36.1 17.9 7.6 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 -8. Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.000 300.6 10.4 33.

As can be seen. Many of the same IDAs are listed for both years. which were selected on the basis of total deposits made at IDAs since the Budapest Treaty became operational in 1981. Germany’s DSMZ saw more or less stable deposit activity over the same period.000 Deposits 2. deposits fell from about 3.1 shows the long-term trend of total deposits made with all IDAs that receive and store microorganisms. Despite year-on-year growth of 7 to 17% from 2008 to 2010.Section A patents. October 2012 95 . replacing the Korean Culture Center of Microorganisms (KCCM) and the European Collection of Cell Cultures (ECACC) of the UK.1 Trend in microorganism deposits worldwide Deposits 4.5 19. They then gradually increased until 2010. In 2011. Food and Marine Bacteria (NCIMB) were new to the 2011 ranking. but Japan’s National Institute of Technology and Evaluation.14. Together. not all contracting parties have an IDA within their borders.2 shows deposit activity from 2001 to 2011 for the top five IDAs. there were a total of 75 contracting parties to the Budapest Treaty. Therefore. Figure A.8% and 25.700 in 2005. Chile and Morocco signed the treaty. China’s two IDAs included in this list – the China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center (CGMCC) and the China Center for Type Culture Collection (CCTCC) – had the highest five-year average annual growth rates from 2007 to 2011 with 32. the ATCC experienced a sharp decline in deposits (-30. The 3.3 presents the shares of the top 10 IDAs in the total number of deposits received in 2001 and 2011.6% at the US-based American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). utility models and microorganisms A.14. The top five include authorities from China.1. Figure A.1. By contrast.5 .7 -2.3 13. respectively. Figure A. Patent Microorganisms Depositary (NPMD) and the UK-based National Collections of Industrial. deposits fell by 12% at Japan’s International Patent Organism Depositary (IPOD) and by 1.14 Microorganisms In 2011.6%. Japan and the US.300 in 2001 to around 2.866 deposits in 2011 remained relatively unchanged from the previous year’s level of 3. Figure A. and the Microbial Culture Collection (MCC) of India became an IDA.14.4 -0.14.2 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Deposit year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.7 1. hosting 40 International Depository Authorities (IDAs). -7.2 3.5 0. these three IDAs accounted for 76% of the increase from 2009 to 2010.000 Growth rate (%) 3. The high growth of 19.857.6%) from 2010 to 2011.5% in 2010 can be attributed to increases in the numbers of deposits made in both IDAs located in China and in one located in the US.000 -12. Germany.7 5.

8% CGMCC: 4. The China-based CGMCC and CCTCC each increased their shares from 4.5% DSMZ: 6.Section A patents. however. NCIMB (National Collections of Industrial.5% and 2.0% Others: 13. its share in 2011 decreased by roughly half to 16.14.4% NPMD: 2. United Kingdom). in 2001 to 29. Republic of Korea).2%.2% KCCM: 3.1% DSMZ: 11. CCTCC (China Center for Type Culture Collection). KCTC (Korean Collection for Type Cultures. Japan) and NRRL (Agricultural Research Service Culture Collection. Japan) Source: WIPO Statistics Database. October 2012 CGMCC: 29.1%. Germany).500 Figure A. CGMCC (China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center).3 Share of IDAs in total deposits 2001 ATCC: 33.9% of all deposits in 2011 in contrast with the 20% received by the two US-based IDAs (ATCC and NRRL) and the 5.2% NRRL: 3. CCTCC (China Center for Type Culture Collection). Patent Microorganisms Depositary. Japan). respectively.4% CNCM: 4.3% ATCC: 16.3% received by the two IDAs of Japan (IPOD and NPMD).9% ECACC: 2.1% KCTC: 7. IPOD (International Patent Organism Depositary. CGMCC (China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center).3% IPOD: 12.4% IPOD DSMZ CGMCC CCTCC 2011 1. Republic of Korea).0% CCTCC: 16. United Kingdom). utility models and microorganisms The two pie charts show that ATCC received 33.1% of all microorganism deposits worldwide in 2001.1% CNCM: 4. thus becoming the top two IDAs in terms of deposits received for that year.000 Deposits 500 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Deposit year Note: ATCC (American Type Culture Collection. United States of America) Source: WIPO Statistics Database.14. United States of America). DSMZ (Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH. KCCM (Korean Culture Center of Microorganisms.5% and 16.4% KCTC: 8. Combined. Germany).2 Deposits for the top five IDAs ATCC 1. DSMZ (Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH.0% Note: ATCC (American Type Culture Collection.4% in 2011.1% NCIMB: 3. ECACC (European Collection of Cell Cultures.5% CCTCC: 2. Food and Marine Bacteria. United States of America).9% Others: 8. Figure A. France). October 2012 96 .1% IPOD: 3.3% NRRL: 4. they received 45. IPOD (International Patent Organism Depositary. CNCM (Collection nationale de cultures de micro-organismes. NPMD (National Institute of Technology and Evaluation.

Statistics contained in this section concern those reported by national and regional intellectual property (IP) offices from around the world and those resulting from use of the Madrid system. by using a range of indicators covering the following areas: a) trademark applications. Trademark rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the authority in which a trademark is registered. The procedures for registering trademarks are governed by the rules and regulations of national and regional IP offices. the decision of whether or not to issue a trademark registration remains the prerogative of the national or regional IP office concerned. and is administered by WIPO. since it is possible to record further changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step. and trademark rights remain limited to the jurisdiction of the authority issuing that registration. The owner can prevent unauthorized use of the trademark. In the latter case. is legally governed by the Madrid Agreement (1891) and the Madrid Protocol (1989). The holder of a registered trademark has the right to exclusively use the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered. 97 . e) trademark filing intensity (trademark applications per gross domestic product (GDP) and million population) and f) trademarks in force. for both goods and services.Section btrademarks section b trademarks This section provides an overview of trademark activity worldwide. Trademark System A trademark is a distinctive sign that identifies certain goods or services as those produced or provided by a specific person or enterprise. However. A registration recorded in the International Register produces the same effect as a registration made directly with each designated contracting party (Madrid member) if no refusal was made by the competent authority of that jurisdiction within a specified time limit.int/madrid/en/. the term “service mark” is sometimes used. For further details about the Madrid system. d) international registrations and renewals through the WIPO-administered Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks (Madrid system). even in the latter case. For better international comparison of trademark application activity across offices. This system makes it possible for an applicant to apply for a trademark in a large number of countries by filing a single application at a national or regional IP office that is party to the Madrid system. refer to: www. trademark registrations can be maintained indefinitely as long as the trademark holder pays the renewal fees.wipo. or an international application through the Madrid system. The Madrid system. Unlike patents. c) trademark applications by class and industry sector. so as to prevent consumers from being misled. Trademark applicants can file an application with the relevant national or regional IP office(s). this section takes differences in their filing systems into account. or a confusingly similar mark. For the sake of simplicity. The system also simplifies the subsequent management of the mark. b) trademark registrations. Trademarks can be registered for goods and services. It simplifies the process of multinational trademark registration by reducing the requirement to file an application at each IP office in which protection is sought. the term trademark is used in this publication regardless of whether or not the registration concerns goods or services. established in 1891.

More precisely.3 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Application year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates consisting of data from around 150 IP offices (see Data Description).0 7. October 2012 98 1 In this section. Worldwide totals do not take into account differences between single-class and multi-class filing systems across offices.1. the IP office of China responsible for trademarks is referred to as “China” rather than by its name (Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry & Commerce of the People’s Republic of China).1.6 17.6 7. which include applications received directly by national and regional IP offices combined with the numbers of designations received by 87 of these offices via the WIPO-administered Madrid system.9 2. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. Indonesia (+7.6 0. total applications doubled from around 2 to over 4 million. applications for trademarks rebounded to double-digit growth not seen since the peak of the so-called “dot-com boom” era in 2000 – which was followed by a sharp decline in 2001.1 13.1 Figure B.2 9.000. All but three of the 17 years presented show positive year-on-year growth.1.605) the United States of America (US) (+19.000 Growth rate (%) 3. These totals include applications filed directly with national and regional offices (Paris route) and designations received by offices via the Madrid system (where applicable).000 Applications 2.3 13.384) and the Republic of Korea (+5.365). Figure B. The largest increases in resident applications from 2010 to 2011 occurred at the IP offices of China (+300.000.000.000 1.680).4%) in the numbers of applications filed by residents with their national or regional offices. For example. These differences are later harmonized for international comparability in Figure B. the generic term “IP office” is used to refer to a national or regional office that receives trademark applications and issues registrations since not all are specifically named “trademark office”. After stagnating in 2007 and experiencing slight declines in 2008 and 2009 following the onset of the financial crisis. Turkey (+30.3 9. 2011 demonstrated a continuation of 2010’s equally high growth in trademark applications.2 4.2 1.4 8. For simplicity.3 5.1 Applications worldwide Between 1995 and 2011.2 million applications for trademarks filed at offices worldwide in 2011.7 -0. With a 13.1 shows the total numbers of trademark applications filed worldwide between 1995 and 2011. there were an estimated 4.1 Trademark applications and registrations worldwide B.Section Btrademarks B.1.000 -8. Totals are WIPO estimates covering around 150 offices.1.1.949).4 6.1 -2. .1 Trend in trademark applications worldwide Applications 4.1.3% increase. This was largely due to a rise (14.2 and in all indicators referring to trademark applications thereafter.000. country names rather than office names are used to label graphs.

3 4.wipo. this difference in filing systems must be taken into consideration. despite declines in 2008 and 2009. These totals include class counts in applications filed directly with national and regional offices (Paris route) and class counts in designations received by offices via the Madrid system (where applicable). For instance. there were an estimated 6. it is useful to compare application class counts across offices.000. the Republic of Korea and the US.Section btrademarks Within the international trademark system. Some offices have a single-class filing system.000. operate multi-class filing systems.0 9.1. the totals have increased from 4.2 million applications received by offices worldwide. Following on with the concept of improving international comparability.2 Trend in trademark application class counts worldwide Application class count 6. as well as many European offices.1. the first year for which complete class count data are available.2 million classes specified in the 4. Other offices follow a multi-class filing system. the offices of Japan.1. many offices have adopted the Nice Classification (NCL). an international classification of goods and services applied for the registration of trademarks and service marks. Figure B. which requires applicants to file a separate application for each class in which the goods or services for which the mark is applied are classified. Distinct from B. class count-based trademark application data reduce this gap to about only 5 times that amount. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2 -5.000 -0. Applications received by these offices are classified according to one or more of the 45 Nice classes (see www.int/classifications/en/ ). With growth approaching 10%.3 . the number of applications received by the IP office of China in 2011 was nearly 13 times that received by the European Union’s (EU) Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). For example. application statistics for the remainder of this section are presented on the basis of class counts rather than the number of trademark applications. October 2012 99 .org/ipstats/ trademarkSearch.2 depicts the total number of classes specified in applications – referred to as class counts throughout this section. Figure B. A single-class filing system can result in offices receiving much higher numbers of applications than those that allow multi-class applications. However.000 Growth rate (%) Application class count 4.6 2004 2005 2006 2007 Application year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates consisting of data from around 150 IP offices (see Data Description). 10. which enables applicants to file one application in which goods or services belonging to a number of classes can be specified.0 9.5 to over 6 million in 2011.000 2. the offices of Brazil.4 7.000.1. To capture the differences between numbers of applications received. China and Colombia follow a single-class filing system. Statistics on the numbers of trademark applications filed at offices are available for download at WIPO’s IP Statistics Data Center at http://ipstatsdb. For better international comparison of trademark application activity across offices.1. wipo. However.1.1. Since 2004.

1. This is also the case for residents of Belgium. Conversely. remained relatively unchanged at around six percent over both periods mentioned.1% United States of America: 6. Trademark applications filed by residents of EU countries at OHIM. When totaled.Section Btrademarks Figure B.3% in 2008. There were approximately 4.5 million resident application class counts in 2011.9% Others: 33.6% United States of America: 5. however.1. Receiving rapidly increasing numbers of applications.2% Russian Federation: 0.5% Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4 shows a breakdown for each year over this period. October 2012 In order to better understand the different components of the growth in total applications. From a peak of 34. non-resident applications refer to applications filed by applicants at a foreign IP office. an application filed with the IP office of Turkey by an applicant residing in the US is considered a non-resident application from the perspective of the Turkish office.3).4 million) application class counts in 2004.8% OHIM: 4.000 more than the sum of both resident (3 million) and non-resident (1.6%) of the overall growth over this eight-year period. are considered resident trademark applications for this office. an application received by a regional office is considered a non-resident application if the applicant is not a resident of one of its member states. Application class count data between 2004 and 2011 show that the IP office of China accounted for nearly half (46. Resident class counts in 2011 were about 80. a regional office. The contribution of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to growth. Similarly. For example.1.8% of the growth in applications worldwide from 2010 to 2011. it is necessary to look at individual offices’ contribution to the increases (Figure B.1% in 2011 due to the increasingly large numbers of resident trademark applications in China.4% Others: 27.1. OHIM and the IP office of the Russian Federation showed decreasing contributions toward overall growth as did the remaining offices (shown in the figure as “Others”) when taken as a whole. an application filed by an applicant residing in the US at the USPTO is considered a resident application from the perspective of the USPTO. this office contributed to 61.3 Contribution of offices to growth in applications worldwide 2004-2011 2010-2011 China: 46.1. For example. Figure B. 100 . the non-resident share has decreased to 27.1. Luxembourg and the Netherlands who file their applications with the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP). Although nearly doubling their application class counts between 2004 and 2011. compared to nearly 1. Resident applications refer to applications filed by applicants with the relevant national or regional IP office.7 million for non-residents.7% China: 61.2% Russian Federation: 5.6% OHIM: 8. an average of 31.1% of all trademark application class counts from 2004 to 2011 related to applications filed by non-residents.

1.000.3 29. However.000.2 Registrations worldwide Similar to B.1. 101 .2. the estimated 3 million trademark registrations issued worldwide in 2011 represents a decline of 7. Therefore.000 Application class count 3.1 shows combined totals of registrations issued by national and regional IP offices around the world.Section btrademarks Figure B.1.000 1.1. In 2011. a significant change in registrations issued by this office has a large impact on the world growth rate.1. This can be attributed to the high growth in registration activity at a number of IP offices.1.2.0 million registrations issued by offices worldwide. there were an estimated total of 4.000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Application year Note: See note for Figure B.4% in registrations issued.2 enables better international comparison of trademark registration activity across offices by taking into account the multi-class filing systems used by many national and regional offices. registration totals worldwide do not take into account differences between single-class and multi-class filing systems across offices.1.2. China’s office has accounted for between 32 and 42 percent of all trademark registrations issued worldwide.2 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1.000.0%.7 26.000 2.1% that simple registration numbers declined.1 4. 2010 saw an increase of 22.1.1.981) in registrations issued by the IP office of China. such as those of China and OHIM. the number of registrations issued worldwide in 2011 would have actually increased by 5.8 33.1.1. whereas the class counts increased by only 13. For example. If China were excluded from the overall totals. Figure B. These differences are harmonized for international comparability in Figure B. In contrast to applications. registration class counts fell in 2011 by the same 7.9 Non-Resident share (%) 27.2. Coincidentally.5 million classes specified in the 3. total trademark registrations showed positive year-on-year growth for all years between 2000 and 2010.2. Since 2009. This is largely due to a decrease of around 24% (-325.4 Resident and non-resident trademark applications worldwide Resident 32.1.8 33.7% for the same year. with 2009 and 2010 being the exceptions during which growth in registrations was significantly higher than that for class counts.1% from the previous year.000. The growth rates of registration class counts are like those of registrations between 2005 and 2011.4 Non-Resident 34. Figure B. Like the applications presented in B.1 32. October 2012 B.

These totals include registration class counts in registrations issued by national and regional offices for applications filed directly with offices (Paris route) and for designations received by offices via the Madrid system (where applicable).2.1.7 2.000. 102 .000 Registration class count 3. albeit slightly higher.3 shows that registrations issued by the IP office of China contributed to 49.0 6.6 3.000. respectively.000 2.7 2004 2005 2006 2007 Registration year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates consisting of data from around 150 IP offices (see Data Description).0 -3.1 .9 3.8 0.8 13.3 2.1 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Registration year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates consisting of data from around 150 IP offices (see Data Description).000.1. OHIM and the USPTO contributed about 11.5 3.2 6.4 6.5 million in 2011.1 15. 13.5%.5 23. to overall growth over the same period.6 9.5% and 6.1 Trend in trademark registrations worldwide Registrations 4.6 9.000 Registrations 2.7 10.Section Btrademarks Figure B. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1.2.000 -7.000 1.4 -7.000.2.000.3% of the growth – from about 3 million registration class counts worldwide in 2004 to 4.000 Growth rate (%) 3. Registration growth rate contributions for China. OHIM and the US are in line with those for applications. October 2012 Figure B.000 Growth rate (%) 4.000. Figure B. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.0 22.2 Trend in trademark registration class counts worldwide Registration class count 5. These totals include registrations issued by national and regional offices for applications filed directly with offices (Paris route) and for designations received by offices via the Madrid system (where applicable).6 4. October 2012 It is interesting to see the extent to which individual offices have contributed to the overall growth in registration class counts since 2004.5 18.000 -11.000.000.5 3.

Section btrademarks Figure B. Asia showed the largest shift with its share of applications increasing by nearly nine percentage points. Economies are divided according to 2011 gross national income (GNI) per capita. Figure B. 103 .2. Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database. with upper middle-income countries accounting for a nearly equal share (43. The top five classes combined accounted for one-third of the total. 3 The income groups correspond to those used by the World Bank. the percentage held by high-income countries has fallen to less than half (45.3 Contribution of offices to growth in registrations worldwide 2004-2011 Similar to filing concentration by geographical region. lower middle-income ($1. and office functions) has occupied or shared the number one position since 2004.htm. The first 34 of the 45 classes indicate goods and the remaining 11 refer to services.026-$4. October 2012 B.1. The breakdown of applications by class offers insights into the relative importance of trademarks for different goods and services. Since then.3.9%).475). Class rankings differ across individual offices. The groups are: low-income ($1. At the 105 offices for which direct application and/or Madrid designation statistics broken down by class are available for 2011.4% Many offices use the NCL to classify trademark applications into one or more of its 45 classes. Service class 35 (advertising.3% OHIM: 11. in 2011.5% Others: 32.1.un. The highest ranked classes indicating goods were Class 25 (Clothing. among other things. Oceania and Africa experienced slight decreases from 2007 to 2011. scientific. the top 10 classes accounted for just over half of all classes specified in trademark applications (Table B. and high-income ($12. Three of the top 10 classes related to services and comprised 19% of all filings.3%) of all trademark class counts specified in applications worldwide. The regions of North America. measuring instruments. Asia surpassed Europe as the largest receiver of trademark applications in 2009.1. business management.1%).3.035).3 In 2007.476 or more).org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin. Lower middle-income and low-income countries accounted for small proportions of applications worldwide.3% United States of America: 6. and in 2011 received 44% of all applications filed worldwide.5% Germany: 0. calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. business administration. whereas Europe’s share fell by an almost equal amount of eight percentage points (Figure B. upper middle-income ($4036$12.3).2 shows the distribution of applications by four income groups.1). when complete class data became available. income group and Nice class The concentration of trademark filing varies across the world’s six main geographical regions. Over the five2 year period 2007-2011.1. footwear. and countries located in the region of Latin America and the Caribbean added nearly a percentage point to their overall share.025 or less). headgear) and Class 9 (which includes.3 Applications by geographical region. China: 49. photographic. see http://unstats. computers and software).1. 2 Regions are defined by the United Nations (UN).3. recording equipment. offices of high-income economies accounted for the majority (54.

4% Low-income: 1.Section Btrademarks Figure B.3 Distribution of trademark applications by top Nice classes. dried and cooked fruits and vegetables.3 6.Coffee.4% Europe: 32. October 2012 Figure B. sugar.2 4. *Some classes listed are abbreviated. cocoa.1% Upper middle-income: 34. soaps. photographic. for example. cleaning and abrasive preparations.6% Asia: 44. October 2012 Table B. and sporting activities 5 .8% Oceania: 2. fish.1 Class* Class share (%) 9.9% Oceania: 2. and plastic materials for packaging 3 . perfumery and cosmetics 29 .Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use.Paper.Meat. rice.1% Latin America & the Caribbean: 8. France and the US – and on Madrid designation data from 87 offices.2 Trademark applications by income group 2007 2011 High-income: 54. October 2012 104 .1 4.3% Lower middle-income: 10. vinegar. headgear 9 . the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) and the offices of Australia. fungicides and herbicides 30 .7 4. See Annex B for full definitions.7% North America: 9. footwear. tea.9 49.2% High-income: 45.8% Africa: 2.1 Trademark applications by geographical region 2007 2011 Asia: 35. typewriters.4 3. salt.Scientific. resulting in an aggregate total of 105 offices.1. recording equipment.1. flour.Advertising and business management 25 . preserved.Pharmaceutical preparations. baby food.9% Low-income: 1.which include.Education. dietary supplements for humans and animals. bread.3. disinfectants. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. cardboard and goods made from these materials. China.8% North America: 8. pastry and confectionery. computers and software 41 . photographs. artists’ materials.Clothing. yeast.1% Lower middle-income: 9.7% Europe: 40. poultry and game.Scientific and technological services. frozen. eggs.3.4 2.9% Upper middle-income: 43.9 Note: These numbers are based on direct filing data from 70 offices . honey.3% Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 3.1. printed matter. sauces (condiments) and spices 42 . entertainment. 2011 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   35 . milk and milk products Thirty-five remaining classes 5.3.0% Source: WIPO Statistics Database. design and development of computer hardware and software 16 .9% Africa: 2. measuring instruments. mustard.0% Latin America & the Caribbean: 9.

7 11.3. Like class rankings.3 -0. October 2012 Table B. the 11 service-related classes accounted for one-third of all classes specified in applications filed in 2011 (Figure B. For definitions of the class groups.3 -1.2 14.3. Communications Management.5 percentage points from 2004. for which trademark protection is sought less frequently.6 6. Compared Goods classes: 66. Infrastructure Household equipment Transportation and Logistics Chemicals 2007 14. see Annex B for a complete list of the Nice Classification. they have been assigned to only one. with agricultural products and services accounting for the highest share at over 15 percent of the aggregated total.1. Training Construction. The class groups may consist of both goods and services classes. the shares of class groups differ across offices.1.3 -0.6 -0.1 Note: 2007 figures are based on Nice class data for 94 offices.3.9 1. there are a few.5 12.4 14.0 3.1.4 12.3 -0. it is worth noting that there has been very little change in the distribution of trademark applications among the industries listed. for the sake of simplicity.3% to 2007 and all other years since 2004.9 14.1 2011 15. the 45 classes of the NCL consist of those relating to either goods or services.6 11. Figure B.1 11.4).5 Trademark applications by industry sector Share (%) Industry sector Agricultural products and services Textiles .3 6. demonstrating the continued importance applicants place on protecting their brands in serviceoriented industries. Education.0 Change 0.9 7.6 0.7 3. 2011 Table B.3 7. Real estate and Financial Services Pharmaceuticals. Information technology. Six of the 10 groups each comprise more than 10 percent of the total share of classes specified in applications.7% Services classes: 33.Section btrademarks As mentioned previously.1 10.1. These categories were developed by Edital®. In addition. Together.0 6.4 -0. such as “chemicals” and “transportation and logistics”. No specific category seems to largely dominate for trademark applications. This is up by 3.4 11.5 0.5 breaks down the 45 Nice classes into 10 categories or groups based on their respective industry sectors for around 100 IP offices worldwide. Cosmetics Leisure. These class groups do not always contain the same number of classes. and those for 2011 are based on data for 105 offices. some class numbers could have been associated with several categories but.4 Trademark applications by goods and services classes.Clothing and Accessories Scientific research. October 2012 105 . This table depicts the distribution of trademark applications across various sectors of the economy.9 5. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.3. a company specializing in trademark information. Communications. Health. however. Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and Edital®.

These offices all exhibited growth until 2007. United States of America OHIM France Russian Federation Application class count 1. and the top 20 offices received almost three-quarters (74%) of all applications. Figure B. The numbers for the other four offices – the US.2 shows five additional offices with high filing activity in 2011.000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Application year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database.000 500. France and the Russian Federation – for all years spanning the period 2004-2011 were lower than those of China in 2004. In 2011.000.1 Trend in trademark application class counts for the top 5 offices China 1.2. the IP office of China accounted for 23% of all trademark filing activity worldwide.1.2. where applicable. taking into account the number of classes specified in these applications.2.2. For example. Despite allowing for China’s single-class filing system – which reduces its gap with offices operating multi-class filing systems . October 2012 106 . This graph shows a general trend toward convergence in filing activity over the period 2004-2011 for the offices presented. the top 10 offices received over half (58%) of the total share. Japan and the Republic of Korea followed a downward trend. class counts at the USPTO were a multiple of between two and nearly three times those for the Russian Federation over the same period. India’s filing volume surpassed that of Brazil in 2006.500.1 Applications by office exist even among these four.000 Figure B. In contrast. Brazil and India showed year-on-year increases for the entire 2004-2011 period.1 shows a selection of offices that received the highest volumes of trademark applications.1. large differences Figure B. OHIM. after which Germany. Japan’s and the Republic of Korea’s in 2011.China has consistently occupied the top position for trademark filing activity in recent years.Section Btrademarks B. When totaled.2 Trademark application and registration class counts by office B.1. This subsection provides detailed data on trademark applications and registrations by national or regional offices. However.

Section btrademarks

Figure B.2.1.2 Trend in trademark application class counts for selected offices
Germany
250,000

India

Japan

Republic of Korea

Brazil

Application class count

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 Application year 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Figure B.2.1.3 compares IP office application volumes across the top 20 offices by using class counts while showing the non-resident share of their totals. China’s 1.4 million application class count is almost equal to the Federation, Germany and OHIM. About half of the top 20 offices are in Europe, and four are in Eastern Asia. Large differences in non-resident shares exist between

Figure B.2.1.3 Trademark application class counts for the top 20 offices, 2011
Resident
10.2
1,418,251

Non-Resident
29.3 12.1 11.2 24.9

Total
17.7 23.8

22.5

22.9

6.8

Application class count

sum of those for the offices of the US, France, the Russian

Non-Resident share (%): 2011

412,014

303,663 288,540

209,483 205,961 198,547 189,217 184,939 174,297

OH

Ch

nc

rm

ra

pa

Tu

Am

Fra

de

Ge

Ja

dS ta

ssi

Hong Kong (SAR) received over half of its filing volume from non-resident applicants.
.. 45.3
133,921 112,635

Un

Switzerland. Like the Swiss IP office, the office of China

ite

Ru

Office

Resident
38.7 29.1
152,735

Non-Resident
13.2 19.2 59.7 20.7

Re

Total
14.8 63.5

Germany (12.1%), India (11.2%) and Italy (13.2%) were similar to that for China, whereas non-residents accounted for between 20 to 30 percent at many larger offices such as the USPTO, OHIM, the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and that of the Russian Federation.
.

Application class count

Low non-resident shares of application class counts for

Non-Resident share (%): 2011

100,281 98,054

89,240 85,011

75,792 73,245

pu
61,062

share was only 10.2% for China, compared to 59.7% for

of

Fe

tes

da

an

ain Sp ina ,H on gK

nd

bli Ita do rla ing ne itz e dK Un ite Sw

co Ch on g SA R lux

il

lia

ico

Br az

str a

na

Ca

M

ex

m

ly

Au

Office

Note: *Resident applications are an estimate of direct application class count; ‘..’ = not available; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Be

fK

offices shown in this figure. For example, the non-resident

ca

ina

IM

y

an

n*

e*

Ind

eri

rke

tio

or

ea

ia

n

y

107

Section Btrademarks

All but a few of the offices presented in Figure B.2.1.4 exhibited growth in 2011, with the offices of Brazil, China, the UK and China Hong Kong (SAR) experiencing the highest. However, the offices of Germany and Spain saw decreases from the previous year, with the German office exhibiting the greatest drop of seven percent as a result of receiving 15,400 fewer class counts. In fact, many offices of EU countries - including BOIP - have witnessed reductions in filing activity in recent years. This is partially due to residents opting to file with OHIM rather than with their respective national office in order to seek protection for trademarks not only within their own country but in the EU as a whole. The driver of one-year growth – whether resident or non-resident – differs for each of the top 20 offices. For example, applications received in China grew from nearly 1.1 million in 2010 to 1.4 million in 2011, which can be largely attributed to the 1.27 million applications filed by applicants domiciled in China that contributed 27.8 percentage points to this office’s total growth of 31.2%. Only 3.4 percentage points of China’s application growth was associated with filings from outside of China. Residents of the UK also contributed significantly to the increase in application class count at their national IP office.

However, growth at eight of these offices was primarily driven by foreign applications, most notably at the offices of Canada, China Hong Kong (SAR) and Switzerland. Seventy percent of the top 20 offices are located in high-income economies (Figure B.2.1.3), and 30 percent are located in middle-income economies, with China occupying the number one spot. In fact, 55 percent of trademark activity worldwide in 2011 occurred in offices of middle- and low-income economies, as shown in Figure B.1.3.2. Figure B.2.1.5 shows the total number of classes specified in trademark applications received by offices of selected middle- and low-income economies in 2011 as well as their non-resident shares.4 The offices of Albania, Bahrain, Barbados, Cuba, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan all had high non-resident shares (exceeding 85%) of total application class counts. In fact, about three-quarters of these 20 offices received at least half of their application class counts from non-residents. In Bangladesh, Colombia, South Africa, Thailand, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Viet Nam, the majority of trademark filing activity can be attributed to resident applicants, Bangladesh having the highest number with nearly three of every four applications filed domestically.

Figure B.2.1.4 Contribution of resident and non-resident application class counts to total growth for the top 20 offices, 2010-11
Contribution by resident applications
31.2 9.0 8.6 .. 1.2 -7.0 4.5 .. .. 1.3

Contribution by non-resident applications
21.6 8.4 4.4 6.2 2.9 16.4 5.8 1.4 -0.3 16.1 Total growth rate (%): 2010 - 11

Contribution to growth

27.8 15.8

11.4 3.4 6.4 2.6 6.1 2.5 -1.7 -7.4 2.9 0.4 2.2 2.3 1.7 -0.3 2.5 5.9 0.7 3.7 2.3 3.9 2.6 6.5 0.3 0.6 -0.7 0.6 0.8 -0.0 -0.3 4.7

0

ica

y

da

lan d

ina

ain Sp a, Ho ng Ko

IM

il

ea

ey

ico

m

ia

ly

ion

rm an

az

elu

nc

pa

ali

Ind

Ita

Tu rk

Ko r

Am er

Ca na

OH

Ch

at

Fra

Br

str

Ja

ex

do

Ki ng

Be n

er

Ge

Au

Fe d

bli c

ian

es

pu

ss

d

Ru

Re

St

Un

at

ite

Sw

of

d

itz

of

Un

Office

Note: ‘..’ = not available; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

108

4 The selected offices are from different world regions. Data for all available offices are presented in the statistical annex.

Ch in

ite

ng

M

er

SA

R

n

e

a

x

Section btrademarks

Figure B.2.1.5 Trademark application class counts for offices of selected middle- and low-income countries, 2011
Resident
38.2 39.8 41.7 41.6 54.9

Non-Resident
78.2 43.5 52.1 62.8 25.9 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
70.3 97.5
10,868

Resident
85.9
10,301

Non-Resident
66.3 64.3 87.3 70.7 89.6 Non-Resident share (%): 2011

Application class count

56,138 38,950

95.4
9,242

96.3

33,484

Application class count

11,620

29,084 28,833 22,116 19,587 14,124 12,108 11,645

7,388

6,812 5,239 4,732 1,949 1,371

Na m Th ail an d So ut hA fri ca Co lom bia M ala ys ia

Cr va oa ria tia nR ep ub lic of ) Co sta Ric a Uz be kis ta n Ba ng lad es h

an

ain

r

nia

ria

gia

ba

as ca

Ha it
9.2 0.7

sta

Al ge

Al ba

yz

Jo

Cu

hr

or

Ba

Ge

rg

ag

et

Vi

Ky

ne zu ela

(B

oli

Ve

.

Office

Office

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Figure B.2.1.6 Contribution of resident and non-resident application class counts to total growth for offices of selected middle- and low-income countries, 2010-11
Contribution by resident applications
7.9 3.4 9.6 11.9 9.3 1.1 .. 11.8 10.9 13.8 ..

Contribution by non-resident applications
.. 11.5 18.5 .. 14.1 7.7 .. 9.9 14.6 Total growth rate (%): 2010 - 11
14.0 10.1

Contribution to growth

4.8

7.0 3.0

4.9 4.8

4.6

7.3

9.7 4.1 2.8

9.0 4.1

6.8

7.6

9.6 6.2 1.9

6.5 7.5

M

ad

0
-3.5

-0.4

-3.1

-2.3

ria

an

ca

ain

r

nia

tia

gia

bia

Ric

an

Na

sta

ta

ys

es

ca

of

ba

Ha

fri

ge

lom

kis

hA

ala

lad

ail

ba

lic

yz

Jo

Cu

oa

or

as

hr

sta

Al

Ba

Cr

ub

Ge

Th

be

Al

ng

rg

ag

et

Co

Co

ep

Uz

So

Ba

Ky

Ve n

ez ue

la

(B oli

va

ria

nR

Office

Note: ‘..’ = not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

About half of these offices of middle- and low-income countries had a growth rate of 10% or higher from 2010 to 2011 (Figure B.2.1.6). For a number of offices, growth in non-resident applications was the main contributor to overall growth. For example, all growth at the offices of Croatia, Madagascar, Malaysia and Thailand can be attributed to increases in non-resident filings.

B.2.2

Registrations by office

This subsection compares IP office registration volumes across the top offices by using class counts compared in the same manner as were application volumes in subsection B.2.1. Figure B.2.2.1 shows that, in 2011, the IP office of China issued registrations with a class count of just over 1 million, which is approximately 400,000 less than its application class count in the same year. This partially reflects the fact that not every application received by an office results in a registration. However, other factors, such as examination pendency, also influence these differences.
109

M

ad

ut

Ba

Vi

M

rb

ad

rd

os

m

d

)

iti

a

n

ia

h

n

Ba
0.6

rb

ad

rd

os

n

i

234 66. The same holds true for the office of Turkey. The offices of Germany.571 Non-Resident 10.5 31.7% in Germany to over 60% at the Swiss and China Hong Kong (SAR) offices.804 Resident 32.0 27. with the top 20 issuing 66% of all registrations worldwide.6% to non-residents. which had a non-resident registration class count share of 47.2%.034 164.9 Non-Resident 18.2.0 56. China’s office accounted for about 23% of all trademark registration activity worldwide.9 64.575 43.2). by 40.147 97.943 137.166 79.3). India’s had the highest annual growth of 110. respectively).2.519 270. Of the offices listed.5% compared to a much lower share for application class counts of only 29.2.Section Btrademarks OHIM and the USPTO issued registrations with similar numbers of registration class counts in 2011 (about 270. the top 10 offices received over half (52%) of the total share. India and Italy also had similar numbers.8%. October 2012 110 Ch ina .041 43.6 21.1% decline in registrations issued to Chinese resident applicants.9 9. This drop was largely due to a 21.100 90.2.8 26.1% of total trademark registrations in 2011 were issued to non-residents.3 Registration class count Registration class count 71. The exceptions include the Russian Federation.6 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 45.1. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.6 44.987 102.033.000 to 165. However.438 249.000.0 47.5% and 64.183 75. whereas registration activity fell the most in Italy. with around 140.4 1.H on gK of lic Vi et Kin Ge Au on of Po lan Ita d . with 31.027 68.236 31. half of the top 20 offices issued a higher percentage of between 31.1 Trademark registration class counts for the top 20 offices. as registration class count data are not available for these offices.6 14. Luxembourg and the Netherlands that was almost entirely offset by a drop in registrations for non-resident applications. 31.659 62. When totaled.821 142. The IP office of China issued. Figure B.860 52. the most registrations in 2011. 2011 Resident 10. BOIP’s growth of 2. At the global level.2.5 47.2 78.3%.5 60.7% for applications. although it witnessed a 23.1 36. these were similar to their corresponding non-resident shares for application class counts (see B.000 and 250. The shares of class counts in registrations attributed to non-residents varied greatly among these offices – from 9.6% each. Office Note: France and Japan are not included in the list of top 20 offices.000 each.651 IM ca y ina Ko rea rke y nd ly ine ia n da in om AR ico m Na a x an str ali elu tio Ind OH Ch Sp a eri rla na M ex Be n Uk ra era Tu gS rm gd Am itz e Ca nF ed Sw tes ub ite d ssi a Re p Sta Un Ru ed Un it Office . followed by the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam with 36% and 26.5 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 23. Similar to its share of total applications.1% over 2010 can be attributed to an increase in registrations issued to applicants from Belgium.7% decrease from the previous year (Figure B.5% for registrations versus 17. by far.7 14. However.

0 8..8 -0.2 3.717 9.1.’ = not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database.435 5.0 .011..2 81. Like for the IP office of China. other factors.3 presents registration class counts for selected offices of middle.0 23.4 6. 2010-11 Contribution by resident registrations -23.9 3.1 -6. The offices of Colombia.8 94.5 -0. however. such as examination pendency.5 2.0 13.2 36.7 18.9 -2.455 et Po 91 erz oli eg va ov ria ina nR e pu Re bli pu c bli of co ) fM old ov a ria nia bia nia d ia ia an r ma an os ad rb Se n y n as an ca ua ge ma lom me ist rd na as me sta rb ys ur ala ail Se ug yz nd jik Pa ag Ye Al Jo Ro Th Ar Ur M Co rg Ho Ta Ky sn ia Bo Ve n ez ue la (B an dH .3 Trademark registration class counts for offices of selected middle.9 Contribution by non-resident registrations 6.2 56.4 -14. October 2012 Figure B..6 -21.215 6.2 8.5 9. October 2012 Figure B.707 Non-Resident 97.2 110.1-0.4 5. However.and low-income countries.6 -14. Data for all available offices are presented in the statistical annex.3 -4.7 -40.3 15.9 37.2.6 40.4 1.9 -0..7 -7.1 83.138 77.985 22.8 6. most of these offices’ registration class counts were largely attributed to non-residents.1 15. -1.349 6.2 2. Malaysia and Romania and issued similar numbers of registrations.5). 5 Consistent with their application class counts.2%) of its registrations to non-residents.1 95.7 Ch ina 90.Section btrademarks Figure B.2.6 6.7 -0.468 5.7 89. Office Office Note: ‘.0 4.5 2.0 -0. 5 The selected offices are from different world regions.006 11.2 Contribution of resident and non-resident registration class counts to total growth for the top 20 offices.989 13.and low-income countries.3 -4.4 46. The registration class counts for these offices were generally smaller than their application class counts (Figure B.5 1.0 -12.7 Total growth rate (%): 2010 . M ad Ba yc he lle s lan do d 111 .1 Application class count 16.8 -0.8 .3 26.886 Resident 97. Non-Resident share (%): 2011 9.2.7 3. with many having even higher non-resident shares.001 g Ko 4.11 Contribution to growth 0 7.1 0.6 er ica ny da OH IM ina ain d e or ea m R y a Ita ly ico ra tio n lux m Na Vi 2.8 . 2011 Resident 57.3 2.2 80. also influence these differences.1 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 64. Malaysia issued the majority (57.819 22.2.H ss on Non-Resident 69.5 -2. this partially reflects the fact that not every application received by an office results in a registration.3 -81.2 -37.0 78.9 -11.386 9.2.’ = not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database.3 4.2.3 -1.9 22.475 Application class count 23.2.773 12.2 -3.2 34.5 83.729 216 ia rk e Uk ra in er lan str ali SA Ind rm a na ex Ch fK Tu ng Sp ne Am Ca Be ng M de Ge Au itz co Ki Fe Sw of Un ite d bli St at es ian pu Re Ru Un ite d Office Note: ‘.9 0.3 1.

3.400 more registrations issued to non-residents in Panama than in Uruguay.1. however. the sectoral breakdowns of the French and German offices show marked similarities. but there were nearly 1. Focusing on the clothing industry. the USPTO received most of its non-resident applications in this field in equal shares from the UK.5.351) and Uruguay (3.611) issued almost the same number of registrations to their respective residents. the 45 NCL classes can be grouped into 10 categories or groups (see Annex B for full definitions).1.3. with non-resident filings from the Republic of Korea in the number 10 position. each having a higher proportion of filings in the areas of Research & Technology and Leisure & Education. Canada and the US exhibited a similar distribution of trademark filings across sectors. and how the concentration of filing within these categories differs across offices. it is useful to analyze class data by grouping the NCL classes into different industry sectors. although Canada’s shares of filings attributed to non-resident applicants were higher. there were even fewer trademarks filed for household equipment than in the transportation sector. In particular.1).Section Btrademarks The offices of Panama (3. most of these offices had lower shares of applications filed in the fields of chemicals and transportation.3.3 Nice classes specified in trademark applications by office B. Conversely. the US share was twice the Japanese share in this case. Finally.3. These two industries also accounted for the highest shares of applications in the Republic of Korea. 112 . For the Research & Technology class group. In Colombia and Mexico. applicants from Japan and the US also accounted for the largest shares of non-resident applications in the Republic of Korea. B.1 Industry sectors by office As in subsection B. the Republic of Korea received a considerable share of nonresident applications in this sector. Consistent with Table B. For instance. the IP office of China received the highest share of its applications in the clothing industry. The resulting indicators by class group for selected offices show the share of filings attributed to non-residents for each group. followed by agriculture (Figure B. the largest portion of which came from Japan and the US in similar amounts. Canada and Germany.

Office Resident Non-resident Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count 20 15 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0 hin g on ls se ho isu re re Tr ar se h isu Ho u Re se Ho u Class group Class group Colombia . Chemicals = Chemicals. Household equipment = Household equipment.Section btrademarks Figure B. Construction = Construction.Office Resident Non-resident Republic of Korea . Leisure & Education = Leisure. Transportation = Transportation and Logistics Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and Edital®.Office Resident Non-resident France . 2011 China . Cosmetics.Clothing and Accessories. Health = Pharmaceuticals. October 2012 Re se a Le rch & Te c eq at ion lth re re ls g n s se a Le Le rch ch Ed uc at ion & Te ch no log Tr an y sp or ta tio n ss alt h m en He alt sin e sin e ult u ns tru cti uc a Cl ot em icu no ot He uc ta m eq uip Ag ric Te ch Ag r Co an Co eq uip Bu sp or Bu Ch Ch e ns tr Cl Ed & old ld & & m en t hin g ss log y re tio tio re ls n h n t n ltu ica ica tio Re se ar ch & Te ch sp olo gy or ta tio n tio n at ion alt h ot hin ot hin ica ine ltu ltu sin ica alt h He ss re re ls g t en es tru c He m em uc em m 113 . Clothing = Textiles . For a definition of the class groups. Real estate and Financial services. Business = Management.Office Resident Non-resident Canada . Education. Research & Technology = Scientific research. see Annex B for a complete list of the Nice Classification.Office Resident Non-resident Percentage of total Class Count 20 15 10 5 0 Percentage of total Class Count 25 20 15 10 5 0 hin g es s ls n Re h eq Le uip isu m re en t & Re Ed se uc ar ch at ion & Te ch no log Tr an y sp or ta tio n es hin tio He alt ica ult u ltu ica tio Bu sin He a en t Ch em Ch em uip m sin uc ot icu ot uc Ag ric ns tr Ag r Ed uc ns tr Bu Cl Cl Co Co ho ld old & isu re us eh us e Ho Ho Class group Class group Note: Class groups are those defined by Edital®. Agriculture = Agricultural products and services.Office Resident Non-resident Mexico . Infrastructure.Office Resident Non-resident Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count 20 15 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0 on ls g s Ho Le is us us ur e& re & old h y log no y log hn o Tr an sp or Tr an sp or Tr an ta tio n ta tio n on ls g ion h n e e s y t old & en es log hin ur hin alt ica ica tio cti sin cti alt ur en es sin ult ult m at He em em no ot tru tru He ta ot m uip ric Bu Bu ric Cl Cl uip uc or uc at ch Ch Ch Ed ns sp Ag Ag eq eq Ed ns Te Co an Co & old old & & re Tr re ch eh eh isu isu ar us us Le Le se Ho Ho Re Class group Class group Germany . Training.Office Resident Non-resident Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count 20 15 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0 g tru cti on ls s en t uc at ion Ed Re se ion ar ch & t no log y or ta tio n ric u ric u Bu s uip uip ch Ch Ch Ed ns ns ch n Bu Cl Cl sp Ag Ag eq eq Te Co Co Te Tr an rch eh isu eh Le ea Ho Re s Class group Class group United States of America .1 Nice classes grouped in industry sectors for selected offices. Health.3. Information and Communication technology. Communications.

3.1. However.4 54. The offices of France and Germany received over 45% of their applications for service classes.4. India and Viet Nam also displaying higher goods class shares. Mexico. the shares of goods and services classes specified in trademark applications worldwide for 2011 were 66.4 46.6 100 75 50 25 0 28. Turkey. in the case of BOIP and the office of Spain.0 37. the UK and the US Figure B.H Re ina Ch Office Source: WIPO Statistics Database. The services classes shares of 40% and higher at almost half of the offices listed reflect applicants’ demand for protecting marks in the service industry in different markets.3 44. 2011 Goods classes Distribution of goods and services classes 22.0 41.7% and 33.2 41.1 29. services accounted for the majority all filing activity. with the Asian offices of China Hong Kong (SAR). Conversely.2 Goods and services classes by office was focused on the service sectors in these countries.2 36.3.3. In Figure B.7 34.9 Services classes 40.9 42. October 2012 114 Un ite dS Ru ta Un ite dK Fe of Ge itz rm ra Sp ain AR IM ea d y m m a ico e lux ia n ile . these shares differed considerably across offices (Figure B.7 35.4%) had the highest percentage of applications falling into the goods classes.6 33.Section Btrademarks B.1 37.6 Share of services classes (%): 2011 ine da ca y ina rke an Ind tio ali Na Ch na gS OH eri do or ex ra nc an ne Be Ch fK Am Uk Ca ing et on de M Fra erl str Tu co Vi Au gK Sw bli an on pu tes ssi .4 34.3 34. China (77.3%. respectively.2).7 50.3.9 47. Between 40 and 44 percent of trademark filing activity in Australia.2 Goods and services classes for selected offices.

4.Section btrademarks B.6 The origin of a trademark application is determined based on the residency of the applicant. An application filed with OHIM by an applicant residing in an EU country is counted as 1 resident application and 26 applications abroad. Trademark application counts based on the applicant’s origin complement the picture of global trademark activity worldwide. Figure B. a large share of application class counts can be attributed to filings abroad.7 This was due not only to their high filing activity at the German office and at many offices abroad. Using simple application counts. whereas the opposite was true in 2010. application class counts of Chinese origin (1. However.4.6%. application class counts are also high for other EU origins. Applications at regional offices are equivalent to multiple applications in the states that are members of the organizations establishing these offices. taking into account the number of classes specified in applications and the existence of regional offices. German applicants were followed by applicants residing in China and the US. Thus. For Poland. In 2011. Figure B. to calculate the number of equivalent applications for OHIM or BOIP. German applicants had the most filings worldwide.1.4. an application filed with OHIM by an applicant residing outside of the EU is counted as 27 applications abroad. These factors together yielded over 2. for the majority of origins. each application is multiplied by the corresponding number of member states.1 million equivalent class counts for applications of German origin filed around the world in 2011. residents of China. Trademark activity by origin includes resident applications and applications abroad.1% and 20. 7 The sum of resident applications and applications abroad 115 . this growth was both in resident applications (31%) and those filed abroad (25%). Filing activity by applicants from China and Poland saw the highest year-on-year increases with 30. The numbers of applications abroad presented are likely to be lower than the actual numbers.1 Applications by origin Using equivalent application class counts. For the same reasons that apply to the high filing volume of German origin.1 demonstrates that.1 shows a much different ranking of the top origins. However.4 million) exceeded those from the US (1. were the only origins listed that saw declines in filing in 2011. For example. In the case of China.3 million). as are their filings abroad. India. the Republic of Korea. Switzerland and Belgium.4 Trademark application class counts by origin B. This subsection reports figures based on an equivalent applications concept. respectively. This subsection compares application volumes according to the top origins by using the equivalent number of classes specified in applications.1. in turn. Chinese applicants are often ranked number one by origin due to high resident filing activity at their national office. the increase in applications filed abroad (24%) was the main contributor to growth. but also to their frequent use of OHIM – with its multiplying effect .in order to seek trademark protection within the entire EU. as some offices do not report detailed statistics pertaining to the origin of the applicant. the Russian Federation and Turkey were relatively more active in seeking protection for their trademarks in domestic markets. 6 See Glossary for definitions of resident applications and applications abroad.

1.2 show. Malaysia and Panama.996 31.356 70.120.2 29.1 3.1.885 194.4. -10.666 141.3 Abroad 4.6 10.263 12.238 407.4 3.722 201. the selected origins in Figure B. Origin Ve n ez ue la (B o liv a ria Note: *2010 data.246 1.215 Po lan d Sw Ru ed ssi en an Fe de ra tio n ric a Fra nc e* itz erl th erl Ge dK Sw of ta tes Un ite Un ite dS .8 2. Most of these origins showed annual growth.1 . *Resident data are an estimate of direct application class counts. Another example shows that total applications filed in 2011 by residents of Lithuania and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) were almost the same.1 -1.529 396.079 Re pu bli c Ne Abroad ..’ = not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database. Source: WIPO Statistics Database..4.540 172.1 . with the exception of Chile. for example. October 2012 116 nR ep Origin Ec ua Se rb ys ay ex az lom ail Af es ra lic M La ia Ca na da Au str ali a 9.811 29.1.050 Application class count 7..4. 19. 10.1 11.6 5.663 155.7 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 21. Origins of the middle-income countries listed that are members of the EU showed high proportions of filings abroad..5 Abroad 10.. however..8 255.067 54.911 10.6 4.and low-income country origins.013 rea Ko of y Sp ain Ch ina ing do m Ja pa n* an ds Au str Tu rke Ind ia an y Ita ly an d rm Am e Be lgi um ia .782 976.886 88. 2.4 3.051 9.5 .4. similar to their counterparts shown in Figure B.914 40. Latvia.1 3.’ = not available.304 13. 2011 Resident 8.777 36.777 77. ‘.796 208. Figure B.727 1.7 8.4 6. which again can be attributed to their use of OHIM and this office’s multiplying effect. -20. that applications filed in Mexico by its residents were of the same magnitude as the total filing activity by Bulgarian and Romanian applicants worldwide.441.468 12.1 Equivalent trademark application class counts for the top 20 origins.697 187.8 Resident .1. October 2012 To give an idea of the varying filing volumes by applicants residing in middle.8 -27.0 7.661 22.and low-income countries.5 18.538 208.0 21.315. 2.0 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Application class count 120..354 9.. residents of Lithuania filed a much higher proportion of their applications abroad.362 12.1 19.1.289 Resident 20.6 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Application class count Application class count 214.9 3. Origin Origin Note: ‘. 2011 Resident 7.361 345. Their declines from 2010 to 2011 can be explained by decreases of 20% and higher in the numbers of applications their residents filed abroad.971 776.Section Btrademarks Figure B.032.9 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 30.100 1.2 -5.7 .742 ine ria an d ico il * nia ile m a bia do r* * ia ma Pa na of ) * a ru * Na ric ia lga Ch an tvi Ro ma ala Uk Pe pin gu Bu Th hu Br et ut h Co Vi ra ilip Lit M ub So Pa Ph .789 735.913 Abroad 2.3 -4. Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.2 Equivalent trademark application class counts for selected middle.5 4.

506 767 647 1. SG (Singapore).027 184.513 2. ES (Spain).574 4.347 11.252 3.939 KR 676 62 323 2.821 48.645 7. This figure varies from 17.605 33. German applicants accounted for the highest percentages of non-resident filings.930 22.297 CA 1.311 319.489 73.635 MX 124 344 445 620 1.159 472 230 59 110 112 707 10 2 62.362 6.845 1.654 36.Section btrademarks To establish a detailed picture of trademark flows across countries. Data are reported for a selection of offices based on their application volumes.1.048 51 26 194 3.1.462 5.859 734 7.483 DE 113 15 37 1.191 3.1.1.560 2.4.4.010 52 127 1.011 ES 64 21 4 1. Japanese and US residents accounted for the highest percentages of non-resident filings.923 27 772 735 148.011 256 1.464 2.630 1. suggesting that they file abroad proportionally more often than applicants residing in larger countries with larger markets.125 5.898 1.694 181. Ten of the 15 offices listed received over 70% of all application class counts from domestic applicants. geographical location and data availability.921 AU 69.4. whereas Table B.539 9.720 1.281 3.118 17 519 457 11 221 234 1. this subsection presents a breakdown of application count data by origin (source) and office (destination).410 975 467 243 798 2.274 868 13 221 264 672 249 11 568 2.737 11. ZA (South Africa) Source: WIPO Statistics Database.687 4.247 26 64 591 259 711 130 452 2. October 2012 8 “Origin data” refers to simple application count rather than equivalent application count as presented in Figure B.790 3.093 71.6%) and Mexico (12.809 10.291 201 1. They also accounted for over 10% of total class counts at the offices of Australia.192 341 13 796 3.464 4.2% in the case of Poland and 16.185 665 9.838 2. DE (Germany).264 358 1.291 8. The highest 8 filed the smallest shares of their applications at their respective domestic offices.897 412.058 62 780 1.278 1.217 30. CA (Canada).522 189 885 61 1.935 100. applicants consider such factors as market size and geographical proximity.854 2.029 99 3.091 6 470 85 92 21 1.805 87 716 10 82 684 424 117 452 2.338 1.311 25.328 5.960 14.170 776 602 245 1. PL (Poland).195 608 72. Table B.014 RU 343 42 338 2.512 152.4 presents the same flows expressed in percentage shares.1%.1. percentages that varied only slightly from 2010.8% for the Singaporean office to approximately 88-90% for the offices of China and Germany.931 1.340 8.994 2.504 20 305 1.345 1. CH (Switzerland).578 9.652 1.912 209.586 27 1.358 12. GB (United Kingdom).139 7.385 2.237 35 3.024 85.246 35 48 132.084 133.261 1. 117 .344 211 1.461 11.458 129 380 458 14 105 225 684 149 88 173 1.897 1. when deciding where to seek trademark protection.002 5.469 130 1.371 16.564 1 314 105 2 39.961 TR 132 40 136 1. Like for patents. Application class counts of US origin accounted for the largest proportion received by the offices of neighboring Canada (22.369 146 316 668 9 9 197 32 87 19.016 1.623 2.245 PL 33 2 4 730 882 1. KR (Republic of Korea). US (United States of America). Singapore and South Africa. albeit their shares are quite low (1.466 5. RU (Russian Federation).859 3.801 37 1.702 174.070 174 3.192 1.037 1.294 30.281 GB 881 32 319 1.829 5.150 12.464 15 28 669 196 6.250 18 147 164 507 276 7 483 34.213 123 73.391 1.251 US 3.487 749 4.837 182 792 1.6% and 2.364 581 9.839 216 2. Applicants from Singapore and Switzerland Table B.175 6.192 2.109 2.204 1. percentage in each column represents the share of all application class counts received by a particular office from residents of the country it represents (if presented).305 371 2.273.951 89. AU (Australia).240 CH 198 27 180 1.962 279 302 6.430 3.827 8.441 30.864 291 543 16 481 2.4.7% in Switzerland. with 3.579 ZA 436 49 143 607 870 1. TR (Turkey). At the office of China.484 Note: CN (China). In about one-third of the offices listed.695 22.932 127 1. 2011 Origin Australia Brazil Canada China France Germany India Italy Japan Mexico Poland Republic of Korea Russian Federation Singapore South Africa Spain Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States of America Others / Unknown Total Office CN 3. MX (Mexico).732 6.702 1.181 494 1.276 205.944 7.418.4%).473 4.297 229 3.394 112.312 581 6.776 3.3 shows class counts by selected origins and offices. respectively).168 342 53 693 200 231 116 602 2.835 SG 1.001 46 2.3 Trademark application class counts by selected offices and origins.

the Republic of Korea. Switzerland showed significant proportions of class counts abroad across all sectors.2 7.0 1.2 0.4 1.8 2.0 RU 0.5 7.1 3.4 0.1.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 10.1).7 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.1 0. Applications of UK and US origin exhibited similar distributions across sectors.3 1.4 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.3 3.1 0.3 100.2 1.0 1.0 85.5 100.0 5.7 6.0 0.0 ZA 1.1. the Clothing and Research & Technology groups accounted for the largest shares of class counts for applicants in China.0 0.2 1.1 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.4.5 22.2 0.1 1. the US and.3 3.6 1.6 1.0 3.5 1.3 0.1 0.7 5.3 1.0 76.3 0.0 ES 0.1 0.0 0.9 100.6 0.2 0.3 11.2 0.9 0.8 0.3 77.8 0.6 0.1 0.5 0. the clothing sector also dominated.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 100.1 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 6.4 4.0 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.2 1.8 5.6 4.1 12.0 81.1 0.7 6. In contrast.1 0.9 5.6 2.2 1.5 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.4 9.9 100.0 0.4 70.2 100.2 0.0 0.5 17.0 0.4 0.8 87.3 2.0 0.3 0.9 0.2 2.9 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 89.3 0.0 0.7 80.6 2.0 0.1 1. this subsection analyzes class data by grouping the classes into different industry sectors or class groups (see Annex B for full definitions).0 PL 0. The resulting indicators show trademark filing activity in various sectors by origin.3 0.9 1.2 2.6 40.4 82.0 100. it breaks the application data down by origin rather than office. For filings abroad.0 0.5.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 AU 61.1 0.5 6.0 100.6 2.7 3. 2011 (%) Origin Australia Brazil Canada China France Germany India Italy Japan Mexico Poland Republic of Korea Russian Federation Singapore South Africa Spain Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States of America Others / Unknown Total Office CN 0.4 10.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 16.2 1.1 0.2 0.6 0. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.3 1.0 CA 0.1 4.0 0.0 KR 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.6 3.5 0. the Russian Federation and Ukraine.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.9 3.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 2.4.1 2.2 0.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 100. indicating relatively stronger demand for protection outside of their countries.0 Note: See note for Table B.3.9 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 5.4 2.1 0. However.7 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 20.2 0.1 2.6 15.7 1. Applications of Czech and German origin also had significant proportions of their application class counts in these two sectors.8 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 18.1 0.8 0.2 0. but the largest share of applications filed abroad was in the health sector.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 100.6 1.1 0. for which class counts were largely domestic.8 0.1 0.0 10.6 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.2 3.0 0.4 0. Like B.5 0.0 US 0.3 1.5 2. For applicants in Switzerland.4 0.6 1.0 1.0 SG 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.2 0.0 MX 0.0 CH 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.4 2.0 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.1 70.6 0.5.0 0. This differed from the origins of China.5 Nice classes specified in trademark applications by origin B.0 TR 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.3 58.1 54. with a particular emphasis on trademark applications in the fields of Research & Technology and Leisure & Education (Figure B.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 Distribution of trademark application class counts by selected offices and origins.8 0.1 0.0 0. in particular.1 1.0 0.0 0.5 6.0 0.1 0.5 0.7 1.0 GB 1.7 0.3 0.2 1.8 100. 118 .1 0.0 DE 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 3.Section Btrademarks Table B.4 100.0 0.3 0.8 0.1 100.1 0.2 4.8 3.2 4.8 100.4 2.9 0. Poland.1 0.1 Industry sectors by origin Germany. the UK.9 0.8 0.3 4.4 100.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.2 0. the agricultural sector was the largest for Russian and Ukrainian applicants.2 1.1 5.1.2 0.6 0.1 0. October 2012 B.2 0.2 1.4 0.4 1.0 0. including shares for resident applications and for filings abroad.5 1.0 0.3.4 1.3 1.6 0.2 0.

2011 Class group Class group us e Le ho ld He a Re se isu re & eq uip m lth Non-resident Non-resident Non-resident Non-resident ar ch & Ed uc en t Te ch at ion Tr no an s po r log y ta tio n Le uip isu m re en t & Re Ed se uc ar ch at i o & n Te ch no log Tr an y sp or ta tio n no log y or ta tio n Percentage of total Class Count 10 15 20 0 5 0 5 10 15 20 Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count Ag ric ult u re Bu ss Ch em ica ls g ot hin on h t cti alt en ion Te Tr an ch sp no or log ta tio y n Cl Co ns tru He eq uip m at uc Ed Ho us eh old & re & isu ch Le Re se ar s ls sin es e ult ur Ag ric Bu sin e ica Ch e m Percentage of total Class Count 0 5 10 15 20 10 15 20 25 0 5 Ag ric ult u Ag Bu re ric u Bu Ch ltu sin em Cl Co re es ica s ls Ch e sin e ss m ica Co Cl ls Co ot Resident Resident Resident Resident ns tr Ho u se h old eq uip m en t & alt h isu re He Le Re se a rch hin g Ho u uc ti Class group Class group on Cl ot hin g ns tru cti on ns Ho us g tru cti on Class group ot hin Ukraine .1 Nice classes grouped in industry sectors for selected origins.Percentage of total Class Count 10 15 20 0 5 0 5 0 5 10 15 20 10 15 20 Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count Ag ric ult ur e Bu s Ch em ica ls g ot hin Cl Co ine ss s re es ls g ns tru c tio n He eq uip m en t uc at ion Ed ch alt h ltu sin ica ric u Bu Ch em ot hin Cl Co Ag Percentage of total Class Count 10 15 20 0 5 Ag ult ur e ric ult ur Ag ric Bu sin e Ch es s em Co Cl ot ica ls ns tru cti on Ho us eh old isu re & & Te sp rch Le Re s ea Class group Resident Resident Resident Resident ns Ho us e ho ld Le Re se ar ch & Te ch no log y Tr an tio n ta or sp an at ion Tr uc Ed isu re & en t m uip old eq h alt He a eq lth eh He us Ho hin g Ho tru cti Class group on Bu sin es s Ch em ica ls Cl ot hin Co g ns tru cti on China .5.Origin Germany .Origin Class group se h Le old He Re isu re eq alt h eh Le is Re se old He eq ur e& ar ch & uip alt h Non-resident Non-resident Non-resident Non-resident se & uip m ar ch Ed Te Tr an ch n sp en t Ed uc at ion & Te ch no log Tr an y sp or ta tio n Ed uc at ion & Te ch no log Tr an y sp or ta tio n m en t uc at ion olo gy or ta tio n Section btrademarks 119 .Origin Republic of Korea .Origin Figure B.Origin United States of America .Origin Switzerland .Origin United Kingdom .Origin Russian Federation .

two-thirds of all trademark applications worldwide were goods-related. an applicant can either file directly at each individual office or file an application for an international registration through the Madrid system.8 100 75 50 25 0 20. Clothing = Textiles .3 39.Origin Resident Non-resident Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count Ch em ica ls Cl ot hin Co g ns tru c ti on ipm re en t & Re E se du ar ca ch t ion & Te ch no log Tr an y sp or ta tio n es s He alt h e 20 15 10 5 0 15 10 5 Cl ot hi ng Co ns tru cti on ica ls 0 ss eh o Le isu re isu us Ho us Le Ho Class group Class group Note: Class groups are those defined by Edital® 2011. Education.Origin Resident Non-resident Czech Republic .1 38. October 2012 B.Clothing and Accessories. Training. Agriculture = Agricultural products and services. Construction = Construction. For a definition of the class groups.4 40. Applicants wishing to use the Madrid system must apply for trademark protection at their national or a relevant regional IP office before seeking international protection. 120 Un ite d St at es Ne d th er Sp ain IM n d ea ey e m ly a ico ia ile ds n d . Mexico and Spain having shares of around 50%. Most of the origins listed had a service class share of over 30%. these shares differed considerably across origins (Figure B. Italy and Japan fell within the 34 goods classes of the NCL.2 49.5 y ica da Re se ar ch eh ca tio & n Te ch no lo Tr gy an sp or ta tio n alt h He ltu re ur sin e sin ult ric u Bu ui pm ric Bu em eq u Ag Ch Ag eq ol d ld & Ed u en t ina an lan pa nc tio Ind lan Ita do rk ali OH lan or Ch na er ex M Ch rm Fra fK ng Tu er Am Ca Po str Ja ra de Ge co Ki Au itz Sw Fe of bli ian ite pu Un ss Re Ru Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database. this system made it possible to seek trademark protection in up to 87 countries by filing a single application. Cosmetics. with applicants from the Netherlands.1 49.6 38.2).9 36. Of the origins listed.Section Btrademarks Poland . see Annex B for a complete list of the Nice Classification.5. Transportation = Transportation and Logistics Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and Edital®. Leisure & Education = Leisure. Health = Pharmaceuticals. Chemicals = Chemicals. and one-third services-related.5.7 50.6 31. Health.7 35. October 2012 Figure B.2 Nice goods and services classes for selected origins. Household equipment = Household equipment.6 22. about four-fifths of the applications from China.3 43. Communications. Infrastructure. Like for offices.2 28.7 44. An international registration under this system produces the same effects as an application for registration of the As discussed earlier.6 International trademark registrations and renewals through the Madrid System In order to obtain trademark protection in multiple offices. Business = Management.9 29. Information and Communication technology.5.4 41. Research & Technology = Scientific research. Real estate and Financial services. 2011 Goods classes Services classes 39.3 39.2 Goods and services classes by origin B. In 2011.1 Share of services classes (%): 2011 Distribution of goods and services classes 19.

B.1 also illustrates the fact that international trademark registrations are sensitive to business cycles.1.2 Trend in Madrid renewals Renewals 30.5 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Registration year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.711. almost returning to the pre-crisis high reached in 2008. For registrations.3 4.000 Registrations 30.5 8. Madrid registrations increased by 8.6.000 Renewals 10. The exceptionally high growth in 2005. renewals of Madrid international registrations followed an upward trend until 2008. 10.6.4 -1. October 2012 121 .000 Growth rate (%) 20. The high growth in renewals seen in 2006 was due to the renewal period being changed from 20 years to 10 years in 1996. the status of the mark is the same as if it had been registered by that office. which followed the onset of the economic downturn.4 -1.1. After falling in 2002.6. reflects the entry of the US and the EU into the Madrid system.1 Trend in Madrid registrations Registrations 50.Section btrademarks mark in each of the Madrid members designated by the applicant.5 -12.9 12.1 102.2 10.2 3. Figure B.8 14. For the EU.4 .1 and B. October 2012 Figure B.6. Figure B.9 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Renewal year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 2011 saw a continuation of the growth in 2010 after a decline in 2009. when international registrations increased by 41. Figures B.1.000 Growth rate (%) 40.3 4.000 -7. the international registration can be maintained and renewed through a single procedure. If the office of a designated member does not refuse protection.2 14. this made it possible for applicants of its member states to apply for international registrations via the regional office OHIM.000 20.5% in 2011 with a total of 40.6. and decreased slightly in both 2009 and 2011.6.7 2.7 7.3 6.1.0 41. with registrations dropping during or immediately following economic downturns.1.9%.1 Madrid registrations and renewals The number of international registrations issued through the Madrid system grew each year from 2004 to 2008.9 11.1 -0.000 0 -7.2 depict the trend in international trademark registrations and renewals from 2001 to 2011. Thereafter.

6%) of all international registrations specified only one class. October 2012 122 .3 3.2 depicts the number of designations made per international registration. an average of almost seven Madrid members were designated per international registration.9% specified two classes.0 2. but fell by about 200 or 0.4% a total of three classes.8 10. a high percentage (43.2.8 3.071 Number of designations per registration 51 to 85 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 shows that.706 6.1 Distribution of the number of classes per Madrid registration.Section Btrademarks Following the small drop in 2009. the applicant can choose to designate any of the Madrid member countries or jurisdictions in which to seek trademark protection.2 Number of classes and designations per Madrid registration The Madrid system is a multi-class filing system that enables applicants to specify one or more classes in each international trademark application.764 Registrations 8. October 2012 Figure B.746 16. Figure B.4 6.594 2.6. 2011 100 90 43.9 21.6 classes were specified in all international registrations in 2011.6. When an international registration is issued.2.2.239 861 447 Registrations 8.9 5.1 1.6.9% in 2011. Figure B. although it is a multiclass system.6 17.6. 2011 100 90 63.349 665 Number of classes per registration 3 4 5 Number of classes per registration 6 to 10 11 to 45 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.902 19.000 international registrations.1 Share of total registrations (%) Share of total registrations (%) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1 3 5 7 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 50 Number of designations per registration 4.6. 16.2 Distribution of the number of designations per Madrid registration. and 21. In 2011.887 40 1 3 5 7 10 20 30 40 45 1 2 1.8 1. Figure B. Only one percent of international registrations filed in 2011 designated more than 50 of the over 80 Madrid members. The majority (56%) of holders of these registrations chose to designate between one and four Madrid members.6 25. B. trademark renewals grew by 14% to about 22.2. and 13 or more classes were specified in only one percent of total registrations.6 Share of total registrations (%) Share of total registrations (%) 80 70 60 50 2. and 90% designated up to 15 Madrid members in each registration.191 1. Six or fewer classes were specified in 95 percent of the over 40.000 in 2010. An average of 2.

The top 10 designated Madrid members in terms of renewals mostly comprised European countries that have had historically higher registration levels.973 e -0. France.2 22. Germany.4 9.3 Registrations and renewals by designated Madrid member Figure B.6 21.3 Ka za -3.1 0.125 10.705 Madrid designations 17.8 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Madrid designations 14.3 5.5 -4.252 5.536 6.2 -12. 2011 24.470 ine ina IM ca d n ea y re y t yp Eg us a tia m n ay ia n rke an an pa ali sta tio rw lar OH Ch oa ra Na eri po or rb rm Tu fK Am ga No Uk Be Cr de et kh Au co Sin Fe Sw of Vi tes an ssi ta dS Un ite Ru Re pu bli Madrid member .406 9.379 7.9 -5. OHIM and the US are not included in this list.9 20.Section btrademarks B.3 18. with between 16.7 10.244 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 6. Cz Lie ch Sw ec Madrid member Source: WIPO Statistics Database.254 5.0 Ge itz -4.3.905 -3.3. and many international registrations in effect at their offices do not yet require renewal after the initial registration period of 10 years.385 Madrid renewals Madrid renewals 8.232 4. China and Poland being the notable exceptions with growth rates of 9% and 17. the US and the Russian Federation.719 5.6.3.197 17.5 -5.328 5.7 51. Most of the designated Madrid members listed saw declines in renewals in 2011 compared to 2010.169 20.6 3.6.744 5.977 bli c ina ia va kia o ste in str ia ny ia ain nd ga elu ar nc Se rb lan Ita tio ac ia Slo v en rm a rla rtu ep u Ch Sp ng Ro m M on Fra Be n era Au ten Po itz e Ge Hu Po nF ed hR Ru ssi a Madrid member . Over half of the top 20 designated Madrid members saw annual growth of over 20 percent.2 3.5 9.2).507 5.2 15.713 7.1 -1.472 5. China received the largest number of designations (20.000 designations each.817 10. Madrid member Source: WIPO Statistics Database.185 27.2 17.800 and 18. such as Austria.2 8.5 21. Figure B. with only Germany showing a slight decrease.152 16.6 11. followed by OHIM.2 Renewals for the top 20 designated Madrid members.8 6.817 5.7 -5.254 10.1 shows the number of international registrations by designated Madrid member – that is.0 26.259 5.8 -7.1 22.1 Registrations for the top 20 designated Madrid members.6 123 . since they are recent members of the Madrid system.3.1 -8. 2011 -3.793 4.9 18.3 26.822 5.6 -1.2 -0.6.4 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 11.106 4.152 11.976 7.618 17.944 -6.849 9.6. October 2012 Slo Cr oa t an ia e ly n d x l y Fra erl str Ja Se ra nc 4. the office at which the owner of the international registration seeks trademark protection.843 13.950 9.557 9. Italy and Switzerland (Figure B.6 20.6. October 2012 Figure B.6 17.7 -2. respectively.152 5.169).3%.

9 -11.093 -0.3 0.9 -17.8 204 -18.5 5.3 12. shown in Figure B.1.2 demonstrates. not by the office of origin of the international registration.500 registrations led it to overtake Germany (approximately 5.Section Btrademarks B.0 0. However.5 42.5 195 bli 27.1 Registrations for the top 20 origins.4 10.9 -0. Germany and France had the largest numbers of renewals with 5.553 4.3 196 27.652 ine ia ain an ea ay rw No 105 m y a k nc an pa Ita tio rke eri ali ar OH Ch rm Fra erl Ja ra Sp Am Tu ing Au fK Be nm str ra Ge Au dK Sw tes an ite ssi ta Un dS Un ite Ru Origin . the US should not show any renewals until 2013 – 10 years after it became a Madrid member. October 2012 9 Normally. 2011 -10.476 2.0 55.117 816 790 308 217 215 str ia ain ina nd e y lux m ly y ed en n a lic k d y rke Tu Ru ssi an Fe l lan Ge rm Fra Ch ng ub ne Sp Po rtu nm Au ing me Ja lan rla itz e Fin Be Re p Hu Sw Po De ite dK ec h Un Cz Origin Un .6 126. October 2012 Figure B.643 4.336. Thus if a holder of an existing registration transfers it to a holder with US entitlement.8 1. The rankings of origins in terms of international trademark renewals through the Madrid system differed from those for registrations. OHIM’s 27.6.333 2.3 9.4 Registrations and renewals by origin International registrations originating in the Republic of Korea and Ukraine showed high year-on-year increases of over 40%.1 2.2 -20. Re pu Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4% growth in 2011. with a somewhat different ranking.902 1. respectively.053 1.6.643 and 4.3 14.4.4.000 registrations) to become the highest ranking origin.0 Uk itz de -0.3 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 912 799 558 433 364 356 355 310 Madrid registrations 3. and China surpassed BOIP to take seventh position.6.1 5.8 -17. remained the same as in the previous year.7 11.6. 124 de ra tio n an nc ar Ita do pa ric ar ga d lan ne do str or d 14. The US continued to be the third largest user of the Madrid system with 19.328 y IM ca d ina ly lux n e n Madrid registrations 4.582 1. The top 10 origins of international registrations in 2011.928 2. 2011 27.9 1.9 42.543 2. Figure B. renewals are recorded by the contracting party of the holder.8 -0.6 -3.5% growth with over 5. As Figure B.4 -5. The low number of renewals for the US reflects its recent entry into the Madrid system.0 -5.3 Po Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Madrid renewals Madrid renewals 144 141 118 110 103 2.6.785 2.4 1.7 19. ite d Sta tes of A Sw Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database.4. however.4 co of Fe Origin 31.2 4.943 8. but their numbers of Madrid registrations remained relatively small (350 to 450).3 958 15.2 Renewals for the top 20 origins.4.8 De 0.336 -3.4 .5 2.1 213 46. it will appear in renewal statistics for the US.

Pharmaceutical company Novartis AG. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG (BMW) BSH BOSCH UND SIEMENS HAUSGERÄTE GMBH JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA NV L’OREAL ABERCROMBIE & FITCH EUROPE SA EGIS GYÓGYSZERGYÁR SIEMENS AG GLAXO GROUP LIMITED APPLE INC. followed by tobacco company Phillip Morris.A. OSRAM GMBH DAIMLER AG U. E R. BARILLA G. FRATELLI SPA LIDL STIFTUNG & CO. another pharmaceutical company. whereas Switzerland and the US had seven applicants each. placing third overall. INC. NOVO MESTO LG INNOTEK CO. KGAA AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES. in Switzerland. KG MIBE GMBH ARZNEIMITTEL HÄFELE GMBH & CO KG VELINOR AG ZENTIVA.5 Madrid applicants Pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim was the top German filer with 98 applications. TOVARNA ZDRAVIL. Hungary’s Richeter Gedeon Nyrt. was the largest applicant in 2011 with 125 applications. RICHTER GEDEON NYRT. October 2012 125 . INC. LTD. TEMASEK HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED KABUSHIKI KAISHA HBG BAYER AG SANOFI HENKEL AG & CO.S. CISCO TECHNOLOGY. Z O. and five were domiciled in France.A. INC.S. ROYAL WINE CORP.6.R.5 Top Madrid applicants 2011 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 22 22 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 27 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Applicant’s Name NOVARTIS AG PHILIP MORRIS BRANDS S. ITM ENTREPRISES SOCIÉTÉ PAR ACTIONS SIMPLIFIÉE MERCK KGAA SCHNEIDER VERSAND GMBH ABBOTT PRODUCTS OPERATIONS AG Origin Switzerland Switzerland Germany Hungary Switzerland Netherlands Germany Germany Belgium France Switzerland Hungary Germany United Kingdom United States of America Singapore Japan Germany France Germany United States of America Poland United States of America United States of America France Germany Germany United States of America Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Switzerland Czech Republic Italy Germany Germany Switzerland France Germany United States of America United States of America Slovenia Republic of Korea France Germany Germany Switzerland Madrid International Applications 2009 136 47 52 70 51 38 64 61 67 . as some filed identical numbers of applications. MERCHANDISE. GTRC SERVICES. KRKA. Table B..6. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.O. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO. Nineteen of these top applicants were from Germany. INC. Table B. SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ S.. INC.6.V. KG BASF SE SYNGENTA PARTICIPATIONS AG SAINT-GOBAIN ISOVER “LES MIROIRS” VOLKSWAGEN AG MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS.A. RENAULT S. D. occupied the fourth spot with its 89 international applications. COTY GERMANY GMBH DERMAPHARM AG INTENSO GMBH INTERSNACK GROUP GMBH & CO.D. also in Switzerland. BAKOMA SP.O. K.L..Section btrademarks B. 64 44 53 13 54 69 98 17 19 21 11 19 26 8 23 7 109 30 39 22 10 38 2010 118 137 112 8 68 76 42 65 66 43 22 53 36 60 49 5 23 18 78 11 31 31 19 11 21 20 39 18 20 36 31 39 62 7 14 12 80 32 2011 125 110 98 89 80 92 75 74 68 67 59 57 52 51 50 48 48 48 47 46 44 40 38 34 34 34 34 33 32 32 32 31 31 31 30 29 28 28 28 28 27 27 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.5 presents the top 50 Madrid system applicants – ranked 1 to 30.. with 110 applications.

433 13.026 15.576 61.420 19. For all years listed.711 92.726 ina rea rke y tio n ine a IM d * a e y do m Se rb ia Be ne lux ae l Isr M m ia * ric str ali rla n n* an or e* oa t Na OH Uk ra Ch Ko me ap ed era pa Tu rm Sin g of A Sw nF lic Fra Vi tes ub Un ite d Ru Re p Sta Office .060 43. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. October 2012 126 ed Kin g Ja Ge Office or oc itz e nc Au of et Cr co * .0 59.424 Madrid Non-Resident 60.442 13.6% to 47.0 56.747 47.643 17.0 56. this figure is higher when comparing only Madrid members. In 2011.8% and 12.7 48.433 32.5 53.6. respectively. **Non-Resident applications are an estimate of direct application class count.8 67. As not all offices are members of the Madrid system.131 16.6.8 23.573 41.6 Non-resident applications by filing route resulted in about a one percentage point increase (from 46. As pointed out before.7 Madrid share (%): 2011 43.3 76.1 90.1 Non-resident applications by direct and Madrid system routes Madrid designations 51. 2011 Direct Non-Resident 33.6 47. applications received in the form of Madrid designations represented around half off all non-resident applications filed globally.678 31.Section Btrademarks B.5% from 2010 to 2011.6.2 Non-resident applications by filing route for selected Madrid members. growth was 8.2 46.075 Direct Non-Resident 46.9 Direct applications 54.3 30.6 144.6.4 59.6. Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.1).5 Madrid share (%) Distribution of Non-Resident direct applications/Madrid designations 100 75 50 25 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.291 50.0 53. non-resident trademark applications can be filed directly at national and regional IP offices (Paris route) or through the Madrid system.843 21.7 64.703 69.9 78.6 73.6.6%.7 76.8 55. The larger growth in Madrid designations Figure B. Un it ssi a Note: *2010 data. An application received by an office in the form of a designation via the Madrid system has the same effect as one received by an office directly from an applicant. Total non-resident filing activity in terms of application class counts increased by 10.6.5%) in their share of total non-resident applications received by IP offices worldwide (Figure B.294 17.4 53.8 52.5 Madrid Non-Resident 90.0 Madrid share (%): 2011 Application class count Application class count 24. When broken down by direct and Madrid system routes.1 51. October 2012 Figure B. 64% of all non-resident applications received by Madrid system member offices arrived in the form of a Madrid designation.

but a selection across geographical regions and income groups. 15 of the top 20 offices shown received more than half of their trademark filing activity from abroad through designations via the Madrid system. . the majority of the selected origins for which resident application class count data exist for 2006 and 2011.g. OHIM and the Russian Federation – received between 24% and 65% of their non-resident applications via Madrid designations. class count relative to domestic GDP or population level. with the world average at 69 . In 2011. countries with lower numbers of resident applications (e. had higher ratios in 2011 than in 2006. A notable exception is the Republic of Korea. the Russian Federation exhibiting the largest increase of 20. China and Switzerland (between 114 and 154). it is instructive to measure resident trademark activity by application Figure B.7. their size and level of development. October 2012 Un it ed Sta tes of Sin ut ga po or re m y d ld d 127 . 2011 .2 present the resulting trademark activity intensity indicators for selected countries. Madagascar and Uruguay) can rank higher than some countries that otherwise show higher numbers of resident applications (e.... 111 101 107 118 . The top four offices in terms of non-resident application class counts – China. This graph does not provide an overall ranking of all origins. In fact. exhibited among the highest resident application class count-to-GDP ratios in 2011.1 and B. The share of non-resident application class counts resulting from designations via the Madrid system varies across offices.7. the US.up from 58 in 2006.Section btrademarks Figure B. the resident application class count-to-GDP ratio varied from 23 in Singapore to 103 in Madagascar..7. to a large extent.1 Resident trademark application class count per GDP for selected origins.. 51 58 67 67 . When resident trademark applications are corrected for by equivalent class counts and adjusted by GDP... followed by Viet Nam. Germany and the US). with 154.2 presents the share of Madrid designations in total non-resident application class counts for selected Madrid members.g. B. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. with a ratio that decreased by 21 between 2006 and 2011. 33 40 47 23 .6.’ = not available. GDP data are in constant 2005 purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars... For all other reported origins.6. For purposes of cross-country comparison. with some offices receiving upwards of 70 to 90 percent. Turkey. Resident application class count per GDP (2005 PPP $) 154 131 128 114 103 97 91 88 88 Resident application class count per GDP: 2006 80 71 69 69 66 59 48 41 40 24 23 y r da a ain ina ea ca eri Am d y ali a ion ico lom bia ca rke ua an lan Na lan fri c an or na Ch Sw itz erl rm ug str ra t Tu W Sp ex as hA Fin fK Po Ca ag Vi et Ur Au Ge de M Co bli co ad Fe an So M pu ssi Re Ru Origin Note: ‘. Of these selected origins.7 Trademark application class count per GDP and population Differences in trademark activity across economies reflect. 93 83 . Figures B.

In 2011. New Zealand and Germany ranked high in terms of resident application class counts per million population with 3. the world average was 800 application class counts per million population compared to just 523 in 2006. Figure B.202 1.703 3.678 2.068 1. For instance. as was also the case for Singapore. . respectively.669 2. Canada and Turkey had nearly equal numbers of application class counts per million population. In contrast. With a population of 7. ..676 2. This was followed by increases for the Russian Federation (+390) and Germany (+344).9 million.044 1.for which 2006 and 2011 data are available .2 Resident trademark application class counts per million population for selected origins...255 1. Uruguay and Poland.824 .showed increases over this period. 2011 3. .020 2.329 and 3.430 1.’ = not available.. Increasing by 630 over 2006 levels. Among these 20 selected origins. October 2012 128 Un ite Origin d St at es M ad Cu ba or ld an ion nd na d or e ric rla rk er at ex ra an . respectively..020.025 948 800 624 619 386 337 88 53 ine y a a ica po re ina nd a ey ay Ri ca ico nd d r ag as ca ug u ala Po la Ch m Af Sin ga Co sta Ge r lic o Th ail fK Tu Am W itz e Uk Ca Ur de r Ze M h So ut Sw Fe w of Ne Re pu b n sia Ru s Note: ‘. the class count per million population ratios for two-thirds of the origins . but a selection across geographical regions and income groups.217 1.Section Btrademarks Turning to the resident trademark applications per population indicator. the resulting 4. a somewhat different picture emerges.123 2. 987 654 973 511 523 932 419 419 315 95 33 Resident application class count per million population 4.333 Resident application class count per million population: 2006 3. Similar to the resident application class count-toGDP ratio.364 resident application class counts. the ratios for the Republic of Korea and Ukraine fell by 155 and 308. .329 3..7. This graph does not provide an overall ranking of all origins. China’s ratio increased from 511 applications filed per one million residents in 2006 to 948 in 2011 (an increase of 437).333 resident application class counts per million population made Switzerland one of the most intensive trademark filers according to this alternative indicator. in 2011 the IP office of Switzerland reported 34. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.

4 million trademarks that were in force in 2011 according to the year in which they were originally registered.76 million) and the USPTO (1. one-year growth (where available) and distribution by year of registration.057 881. such as Brazil. are not included in this graph. China.305 322.9 million trademarks in force in 2011 for a sample of 70 IP offices for which these statistics are available..2%). Of the reported offices. Data for several larger offices. 8.726 476.954 309.8 9.8.186 1. reflect the enduring value of certain marks.1 3. France and Japan.5 .5 12. Italy and Spain. Office Note: ‘.687 461.7 5.761. However. each of which saw declines.735.019 757. October 2012 Ch re So ut ina hA .445 287.8 Trademarks in force This section presents statistics on trademarks in force.8.619 6. Figure B.928 688. For trademarks registered in the 1990s.8 4. focusing on their breakdown by office.2 4. 6.940 361. Figure B.’ = not available. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.H f r ica on gK on gS AR da y ali a lux Ita ly Ind n rke OH ex era tio Ch Sp Ge rm ga Po rtu eri pr l Sin co fK Ca na Be of Au bli Sta pu ed Ru ssi a Re nF tes ed ga po Ja Cy Am M ne str Tu 129 .211 780. Data refer to the number of registrations in force and are not equivalent to the number of classes specified in these registrations. Most of the offices shown in this figure saw growth in 2011.1 presents the breakdown by offices that issue trademark registrations. the distribution of the approximately 12. for a total of 54 offices.6 24.5 million) in 2011 – a nearly 20% increase on 2010 – followed by almost equivalent numbers at the JPO (1. OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. the percentage jumps to over 40%.4 -0.021 721. 2011 19.7 . it is not possible to estimate the total number of trademarks in force worldwide. The exceptions were India. which have been valid for over 30 years.356 ca y ina ain or ea IM n ico ia pa an us Un it Office .077 0. These registrations. about a quarter of them have a recent registration year of between 2009 and 2011.0 576.1 15.052 276.204 885. China accounted for the largest number of trademarks in force (5.950 768. Due to data limitations and different reporting practices. Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 476. Figure B..363 1.1 -6. there were a combined total of 22.8.Section btrademarks B.4 million registrations in force.7 0.2 -0.7 3.. as their trademarks in force statistics are not broken down by year of registration. This sample of offices shows that about 24% of trademarks registered in 1980 were still in force in 2011.713 Marks in force Marks in force 423..2 depicts.510.3 . Of these 12.74 million). with trademarks in force at OHIM growing the most (24.1 Trademarks in force for selected offices.

8.3 42. France and Japan) that provide a breakdown of trademarks in force by year of registration.0 41.5 26.1 84.5 28.7 26.0 29.0 23.8 24.8 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Registration year Note: This graph is based on actual data received from 54 offices (including all larger offices except Brazil.0 30.Section Btrademarks Figure B.9 38.6 40.6 39.4 90.4 39. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.8 76.5 78.6 31.5 81.1 40.7 74.2 Trademarks in force in 2011 as a percentage of total registrations 95. October 2012 130 .3 88.8 40.4 34.1 29.6 Percentage of registrations 56.3 75.6 47. China.2 93.7 41.0 50.

In particular. Moreover. the Hague Act and the Geneva Act. in most cases. 15 years. The procedures for registering industrial designs are governed by national or regional laws. 131 . it simplifies the process of multinational registration by reducing the requirement to file separate applications with each IP office at which protection is sought. d) international registrations of industrial designs through the WIPO-administered Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague system) and e) industrial designs in force. this section refers to design applications and registrations.1 They refer to the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a useful article. wipo. In a significant number of countries. the system offers significant opportunities for efficiency gains. For the sake of simplicity. textile designs to leisure goods 2 The London Act has been frozen since January 2010. including compositions of lines or colors or three-dimensional forms that give a special appearance to a product or handicraft. house wares and electrical appliances to vehicles and construction elements. The holder of a registered industrial design has exclusive rights over the design and can prevent unauthorized copying or imitation of the design by third parties. while other offices allow only one design per application. followed by statistics on design counts taking into consideration institutional differences across intellectual property (IP) offices. where applicable. or by filing an international application through the Hague system. jewelry and other luxury items. since it is possible to record changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step. The Hague system consists of several international treaties – the London Act. It first gives statistics for applications and registrations. 1 From technical and medical instruments to watches. The system also streamlines the subsequent management of the industrial design registration. Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of industrial products and handicrafts. b) industrial design registrations.2 The Hague system makes it possible for an applicant to register industrial designs in multiple countries by filing a single application with the International Bureau of WIPO. refer to: www. For further details about the Hague system. some offices allow applications to contain more than one design for the same product or within the same class.Section c industrial designs section c industrial designs This section provides an overview of industrial design activity using a range of indicators and covering the following areas: a) industrial design applications. design patents. Once a design is registered. the term of protection is generally five years. Industrial design registrations can be obtained by filing an application with a relevant national or regional IP office. with "registration" covering. and may be renewed for additional periods of five years up to. By allowing the filing of up to 100 different designs per application. industrial designs are protected through the delivery of a design patent rather than a design registration.int/hague/en/. c) industrial design applications by class. An industrial design can be protected if it is new or original. and rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority.

8% in 2011. the generic term “IP office” is used to refer to an office that receives industrial design applications and issues registrations. but they do not take into consideration the number of designs contained in an application or registration (design counts). For example.3 report design count data.1 Applications worldwide Figure C. 4 The long-term trend shows continuous growth in industrial design applications over the past decade.1. 7 Resident and non-resident applications (registrations) are also known as domestic and foreign applications (registrations). patent and trademark applications worldwide declined by 3.900 (+10.7 Figure C. applications rebounded strongly in 2010 (+13.1%. an application filed at the office of Switzerland by a resident of Switzerland is considered a resident application for that office.1.1. the number of resident applications grew by almost 100. while nonresident applications grew by a more modest 7. the recent economic downturn did not lead to a decline in applications worldwide.2 provides a breakdown of industrial design applications worldwide by residency of the applicant.700 in 2011. A resident application is defined as an application filed at an IP office by an applicant residing in the country in which that office has jurisdiction. 132 .3%).6% and 2. 4 All indicators covered by this section include both direct national and regional applications and designations received via international registrations through the Hague system.000 in 2011 (+16%).2 and C. World 3 totals are WIPO estimates covering around 133 offices. The number of applications increased from around 290. an application filed with the office of Australia by an applicant residing in Canada is considered a non-resident application for the Australian IP office.Section c industrial designs C. Similarly.e.1 depicts the total number of industrial design applications filed worldwide from 2001 to 2011. The 775. 5 In 2009. The contribution of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) to the growth in applications worldwide was substantial – growth worldwide excluding SIPO was only 2. After a slowdown in growth in 2008 and 2009. C. Unlike other forms of IP. Similarly.1. and include both direct national and regional applications and designations received via international registrations through the Hague system.800 in 2000 to 775.1 Industrial design applications and registrations worldwide Data reported in this subsection refer to numbers of applications and registrations (i. This was mostly due to strong growth in applications in China – accounting for 90% of all growth from 2009 to 2011. Residents of China accounted for nearly all the growth in resident applications worldwide. a non-resident registration is an industrial design registration based on a non-resident application.5 3 Data differ from past editions due to a significant correction in data for the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) of the European Union. Compared to 2010.. application/registration counts). and a non-resident application if the applicant does not reside in one of its member states.200 resident and 84. An application at a regional office is considered a resident application if the applicant is a resident of one of that office’s member states.6 For example.9%) and 2011 (+16%).1. a resident registration is an industrial design registration based on a resident application. A non-resident application is defined as an application filed at an office of a given country or jurisdiction by an applicant residing in another country. 6 In this section.500 non-resident applications. Subsections C. respectively.700 applications filed in 2011 consisted of 691.

000 Applications 400.1.5 Non-Resident share (%) 10.3 16.1 2.1.1.9 Unfortunately. application data broken down by class are not available for a number of larger offices (e.2 Resident and non-resident industrial design applications worldwide Resident 31.1 Industrial design applications worldwide Applications 800.1.4 7.3 4. design applications exhibit a low non-resident share.000 200. and both direct and Hague data from 23 offices.000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Application year Note: See note for Figure C.7 15.1.1.4 7.int/classifications/en/).1.3 shows the distribution of industrial design applications by class covering data for 85 offices. 133 .7 30.9 16.000 200.0 18. October 2012 Figure C.wipo. 8 The non-resident share in total applications.Section c industrial designs Figure C.9 600.2 25.3 20. which can be explained by the substantial growth in Chinese resident applications.000 Growth rate (%) 600.000 Applications 400. These estimates include direct national and regional applications and designations received via the Hague system.2).0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Application year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 133 offices (see Data Description).1 22. Table C. SIPO accounted for 67% of applications worldwide. henceforth referred to as the Locarno Classification.1 11.5 Non-Resident 16. hence it significantly affects the worldwide resident and non-resident distribution. excluding SIPO data.g. non-resident applications accounted for 10. was around 28% in 2011.1. Compared to other types of IP rights.9% of applications worldwide in 2011 (Figure C.7 10.1.7 17.1. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. industrial 8 Statistics concerning “Class” refer to the 32 classes of the International Classification for Industrial Designs under the Locarno Agreement (see www.0 5. Japan. Hague designation data from 32 offices. China.. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. October 2012 At the global level. The graph shows a downward trend in the non-resident share since 2001.000 3.7 11. the Republic of Korea and the United 9 These numbers are based on direct filing data from 30 offices.3 13.1.

accounting for 10.1.7% 3.555 6.2% 0. not elsewhere specified Equipment for production.2% 0.3% 4.2% 1. Japan. solid fuel Clocks and watches and other measuring instruments. pyrotechnic articles.3% 0.697 10. parasols and personal belongings.900 7.3% 4. for accident prevention and for rescue Musical instruments Unknown Class name Number of Applications 16.969 1.7% 6.1% 3.258 1. Table C.762 1.079 788 724 501 496 437 368 230 213 5.4% 4. etc. artificial and natural sheet material Packages and containers for the transport or handling of goods Articles of clothing and haberdashery Means of transport or hoisting Articles of adornment Household goods. checking and signalling instruments Tools and hardware Stationery and office equipment.1. the Republic of Korea and the US) industrial design data broken down by class count are not available.5). heating.294 2.2% 5.5% 0. etc.5% 2.908 3.10 Class 6 has been the largest class since 2008 with its share in total applications comprising around 10%. however.3 Industrial design applications worldwide by class.608 6..3% 1.1% 4. not elsewhere specified Medical and laboratory equipment Sales and advertising equipment.3% 0.905 2.196 5.. 7.5% 0. ventilation and air-conditioning equipment.5% 3.250 1. fishing and pest killing Machines and appliances for preparing food or drink. therefore the table provides only a partial picture of industrial design filing activity by class. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. not elsewhere specified Graphic symbols and logos.2% 0.9% Note: These numbers are based on data from 85 IP offices. followed by classes 5 (textiles. for a number of larger offices (e. toilet articles and apparatus Foodstuffs Brushware Photographic.9% 1. sanitary. signs Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products. cinematographic and optical apparatus Articles for the care and handling of animals Arms.719 6.8% of total applications in 2011. articles for hunting.640 5.812 6.Section c industrial designs States of America (US)).0% 7. class 6 (furnishing) was the largest class.099 11.1.7% 0.2% 2.6% 2. not elsewhere specified Printing and office machinery Tobacco and smokers’ supplies Devices and equipment against fire hazards.11 The top 10 classes accounted for three-fifths of total applications in 2011.7%).722 6. 8%) and 9 (packages. communication or information retrieval equipment Building units and construction elements Fluid distribution equipment. Hague designation data from 32 offices.8% 5. 2011 Class number 6 5 9 2 12 11 7 32 26 14 25 23 10 8 19 21 3 13 15 24 20 28 1 4 16 30 22 31 18 27 29 17 -Furnishing Textile piecegoods.984 Total share 10. tents and sports goods Travel goods. For the offices for which data are available. surface patterns. 11 2008 is the first year for which complete industrial design application data broken down by class are available. cases.5% 4.1% 3..3% 0.319 5. China. October 2012 10 Considerable variations exist across offices (see Table C. distribution or transformation of electricity Machines.8% 8. ornamentation Lighting apparatus Recording. and both direct and Hague data from 23 offices.8% 0.224 4.503 12. toys.780 3. artists’ and teaching materials Games.g. 134 . Numbers consist of direct filing data from 30 offices.4% 3.821 3.366 7.5% 1.2.

The past three years saw considerable growth in registrations worldwide – from 416.8% in 2001 to 11. the number of registrations issued each year has markedly increased since 2001. These estimates include registrations issued for direct applications and designations received via the Hague system.8 9. which issued 238. The estimated numbers of resident and nonresident registrations in 2011 stood at around 576.5 0.000 200.500 and 75.000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Registration year Note: See note for Figure C.6 Non-Resident share (%) 11. it greatly affects the worldwide resident and non-resident distribution.2 Resident and non-resident industrial design registrations worldwide Resident 32.2 Non-Resident 19. Figure C.6 17.000 -3.8 4. respectively (Figure C.1 15.2 Registrations worldwide Resident applicants accounted for the bulk of registrations worldwide.1.200.689 more industrial designs in 2011 than in 2008.12 The decline in the non-resident share was due to considerable growth in Chinese resident registrations and a decline in non-resident registrations worldwide.2). the non-resident share in total registrations was around 22% in 2011.5 600.1. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2.6 9. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.000 Registrations 400.1 12.000 200. Excluding SIPO data. October 2012 12 SIPO accounted for 58% of registrations worldwide. October 2012 Figure C.1 Industrial design registrations worldwide Registrations 800. therefore. Similar to applications.1.5 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Registration year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 108 offices (see Data Description).700 in 2011. The non-resident share in all registrations declined from 32.7 21.2.8 19.Section c industrial designs C.3 24. This reflects the fact that resident applicants file the majority of applications worldwide. 135 .2. The large increase is mostly due to strong growth at SIPO.000 Registrations 400.6 2.5% in 2011 – a similar trend to the one for applications.2 20.1.4 7.0 21.1.500 in 2008 to 651.1.2.0 20.0 4.000 Growth rate (%) 600.8 11.8 30.

000 Japan United States of America OHIM Applications 40.2.2.1 Applications by office Figure C.1. Comparing application and registration data provides some useful insights into the level of activity at offices.1.000 400. The data refer to application counts rather than Figure C. design counts).000 200.2. As an example. As mentioned earlier. For simplicity.. industrial design data for China are labeled as “China” rather than “State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China”. Therefore.000 0 1883 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Application year Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database.000 0 1883 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 year Application year Republic of Korea 60. to enable better cross-country comparability.1 Trend in industrial design applications for the top five offices China 500.1 presents the long-term trend of applications received by the top five offices between 1883 and 2011. October 2012 136 .2 Industrial design applications and registrations by office This subsection offers a detailed breakdown of industrial design applications and registrations by IP office.000 100. this subsection reports data – where available – on the number of designs contained in applications and registrations (i.000 Republic of Korea Japan United States of America OHIM Applications 300. In principle.Section c industrial designs C.000 20. C. some offices permit applications to contain more than one design for the same product or within the same class.e. institutional differences limit the extent to which one can directly compare the data across countries. country names are used rather than office names to label graphs. while other offices allow only one design per application.

2.400 5. Since the early 1980s. the 2011 non-resident share was higher than in 2010. reflecting declines in resident applications. Seven of them experienced double-digit growth. growth in non-resident applications was the main contributor to total growth at the IP offices of China Hong Kong (SAR) and the Russian Federation.274 18. France.3 23. Spain and Turkey reflected growth in resident applications.100 in 2011. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) received the largest number of applications from the 1950s to the late 1990s. In contrast.0 83.2 depicts the number of designs contained in applications filed for the top 20 offices.5 55.5 42. Mexico.9 521. the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) exhibit an upward trend.9%). Croatia. 9 are located in middle-income countries. China Hong Kong (SAR).2 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 in 2003 to around 23. Italy and Morocco saw considerable declines in design counts. the non-resident share stood below 5% at the IP offices of China.2.3 saw growth in design counts in 2011 compared to 2010. For the majority of the reported offices. Application design count Its application numbers increased from around 10.839 4.149 3. the number of applications received by the JPO has followed a downward trend.218 30.9 Am e fK Non-Resident 62. Almost all the growth at the IP offices of China. Ch ina Office .3 13.2.041 41.4 8.206 y a OH IM ina ain Sp ea n y an rke ly pa ric Ch or Ge rm Ita co bli pu Re Resident 37. For most offices.13 Figure C.000 designs.225 58. Industrial design applications were first received at SIPO in 1985.467 29. OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database. .1.2 Application design counts for the top 20 offices. after which they experienced exponential growth. when it was surpassed by SIPO.9 52.077 5. KIPO and the IP office of Germany each received applications containing more than 54.501 5.985 2. and numbers grew at a modest pace until the early 2000s. In contrast.216 6.3 2. China – with more than 521. The contribution of resident and non-resident applications to total growth varied widely across offices. In contrast.4 77. Italy and Spain.805 30.571 54. the Russian Federation and Singapore.394 4.7 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 Application design count 87. Non-resident applicants accounted for the majority of design counts at the IP offices of Australia.966 Un it ed Office Sta tes of 35.1.000 designs – is the largest office by far.1.3 29. OHIM. 13 See footnote 3. The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) began issuing the Registered Community Design (RCD) in 2003. Figure C.4 54.723 ine AR il * ico re po ga a Fra Tu Ja Ind tio ali oc gS str ra az Uk or ex de Br Au M on Fe an ssi Ru Note: *2010 data. In 2004.735 6. October 2012 The majority of the offices presented in Figure C.8 8. the non-resident share was considerably higher than the global average (10. 2011 Resident 2.7 26.468 Non-Resident 13.2 7. KIPO surpassed the JPO and has maintained second position ever since.Section c industrial designs design counts due to the unavailability of historical design count data. The IP offices of Croatia.7 3.994 16.H on gK Sin Cr M oa ra tia ia co n nc e 137 . Among the top 20 offices.2 48.

8 -9.1.. October 2012 Figure C.4 resident share observed for the top 10 offices (see Figure C.0 -10.14 For several offices.100 designs each.8 3.Section c industrial designs Figure C.2.104 Non-Resident 82. Application design count 1. 58.H Cr oa t me Fra Ja ra zil M ia .5 8.8 -8.0 -3. OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2 8.1 4.3 25.3 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 Resident .7 Application design count 450 384 334 311 240 168 166 139 77 Be liz e ta n bia bia em a Pe or an an lom mi zs Bo tsw fK Gh rg y Co . .0 16.5 2. The non-resident share in total design counts for the t ria nia gia an lia Na ov yp OA ge go Eg old me or aij Re pu bli co Office Az erb Ge fM Vi Ar M on et Be Al lar us m a PI reported offices was substantially higher than the nonHague data only . 88.4 14.8 10.6 0 OH Re IM pu bli co fK or ea Ge rm an y Ch ina Sp ain pa n ine a o on gK on gS AR y nc e ex ico Sin ga po re ly * a Ind ia Tu rke tio n ric ali or oc c Ita Au str de ra Uk Br a of A tes Ru ssi ta an Fe M dS Un ite Office Note: *Growth rate refers to 2009-2010. These four offices received more than 1.5 2.2 17. OAPI = African Intellectual Property Organization Source: WIPO Statistics Database..7 17.4 shows design count data for offices of selected middle.6 8. 61.4 -1.11 Contribution to growth 23.3 -1.8 5.3 .' = not available.3 Contribution of resident and non-resident application design counts to total growth for the top 20 offices.5 0. Algeria was the only exception.1. with local applicants accounting for the bulk of total design counts. followed by the Republic of Moldova.3 Total growth rate (%): 2010 .2. .0 17.1 16.4 -8.8 24. Viet Nam saw the largest 49. Egypt and Georgia.0 6.and low-income countries.9 1.5 -1.5 1.1 6.7 13. Data for all available offices are presented in the statistical annex. 2010-11 Contribution by resident application design count 23.0 2.2. 85.4 1..2 3..9 -10.149 818 803 765 632 595 573 number of design counts (2.6 15..2 1. . as statistics from the national IP office are unavailable.9 0.. D.1 -2. P.4 -0.7 .445 1.8 8.1.7 -4.R Note: '..and low-income countries.104 designs).4 Application design counts for selected middle. Among the reported offices. 561 Non-Resident 74.6 -3.2).8 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 Figure C. this figure includes only Hague designation data..2 Hague data only 95.4 6.1 96.0 2. The majority of design counts at these offices were of foreign origin.5 1.854 .4 -1.8 3.2 Contribution by non-resident application design count -11.9 -0.8 3.8 0.8 -4.4 0.0 2. 2011 Resident 35. October 2012 Gu Ky Office Na at Jo rd an ea ru la a a 14 The selected offices are from different world regions.o .7 2.9 -8.1.1 1.2.0 76.7 -2.0 4.4 11. 138 Ch ina ..

5 Industrial design applications by class for selected office. The offices of Australia. articles for hunting.571 88 144 8 338 23 2. artists’ and teaching materials Sales and advertising equipment. not elsewhere specified Brushware Textile piecegoods. Data refer to application counts rather than design counts.383 855 158 163 2.3). heating.605 1.679 . India and the Russian Federation received the largest 15 For the USPTO.315 2. signs Games. RU (Russian Federation).1. for the reported 139 . The class distribution 15 offices. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. not elsewhere specified Graphic symbols and logos. Data refer to application counts. HK (China.055 49 28 4 38 131 40 473 5 259 27 44 363 15 120 5 20 3 14 IN 36 216 82 49 422 684 428 647 1. TH (Thailand) and TR (Turkey). not elsewhere specified Tools and hardware Packages and containers for the transport or handling of goods Clocks and watches and other measuring instruments.5 reports industrial design applications by class for selected offices. Class 14 (recording.1.1. communications. checking and signalling instruments Articles of adornment Means of transport or hoisting Equipment for production. class data are available for registrations.056 1.821 581 901 50 515 200 2. etc. distribution or transformation of electricity Recording.1. varied considerably among offices. not elsewhere specified Photographic. CA (Canada).203 664 993 1. cases. artificial and natural sheet material Furnishing Household goods. sanitary.198 775 656 1.151 1.176 349 894 184 90 60 106 1. Worldwide.285 1. Japan. cinematographic and optical apparatus Musical instruments Printing and office machinery Stationery and office equipment. DE (Germany). however. Canada.272 Note: AU (Australia). the Republic of Korea and the US are unavailable. tents and sports goods Arms.7%) of all registrations at the USPTO in 2011.1. class 6 (furnishing) accounted for the largest share in total applications (Table C.555 4. parasols and personal belongings. fishing and pest killing Fluid distribution equipment. ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. IN (India).2. for accident prevention and for rescue Articles for the care and handling of animals Machines and appliances for preparing food or drink. EM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market). Hong Kong (SAR)).2. toilet articles and apparatus Devices and equipment against fire hazards. ornamentation Unknown Office Class name AU 69 472 118 80 24 362 467 457 681 76 97 506 136 349 196 42 7 8 51 85 271 37 407 192 322 189 5 133 10 44 35 38 CA 62 357 52 156 247 404 326 662 69 55 391 127 564 85 58 4 8 55 159 150 36 313 175 157 277 19 161 40 18 DE 279 5. but not applications.199 153 8. solid fuel Medical and laboratory equipment Building units and construction elements Lighting apparatus Tobacco and smokers’ supplies Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products.541 1.599 693 1. toys. surface patterns.424 60 379 77 162 137 1.) accounted for the largest share (10. October 2012 Table C.Section c industrial designs Table C. namely OHIM and the IP offices of Thailand and Turkey.009 4.766 717 315 54 58 571 356 883 131 1. pyrotechnic articles.599 606 1. 2011 Class number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 -Foodstuffs Articles of clothing and haberdashery Travel goods. SIPO and the USPTO – four larger offices – are unavailable.629 EM 195 1. communication or information retrieval equipment Machines.263 2. Class data for the JPO. KIPO.365 749 897 1.034 142 299 751 526 347 292 34 3 30 155 19 101 14 550 247 137 359 31 153 23 14 84 278 RU 60 91 37 36 136 120 176 116 502 102 162 441 150 262 153 32 1 21 339 45 83 11 200 82 167 109 5 96 12 4 43 189 632 TH 39 117 52 28 60 155 272 338 91 129 472 93 107 141 28 7 11 107 27 69 9 368 47 216 68 5 34 7 8 38 TR 57 560 162 61 18 763 424 719 231 233 354 97 129 292 23 9 7 183 162 120 40 358 86 424 245 26 81 5 20 34 - 40 10. Class data for the IP offices of China. FR (France).064 FR 18 339 206 6 17 524 171 117 243 69 284 203 38 113 24 31 19 5 136 105 174 18 83 22 283 186 15 21 2 39 12 944 HK 23 118 173 41 89 88 278 69 368 418 292 79 110 1. class 6 had the largest share in total applications at only three offices.

351 63.290 Non-Resident 12. Mexico. The combined share of the top three classes ranged from 45.599 .3 36.7 97. notably for the IP offices of Mexico and the Republic of Korea. Residents accounted for the bulk of registrations at SIPO.H on Office Note: *2010 data.237 an y ric a OH IM Ch ina Ja pa n Sp ain rea y Ita ly Tu rke rm Ko Ge of pu bli c Re Office Resident 47.9 21. etc. C. Like for applications.2. a few exceptions exist.290) was 4.2.3%).2. Growth at the offices of Australia.617 ine AR re * ico tia n ali * co oc or M tio po gS oa ex ra ce str Uk ga Cr de Au on M Fe gK Sin Gr ee Ru share of registrations.443 ta tes Non-Resident 64.2 Registrations by office Figure C.326 49. The number of designs registered at SIPO (380. where their non-resident shares stood at around 97%.0 15. Class 5 (textiles.).6 20. There are strong similarities between application and registration data for most offices. Growth in resident registrations accounted for almost all the growth at SIPO and the IP offices of the Republic of Korea and Spain. for many offices.1 depicts the number of designs contained in registrations for the top 20 offices.1% in Germany to 25. China Hong Kong (SAR) and Ukraine reflected growth in non-resident registrations.2 97.7 dS 5.371 21. etc.2.2.5 5.0 380. Registration data for Brazil and France . design counts is considerable. 140 M on ra ac o a Ind ia 1.2.Section c industrial designs numbers of applications for class 9 (packages.634 37.478 3.two larger offices in terms of application data (see Figure C. the registration process involves only a formality examination. October 2012 Figure C.905 43.2 7.2.4 times more than the number registered at OHIM – the second largest office.3 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 Registration design count 86.) – the second largest class at the worldwide level – accounted for the largest share for the IP office of Germany.274 22. China (3.7 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 of Am e 2. .2 shows the contribution of resident and non-resident growth to overall growth for the top 20 offices.1 Registration design counts for the top 20 offices.6 83.972 2. this varied considerably across offices. 2011 Resident 3. This is in contrast to the IP offices of Monaco and Morocco. Italy.356 19.4 5.747 4. The gap between these two offices was smaller for registrations than for applications (6 times). Along with Figure C.534 6. piecegoods.2) – are not available. Ch ina Spain (2.023 1.4 45.647 Un ite Registration design count where the difference between application and registration 58.6 26.607 26.4 84.2.3 4. OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database.0 2.8 55.6%) saw the lowest non-resident an ssi .1. 16 This may reflect the fact that.530 2.16 However.7% at OHIM. Monaco and the US saw declines in both resident and non-resident registrations.

.3 -8.2 0.3 31. This method may underestimate filings at ARIPO. To calculate equivalent applications or registrations. France is the only origin to have seen a considerable decline..2 Contribution of resident and non-resident registration design counts to total growth for the top 20 offices.2 5. which has led to the adoption of the above counting method.8 7. Residents of China filed the bulk of their applications with SIPO (90%).4 -0. The number of equivalent design counts from residents of China and Germany were of similar magnitude and their combined total stood at around 1.9 7.8 -6.Section c industrial designs Figure C. -9.4 32.9 -2.. Ch ina . applications abroad (89%) constituted the bulk of total design counts for German residents.0 -5.7-4.0 3. However.8 14.7 -7.9 3. the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) or OHIM is counted multiple times according to the number of each office’s member states.6 6.0 7.4 -4.7 -5.9 . the terms “designs”.2 8. but its data refer to 2009-2010.7 -0. The top 20 list mostly consists of European countries.’ = not available.6 -3.6 9. “applications” and “registrations” refer to equivalent design counts.5 Contribution by non-resident registration design count 12.2 -30.17 17 Brazil saw a 28% decrease.0 1. partly reflecting the OHIM multiplier.7 -3.1.3 Industrial design applications and registrations by origin Applications at regional offices are equivalent to multiple applications in each of their member states. In contrast.3.8 -2. unless otherwise stated. an application filed at the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) is counted as one application abroad if the applicant does not reside in a member state and as one resident and one application abroad if the applicant resides in one of its member states.3.0 22. OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 depicts the number of equivalent design counts for the top 20 origins in 2011. as filings there may lead to protection in more than one jurisdiction.4 4. This subsection reports figures based on equivalent applications or registrations.7 -28. By contrast.1 Total growth rate (%): 2010 . *Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.9 -6. -4.3 Contribution to growth 18.2.3 4.6 -0. while their applications abroad constituted the remaining small fraction.1 Equivalent applications and registrations by origin Figure C. Equivalent design counts filed by residents of China grew rapidly over the past few years.0 -1.6 24. C. there is insufficient information on designations or validations in ARIPO member states. Eight of the top 20 origins saw double-digit growth in equivalent design counts between 2010 and 2011. 2010-11 Contribution by resident registration design count 13.3 5. October 2012 C.H M M on ac Ita OH Ja ex ra ce o a 141 .8 9.2 6.1 2.1 million.0 2.4 13.2.5 -4.0 14.11 .9 -2.1 -3.2 1.4 0.8 0 -0. In this subsection. a filing at the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI).3 rm Re an pu y bli co fK or ea ine on gK on gS AR IM a Ch ina Sp ain pa n y Sin ga po re * ly Ind ia tio n ico ia Tu rke ric ali o* or oc c Cr oa t me Au str de ra Uk Ge M ee of A Fe Gr tes Ru ssi ta an dS Un ite Office Note: ‘. with China surpassing Germany to become the top origin in 2011.

.910 184.0 87.969 43.3.826 8.0 5.307 on Au De Ire pa gK rm Ch Ja Sp Am fK Po on Ge Cz .5 Re pu Abroad . The high share of registrations abroad once again reflects the OHIM multiplier.143 116. 2011 rke en Sw ed y y a ain Sp a an nc Ch in Ita ric an rm Fra Am e Ko r of Ja p ea ly e Ge of tes Un ite dS Origin Resident 29.0 -10.8 -5.751 6.1.693 Registration design count 76. Spain and Sweden.970 5.038 20.2 -1.472 19. India.3. the numbers of design counts in applications and registrations were of similar magnitude.9 35. The top 20 list mostly consists of European countries.0 6.5 3.5 4. more than four-fifths of all designs were registered abroad. 21.7 .395 302..3 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 ub lic Tu Resident 4.161 561. *2010 data.513 Abroad 19.896 211. October 2012 142 Ire Bu lga ria k d ia ed en n ea ly d y .921 For all origins. -2.890 AR ub lic bli co Sw Sin ga p or e ec l ali a d* nm ar ga Fin lan Ind Po rtu ng S Au str ep lan De on g Ch ina . Abroad 0.6 7.3.7 14.. followed by applicants from China (with 419.6 552.1.9 -3.544 Re p ta Abroad 21.Section c industrial designs Figure C.8 -28.285 419.101 118. This is similar to the pattern observed for equivalent application design counts (Figure C.1 17. the Republic of Korea and Turkey.272 Resident 1.9 563.4 37. *2010 data Source: WIPO Statistics Database. again reflecting the OHIM multiplier.7 21.715 All origins.7 16.9 -7.7 1.1.0 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Application design count 26. For all origins reported. except China..3 27.424 20.2 depicts the number of designs contained in equivalent registrations for the top 20 origins.2 Equivalent registration design counts for the top 20 origins.285 designs.1. Italy and Sweden saw declines in both applications and registrations over the same period. except for China. .699 40.H Cz ec hR Ko Origin Note: ‘.9 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Figure C.H of ina tes ta Ch .169 47.4 .703 21. Origin Un ite dS Origin Note: ‘. German applicants accounted for the highest number of designs registered worldwide in 2011. 2011 Resident 25.837 39.0 25. Figure C.395 designs) and Italy (with 302.495 184.4 22..158 7.3.671 15.779 25. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. With 552. saw a higher number of designs registered in 2011 than in 2010.910 designs). October 2012 Registration design count 25.915 71. 42.2 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Application design count 308.814 6.230 123. and growth rate refers to 2009-2010. 21.514 18.305 125.1 Equivalent application design counts for the top 20 origins.4 39.286 AR lic l lan ali Ind ub d* ar gS rtu lga nm Fin ep lan str az il * ga ria d a k ia y ca ina ain Po Bu Br an hR eri lan Ita or rke Tu 6.’ = not available.1).9 0.9 5.235 8.849 86.’ = not available.339 15.6 21.5 -0.6 25.475 6. except Italy.

199 1 2.2 presents a breakdown of the number of designs contained in applications by origin (source) and office (destination) for the top offices and origins. Hong Kong SAR France Germany India Italy Japan Morocco Netherlands Poland Republic of Korea Russian Federation Spain Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom United States of America Other / Unknown Total Office CN 201 84 507.538 454 22 524 4.983 258 41.078 107 10.307 5. Japan and the Russian Federation. the Republic of Korea and the US.274 18. residents of Japan accounted for the largest share.444 72 59 1.286 18. EM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market).306 121 26. IT (Italy). DE (Germany).467 29.664 29 88 28 81 186 1 51 352 117 49 4 11 157 1 258 1.857 6.441 506 28.077 AU 2.041 41.246 18 104 252 13 1 878 17.732 13 57 155 2.18. TR (Turkey). The table provides a detailed picture of industrial design application flows across countries.457 1 10 1.887 18 254 34 90 115 643 486 6.394 1.592 IT 44 22 3 35 6 2 58 14 3 19 762 ES 17 2 3 4 45 10 1 1 3 368 FR 10 28 14.770 27 122 99 1.532 444 34 1.206 Note: CN (China).463 138 30 96 49 29 2 183 558 14 5 203 1. RU (Russian Federation). residents accounted for the largest share of applications.571 54.311 676 US 387 185 932 294 545 1.805 30.071 521.200 6.490 169 51 1.2 Industrial design applications by office and origin Table C. Table C. residents of the US accounted for the largest share of total applications in Australia.314 1.211 354 .374 421 20 5. FR (France).658 1.238 TR 22 8 1 516 431 3 162 1 52 17 18 27 109 1. The largest non-resident share at the IP offices of France.164 52 3. October 2012 143 . ES (Spain).468 87.3. In China.285 JP 44 25 144 51 179 361 1 144 111 545 2 26 335 192 1.3. Excluding residents of the country concerned.3. In all reported offices. KR (Republic of Korea).297 64 2.315 137 20 54 5 4.994 16.735 RU 6 34 38 5 125 452 1 97 393 167 47 185 2. Morocco. 2011 Origin Australia Austria China China.354 14.521 33 124 472 36 1 318 2. except Australia. UA (Ukraine). Turkey and Ukraine belonged to residents of Switzerland. the Russian Federation and OHIM.795 73 24 5 39 1 27 6 28 108 27 13 8 86 928 IN 41 10 45 11 80 319 5.056 40 3 410 5.490 EM 459 2.362 2. India.216 UA 4 149 137 1 6 38 19 63 270 57 1.966 MA 2 363 50 1 1 3. IN (India).540 61 35.156 80 625 179 7 3 5 27 234 17 241 791 345 8.218 30.Section c industrial designs C.157 3. AU (Australia) and MA (Morocco) Source: WIPO Statistics Database. JP (Japan). Spain.991 KR 17 9 125 9 86 2 93 1.757 102 DE 5.488 1.330 559 5.300 86 3.225 58.2 Application design counts by office and origin: top offices and origins.443 3.985 643 7.040 54. US (United States of America).

2 -40.4.4 Industrial design registrations through the hague system An applicant seeking protection for an industrial design in a number of countries or jurisdictions can choose to file an application directly with each national or regional IP office or a single application via the Hague system. international registrations rebounded strongly in 2008. The average number of designs per registration varied between 4.000 3. the total number of designs contained in international registrations declined by 1.363 international registrations for industrial designs in 2011. C. provided they relate to products of the same class listed in the Locarno Classification.4 and 5.4 -0.8 6. a single Hague registration can lead to design protection across all EU member states. reflected a drop in the average number of designs per registration from 5.000 -3.3 31. The last four years saw considerable growth in registrations.238 in 2010 to 11. This enables applicants to file a single application for protection across all European Union (EU) member states.1 International registrations of industrial designs The International Bureau of WIPO recorded 2. Applicants seeking protection in EU markets began to use the RCD rather than the Hague system.5 0.2).8 -19.7 in 2011.4% in 2011 (Figure C. After four years of growth. October 2012 144 . as well as in other members of the Hague system.6 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Registration year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.9 10.000 Growth rate (%) Registrations 2.3 32. In 2011. A registration recorded in the International Register has the same effect as one made directly with each designated contracting party. the Hague system comprised 60 members.7 0.1 in 2010 to 4. corresponding to an increase of 6. Figure C. As a result. for example. The total number of designs in registrations fell from 11. The Hague system makes it possible for an applicant to register industrial designs in multiple Contracting Parties by filing a single application with the International Bureau of WIPO.000 1.Section c industrial designs C.8 -42. The large decline witnessed after 2002 can be explained by the availability of the RCD issued by OHIM. Switzerland and Turkey. although growth rates varied considerably.6% on 2010. unless the IP office of a specific contracting party issues a refusal.1. which corresponds to the year the EU became a member of the Hague system.7 over the period 2001-2011. Moreover.4. An application for international registration of an industrial design leads to its recording in the International Register and the publication of the registration in the International Designs Bulletin. This decrease in the total number of designs.077 in 2011.4. the Hague system permits a single international registration to include up to 100 different designs.000 4.1. each application filed under the Hague system may contain up to 100 different designs.1 International registrations of industrial designs Registrations 5. As mentioned earlier. despite growth in international registrations. However.

5% in 2010 to 63. 2011 2. Figure C.4.5 129 21. such as the US.7 21.3 5.1 -12. appear in the origin list. October 2012 Figure C.9 -30.254 861 737 599 203 169 150 134 y ca ia str Au an eri Ita rke an nc an ee rm Fra erl Tu Am Ge itz Un ite dS ta tes Ne th Sw of erl Origin -37. their combined share of the total increased from 58.1.4.082 2.Section c industrial designs Figure C.000 4.6 -25.7 5.7 26. Germany and Switzerland accounted for more than half of all designs contained in Hague registrations in 2011.6 Sp Growth rate (%): 2010-11 95 95 94 82 79 77 68 56 52 Designs ay n ou rg ium m k an de ar ste rw lan Po do Be lg Sw e dK ing xe mb No De Lu .3 depicts the number of designs contained in international registrations by country of origin for the top 20 origins.9 4.6 11. Together.000 15.7 206. Several origins saw fewer designs registered in 2011 than in 2010. October 2012 ite Origin Lie ch ten Cr oa Fin l nm tia d in d ain d e ds ly y ce 477.0 49.5 39.1.7 5. Holders residing in Germany owned the largest number of designs contained in international registrations. The top three origins saw growth in designs registered in 2011.8 145 .0 -38.000 -3.2 Designs contained in international registrations Designs 25. followed by Switzerland and the US.0 -34.5 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Designs 1.8% in 2011.4 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Registration year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: WIPO Statistics Database.3 4.8 88.5 3.2 5.5 4. Un 18 Applicants domiciled in a non-member country can file applications for international registrations if they have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the jurisdiction of a Hague member country/region.6 4.6 -7.5 55.2 -62.3 Designs contained in international registrations for the top 15 origins. As a result.2 16.000 20.4.000 5.5 -31.8 -16. countries that are not members of the Hague system.4 4.9 Growth rate (%) 5. The US – a non-member – accounted for around onetenth of the 2011 total.18 For this reason.7 Average number of designs per registration Designs 10.7 5.3 -30.8 -38.9 29. A registration is allocated to the applicant’s “true” origin rather than to the Hague member in respect of which the applicant fulfilled the condition for filing the application.7 -1.1. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.1 4.4 Gr 1.736 2.

ETA SA MANUFACTURE HORLOGÈRE SUISSE LEIFHEIT AG CARTIER CRÉATION STUDIO SA GEBERIT INTERNATIONAL AG NEOPERL GMBH Origin United States of America Switzerland Netherlands United States of America Germany Switzerland Turkey Germany Germany Germany Switzerland Germany France Netherlands France Netherlands Switzerland Germany Switzerland Switzerland Germany Hague International Applications 2009 110 81 33 37 20 12 32 36 25 42 20 21 18 15 14 4 15 2010 129 75 87 44 36 24 52 46 20 30 33 18 14 20 12 21 2 14 18 10 2011 167 70 64 56 55 47 40 38 28 25 20 15 15 14 14 14 12 12 11 11 11 Note: Includes applicants with more than 10 applications in 2011 Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 146 . Among the 21 applicants shown.Section c industrial designs Table C.3 Non-resident industrial design applications by filing route for selected Hague members Applicants seeking design protection in foreign jurisdictions can either file applications directly at national or regional IP offices or make use of the Hague system. Two of the top five applicants in 2011 were from the US. the US-based company Procter & Gamble filed the highest number of international applications. For the third consecutive year. were the second and third largest applicants.V.2 provides a list of top Hague applicants for the past three years. about 12.4.1% of all nonresident applications were filed via the Hague system in 2011. In contrast.3 shows the breakdown of non-resident applications filed directly at offices and those filed via the Hague system. Worldwide. October 2012 C. However. Despite filing fewer applications in 2011 than in 2010. THE GILLETTE COMPANY DAIMLER AG SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ S. seven are located in Germany and six in Switzerland.V.5% of all non-resident applications were filed through the Hague system. Figure C. which is not a member of the Hague system (see footnote 18 for further explanation). KG BRAUN GMBH PI-DESIGN AG ALFRED KÄRCHER GMBH & CO.4.4. MAPED UNILEVER N.A. For a large number of offices. KG HERMES SELLIER FONKEL MEUBELMARKETING B. not all offices – notably China.4. The Swatch Group Management Services AG and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N. Table C. direct filings accounted for most non-resident applications received by OHIM and the IP office of Germany.4.2 Top Hague applicants C. The Hague share in total non-resident applications varied across IP offices. the Hague system accounted for the great majority of non-resident applications.V. VESTEL BEYAZ ESYA SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI VOLKSWAGEN AG LIDL STIFTUNG & CO. Data for Hague members show that 31.2 Top Hague applicants 2011 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 14 14 17 17 19 19 19 Applicant's Name THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY THE SWATCH GROUP MANAGEMENT SERVICES AG KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. the largest office in the world – are members of the Hague system.

.4 -7.” = not available. Office Ge M on ac o OH IM at ia rw oc co registrations than the combined total of the USPTO. OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database.. Sp 8.5 89..9 -2. France and Italy.9 96.0 11.4 348 278 250 JPO.188 C.2 -1. The term of protection is usually 15 years. 922. .315 65. 2011 on rb eg aij Fra ed ten old Se ba ov erb Ge Be eg Al ne or .706 12.5 -2.7 96.1 Industrial design registrations in force by office..4 40.6 rk Ch fA me Ge rm Tu so lic Au of str Ja at e ub Un ite d Re p St Office 6.115 242.3 88.371 3.643 21. October 2012 So g ut h Po lan d na d SA ala y In at Af ric ain n ea ey m a 147 .4 97.4 Hague share (%): 2011 248 Malaysia and Mexico saw the fastest growth on 2010.H on .245 45.5. over 2.295 18. OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market Source: WIPO Statistics Database..968 13.4 Hague share (%): 2011 68.0 7.4.600 6.468 1.5 Hague Non-Resident 66. Applications 1.7 44.1 Un ite d .945 15.915 a a R ico lia dia ion sia a Au s tri on go M ex Ca ng Fe de r Ko M M .9 12. however.5 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 34. 54. accounting for around 37% of the world total (Figure C. some offices provide protection for only 10 years.5 . Ch ina Ru ss ian Office 19 Data are available for 77 offices including all major offices except Brazil.5 million industrial design registrations were in force worldwide. Applications 237 211 207 185 172 170 Figure C.Section c industrial designs Figure C.489 44.2 Industrial design registrations in force Industrial design registrations are valid for a limited period.3 95.2 5.262 158.810 33.1 74..089 57.4 92.1).206 13. KIPO and OHIM – the four largest offices after SIPO.411 852 772 678 490 413 355 In 2011. the Hague Non-Resident Direct Non-Resident 95. Note: “.19 SIPO had the largest number of registrations in force.1 ia e nia ina gia an ro a nc ov lux ia erz M dH of an R pu Y bli co M Az Growth rate (%): 2010-11 on fM ac Office Note: Data refer to the number of industrial design applications and not the number of designs contained in applications.4 6.0 92. while Austria and the Russian Federation experienced considerable declines over the same period. October 2012 Registrations in force ia TF Bo sn Re 262.6 97. 6.926 a y ina OH IM ric pa an ali Ko r do Ki ng -11. SIPO had a larger number of ra ine Tu rke y Sin ga po re Sw itz erl an d an y ay rm Cr o Uk No or M . Data refer to the number of industrial design registrations in force and not the number of designs contained in registrations..840 Registrations in force 21.475 1.7 15.1 91.5.612 45.316 246.2 43.7 4.1 62.3 Non-resident industrial design applications by filing route for selected Hague members Direct Non-Resident 13.

7 67.8 1. The figure shows that around 59% of industrial designs registered in 2007 were still in force in 2011 and only a small proportion (less than 7%) of industrial designs registered before 1998 was still in force in 2011. The graph is based on data from 62 offices (includes all large offices.7 29.3 5.4 0.g. This reflects the fact in some offices (e.2 4.2 depicts the distribution of industrial design registrations in force in 2011 by their year of registration and as a percentage of total registrations in a given year.5.0 52.9 33.0 36.Section c industrial designs Figure C.7 Percentage of registrations 65. holders are required to pay annual fees to maintain registrations.2 3.0 84.8 15.5 6.2 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Registration year Note: Percentages are calculated as follows: number of industrial design registered in year t and in force in 2011 divided by the total number of industrial design registered in year t.2 59.2 Industrial design registrations in force in 2011 as a percentage of total registrations 98.8 45.0 3.5 16. it thus portrays the age distribution of industrial designs in force. KIPO and SIPO).3 3. 148 . with France and Japan as the most notable exceptions. October 2012 Figure C. The graph also shows that 15% of the 2010 registrations expired within a year. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2 28. Data for most large offices are included in this graph. except France and Japan) for which a breakdown of industrial design registrations in force by year of registrations are available.0 2.5.4 2.6 4.9 47.6 0.

8% in 2011 – the fastest growth since 2007. plant variety applications worldwide grew by 7. whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant. mutants. after a modest decline in 2010. Between 1995 and 2011. 149 . According to the PPA. including cultivated sports. World totals are WIPO estimates covering data for 66 offices. uniform. there are two legal frameworks for protecting new plant varieties: the Plant Patent Act (PPA) and the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA).1 Plant variety applications and grants D. hybrids.000 to over 14. and newly found seedlings. this publication uses the term “office” to refer to reporting authorities and “origin” to indicate the origin of applicants. distinct.000. growth in applications at the office of Israel and the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of the European Union (EU) accounted for three-fifths of total growth in 2011. Under the PVPA. for example. In the United States of America (US). applications worldwide between 1995 and 2011. A breeder’s right is only granted where the variety is new. This section covers plant variety protection statistics relating to applications. Together. Figure D.1. stable and has a suitable denomination. growth in applications in a given year was followed by a drop the next year. other than a tuber propagated plant (in practice.1. a breeder must file an individual application with each authority entrusted with the granting of breeders’ rights. since 2003.Section dplant variety protection section D plant variety protection The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) was established in 1961 by the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (the “UPOV Convention”). the US protects all sexually reproduced plant varieties and tuber propagated plant varieties excluding fungi and bacteria.1 Applications worldwide 1 In relation to plant varieties. UPOV provides and promotes an effective system of plant variety protection. This growth occurred in the face of substantial year-on-year fluctuation in application numbers. for the benefit of society. Irish potato and Jerusalem artichoke) or a plant found in an uncultivated state. based on data collected from 66 offices. the total number of applications increased from 10. grants and grants in force.1 depicts the total number of plant variety In order to obtain protection. with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants. may obtain a patent therefor. However.1 D.

0 9.9 12.7 2. 1.200.9 1. October 2012 2 For simplicity.5 -7.7 .000 Growth rate (%) 10. this publication uses the term “grant” rather than the formal term “titles issued”.000 Applications 5.1 2. October 2012 D.8 -0.000 -11.4 5. and was mainly due to substantial declines in grants at the offices of China and Ukraine.2 Trend in plant variety grants worldwide Grants 15. In 2011.0 2.5 3.1 -8.0 -6. As was the case for applications.000 Grants 5. Grants worldwide 2 increased from around 6.Section dplant variety protection Figure D.2 Grants worldwide in 2010.8 14. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.000 Growth rate (%) 10.8 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Application year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering data for 66 offices. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.7 5. the number of grants worldwide was estimated at around 10.1.1.7 11.200 in 1995 to a peak of 11.8 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Grant year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering data for 66 offices.2 16. 9. the long-term trend of plant variety grants is upwards.2 5.100 Figure D.0 10.1 7. This decrease in grants followed five years of continuous growth.1 Trend in plant variety applications worldwide Applications 15.4 0.3 -5.2 3.3 -1.1 11. representing a 7.1. 150 .4 9.7 -7.9 10.8% decrease on 2010.6 -12.000 -1.5 .

The majority of offices saw growth in applications between 2010 and 2011. This subsection provides detailed data on plant variety Figure D.3 49. 3 Office Resident 45. non-resident applicants accounted for around one-tenth of all applications filed at the offices of France.095 783 587 474 452 402 ra ine A) ed era tio n 111 109 Ch ina Ja pa n rea ric a( an ds ric a( Of fi th erl Uk Am e of ty ar ie pu bli c Ne Am e Ko Pla nt V of of ta tes mu nit y Un ite Co m Figure D. and United States of America (B) refers to PPA data.8 324 83.Section dplant variety protection D. In relation to plant varieties.5 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 114 Ru ssi Re an F da ca il y ico a nd bia e nc Fra na fri ala ex lom Br rke ali So 4. Apart from the CPVO.9% in China to 87.7 four other offices received more than 1.1 Plant variety applications for the top 20 offices. October 2012 3 The US ranks second if PVPA and PPA data are combined. .7 285 58.6 63.2.2 Plant variety applications and grants by office applications and grants by national and regional offices. PPA data) and Japan.1 shows the number of plant variety applications broken down by resident and non-resident filings for the top 20 offices. non-resident applications accounted for about 50% or more of total applications received.5 3.6 dS 53.5 11. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2. 2011 Resident 24.184 Non-Resident 16.139 1.7 64.9 305 74. The CPVO received the most applications in 2011. In contrast.9 21. For 10 of the top 20 offices.9 9.2. Ne The non-resident share in total applications varied from str hA Ca M Ze Tu Au ut Note: United States of America (A) refers to PVPA data.1 17.1 29. the US (B.0 11. PVPA data) saw the largest decrease with 180 fewer applications.7% in Colombia. w Office Co Ge rm an az y Isr 105 ae l ce B) 151 .126 1.3 Applications 1. Applications 145 121 ta tes Non-Resident 87.8 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 4. this publication uses the term “office” to refer to reporting authorities and “origin” to indicate the origin of applicants. Germany and the Republic of Korea. Israel saw the largest increase with 313 additional applications.1 Applications for the top 20 offices dS 48. In contrast. the US (A.000 applications each in 2011.255 1.9 60. followed by the offices of China.8 330 Un ite D.

3 Plant variety applications and grants by origin The statistics presented in this subsection offer insight into the origin of demands for plant variety protection.3 62. If the applicant resides in one of the 27 EU member states. data based on absolute number count are presented. with the most notable decreases recorded for China (-64%). if the applicant does not reside in an EU member state. the US (B) (823) and the Netherlands (717).7 40.0 71. The non-resident share in total grants varied from 2% in China to around 87% in Chile and Colombia.8 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 2.139).6 67.4 60. Origin is determined based on the residency of the applicant.585) issued the largest number of plant variety grants in 2011. First. to calculate the number of equivalent applications at the CPVO. whereas.2 Plant variety grants for the top 20 offices. the CPVO (2. with the equivalent count method. ine ea ce ds pa tio ae (B ca fri tes of A 101 an ra Ja ca ra Isr hA yO fK erl me ri de Uk rie t of A Va ssi an Pla tes Sta Ru Re pu nt bli ity ite d mm Un Co Office Resident 79. Half of the top 20 offices issued fewer grants in 2010 than in 2011. followed by Japan (1.1 240 55. Ukraine (-55.1 87. and United States of America (B) refers to PPA data. However.3 251 Non-Resident 7. Israel and the Netherlands. Plant variety activity by origin includes resident applications and applications abroad.5%) and the US (A) (-30%).2.2 Grants for the top 20 offices D.2. 2011 Resident 21.6 17.Section dplant variety protection D. October 2012 152 Ne w Co lom bia ric a( ffi or A) n ) n l . followed by data based on the equivalent count concept.0 Grants 183 172 115 114 112 109 91 ina ny il Un ite d un Sta So ut Ne Fe me Tu rke y da a co th o nd ile str ali Br az rm a Ch ex ic na Ch ala Ca M Au Ge Ze . the application is counted as one resident filing and 26 filings abroad. each Non-Resident 46. The fastest growth during the same period occurred at the offices of Chile. The difference between the two methods lies in the treatment of regional office (CPVO) data.7 13.3 87.9 8.139 823 717 571 465 448 365 297 application is multiplied by the corresponding number 276 of member states.585 This subsection presents application and grant data by origin based on two different counting methods. An application at the CPVO is counted only once with the absolute count method. Office Note: United States of America (A) refers to PVPA data. the application is counted as 27 applications abroad.2 Grants 1. Similar to applications. a single application at the CPVO is treated as equivalent to multiple applications.4 63.4 2. For instance.0 15.1 53. Source: WIPO Statistics Database. This is of similar magnitude for their application data.7 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 31. Figure D.

residents of the Russian Federation (-30. this is in contrast to the trend observed for application data.1 13.7 52.3 -7. Italy (+89. The majority of origins received fewer grants in 2011 than in 2010. October 2012 Cz ec h Ne Re pu itz e Be lgi Fra Am Uk era nm Ja Ze um lia k l ae nd ly 153 . followed by applicants residing in the US.1.3.1 Applications and grants by origin Grant data show a profile similar to that for application data for all reported origins.5%) and Denmark (+52.0 8.1 Plant variety applications for the top 20 origins. grants abroad and regional grants data is similar.6%).7 -30.1. However. The most notable decline (-62. there are some differences in the ranking of origins. China ranked in third position for applications but in 10th position for grants.769 Abroad 2. Un Origin Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 2011 Resident 17. Figure D. Switzerland and the US. to that of application data.Section dplant variety protection D. Plant variety application and grant data for the top 20 origins.5 Abroad 7. applications abroad accounted for more than half of all applications originating in Belgium.1.2 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 6. In contrast.1. China and Germany (Figure D.2 Regional -15.3. Residents of Israel (+106. Ukraine (-15.3. the Russian Federation and Ukraine filed the bulk of their applications at their respective national offices.3 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 106.1%).3 6.1). Applicants from the Netherlands received the largest number of grants.2%) saw the largest growth in applications during this period.7%) in grants was for applicants residing in China.2 38.6 343 292 Resident -6. In contrast.3.2 10.3%) filed considerably fewer applications in 2011 than in 2010.2.7 9. followed by applications filed by residents of the US. New Zealand.5 Applications Applications 1.077 973 838 549 414 386 354 ca ina e y nd n ea e ain il s bli c n om nd an ra in nc fK or str a Ch gd ala Sp Br az pa tio ar eri rla Isr Ita Ge rm th erl a nF ed bli co Sw of De Kin Au w ite d tes pu ssi a Ne Sta Re Un ite d Ru . Japan and Germany (Figure D.1 and D.871 1.1. are presented in Figures D. for all origins. based on the absolute count method.8 2.5 89.2). Applicants residing in Brazil.7%) and Switzerland (-11. China.2 3. The majority of origins filed more applications in 2011 than in 2010. The distribution of resident grants.5 Regional -2. the Republic of Korea.1 -11.204 242 234 210 186 180 175 123 119 1. The largest number of plant variety applications originated in the Netherlands (2.3.3.769). Germany.

3.7 -23.9 192 162 159 126 Abroad -8. Applicants from the Netherlands received the largest number of grants.2 -16.9 Grants Grants 1. 154 Ne w Ita ly .8 Regional -18. the Republic of Korea and Ukraine filed the bulk of their applications at their respective national offices. October 2012 D. For all origins. Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database.2. are presented in Figures D. Equivalent application count data show that.2.1 and D.5 -30. 2011 Resident 14.3 -8.4 35.6 194 Resident -5. based on the equivalent count method.1).2. For the majority of origins.3.3.5 -62.3. grants issued abroad accounted for the largest share of total grants.4 -47.7 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 -6.2 Equivalent applications and grants by origin Plant variety application and grant data for the top 20 origins.8 -13.Section dplant variety protection Figure D.2. the largest number of plant variety applications originated in the Netherlands.8 -16. Germany and France. Applicants residing in China. followed by applicants residing in France. Germany and the US.2 5.1. followed by applications filed by residents of the US.239 991 973 635 489 399 124 118 113 107 91 258 258 246 an y Fra n an ce Fe de Re ra tio pu n bli co fK or ea Sw itz erl an d Ja pa n ra ine ric a Ch ina an ds Af ric a Ze ala nd Sp ain ali a De n Un ma ite rk dK ing do m Br Cz az ec il hR ep ub lic ae l Am e rm Isr Au str th erl Ge Uk Ne of ut h So ta tes Un ite dS Ru ssi Origin .3 Regional -7.2 Plant variety grants for the top 20 origins. except the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation. This was partly due to the multiplier applied to regional applications. applications abroad accounted for the largest share of total applications. there are some differences in the ranking of origins. however.7 2.0 13.9 -36. The volume of applications from the latter three were of a similar magnitude.255 Abroad 9.3. However. in 2011.7 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 51. the volume of applications filed by Dutch applicants was more than double that filed by US applicants (Figure D. Equivalent grant data for all reported origins show a profile similar to the one for equivalent application data.

0 35.292 2.065 an y Fra nc e De nm ar k Sw itz erl Un a nd ite dK ing do m ric a Sp ain Ja pa n an ds Ita ly Un ite dS Origin .4 4.523 1.2 24.487 1.9 1.583 12. Ru Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database.524 3.6 47.9 8.3 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 -37.783 Abroad -10.1 Equivalent plant variety applications for the top 20 origins.7 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 36.2.9 0.287 1.282 Resident -4.8 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 -23.0 29.6 -15.1 -15. 2011 Resident 15.596 3.6 33.2 28.163 1.711 11.4 -46.2.3.3.4 -1.225 Abroad -5.5 8.2 Equivalent plant variety grants for the top 20 origins.6 -27. October 2012 Figure D. October 2012 Re pu Cz bli co Sw Be ed en ea c a n d l Po lan d Ar g Re en pu tin bli a co fK or ea Uk ra ine ta tes Th ail an d Au str ali Ne a w Ze ala nd Am e th erl Ge Ne of Be Ch ina rm um lgi Isr ae l Abroad 12.6 Grants Grants 11.2 173.7 Abroad 96.5 29.205 11.091 3.430 2.5 13.736 2.8 82.109 1.0 -11.139 660 497 489 482 443 425 353 350 9. 2011 Resident 17.368 2.6 6.2 73.4 -34.624 2.072 862 622 587 575 414 12.1 Applications Applications 1.2 1.0 23.205 y ca d Ja Un pa ite n dK ing do m e um k ds ly ia ain nd an nc an Ita ali bli tio lan an eri str or ae Isr ar Fra nm rm erl str pu ra ala lgi Sp Am Au erl fK Po Ge itz De Re Ne th Au de Ze Sw of Fe ec h w tes ssi an Ne dS ta Un ite Origin .9 -16.161 2.2 8.8 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 317 155 .Section dplant variety protection Figure D.192 Resident 2.7 -10.756 2.7 37.3 319.2 -23. Origin Source: WIPO Statistics Database.5 10.

and had the highest share at the offices of Colombia and Ecuador (68% for each). New Zealand (NZ). Applicants from the Netherlands accounted for the largest non-resident share at nine offices.3 Non-resident applications by office and origin Plant breeders frequently seek protection for their new plant varieties abroad.3. France (FR). Serbia (RS). Austria (AT). The underlying data refer to actual numbers of plant variety applications instead of equivalent counts. Australia (AU). Ukraine. The most popular destinations for plant variety protection by foreign applicants were the CPVO. Italy (IT).Section dplant variety protection D.3 Non-resident plant variety applications by office and origin. Denmark (DK). Belgium (BE). Table D. Japan and Canada. Swiss applicants had the highest non-resident share in the Netherlands and the US (A) (PVPA data).3 offers an overview of the flow of cross-border filings. Table D. Netherlands (NL). Japan (JP).3. 2011 Origin Office Australia Brazil Canada Chile China Colombia Community Plant Variety Office Ecuador Israel Japan Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Republic of Korea Russian Federation South Africa Turkey Ukraine United States of America (A) United States of America (B) Others 43 2 3 2 21 1 1 30 6 27 8 2 27 1 18 38 56 1 5 1 1 3 1 3 1 6 3 3 3 2 7 18 1 47 1 2 3 2 19 1 8 22 3 4 85 8 1 154 6 109 44 1 4 14 1 7 24 8 4 2 3 16 14 141 6 34 54 50 5 31 2 8 17 5 20 30 113 13 28 48 5 16 1 3 5 4 21 1 9 12 6 1 8 2 1 7 2 40 1 1 1 6 13 8 42 4 3 8 11 1 1 7 24 27 27 6 11 129 17 2 205 3 94 2 24 13 0 1 0 45 10 1 58 1 1 5 1 2 AR 1 AT AU 2 BE 2 CH 2 14 37 CZ 2 3 2 3 DE DK 18 9 18 1 2 4 1 1 7 44 4 2 2 17 2 32 31 ES 5 3 FR GB 6 6 4 4 1 1 9 IL 1 3 IT 1 9 1 2 1 7 42 1 57 74 6 117 18 3 1 5 4 9 JP KR 11 9 18 NL 17 79 47 17 33 68 1 26 NZ 23 5 4 11 RS TH 1 US Others 41 17 88 45 10 9 43 412 2 30 40 44 9 18 4 3 105 8 112 9 1 0 1 1 2 50 2 5 2 2 13 1 10 18 0 9 63 8 28 Note: Argentina (AR). Thailand (TH) and United States of America (US) Source: WIPO Statistics Database. Republic of Korea (KR). October 2012 156 . Spain (ES). US applicants accounted for the largest non-resident share at seven offices. including the CPVO and the offices of Chile and Mexico where they accounted for the majority share. Israel (IL). Germany (DE). Switzerland (CH). the US (B) (PPA data).3. Czech Republic (CZ). United Kingdom (GB).

in accordance with the legislation governing plant variety protection in the territory concerned.0 13.299 1.4.4 4. A high number of grants were also in force at the offices of Japan and the US (B) (PPA data).410 4. the Republic of Korea and Ukraine saw double-digit growth.8 0.922 3. In contrast. World totals are WIPO estimates covering data for 66 offices.000 Growth rate (%) Plant varieties in force 60.8 5. Un ite Office Office Note: United States of America (A) refers to PVPA data.4.4 -3.7 12. The majority of the offices presented in Figure D. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.834 5.2 4.1 4.2 had higher numbers of plant variety grants in force in 2011 than in 2010. Source: WIPO Statistics Database.6 -8.1 8.1 -3. Figure D.300 plant varieties in force in 2011. As shown in Figure D.1 13.9 -3.1 6.987 Plant varieties in force 8.2 -12.252 1. the CPVO accounted for approximately 20% of all plant variety grants in force worldwide in 2011.1 shows the total number of plant variety grants in force worldwide between 1995 and 2011.6 4.509 1. even though the growth rate has slowed since 2007. which is more than double the amount in force in 1995 (around 39.5 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering data for 66 offices.2 4.979 1.163 5. October 2012 Ne w Ze h ala Br Isr a or el n ly n e a s 157 .3 18.000 80. There has been a consistent upward trend in the number of plant varieties in force.4 2.2. 6.1 3.4 7.177 942 2.1 5.607 1.1 6.4 4.0 4.8 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 1.7 2.900 3.5 -13. and United States of America (B) refers to PPA data.4.000 .000 40.7 1.2 Plant varieties in force for selected offices. France and Italy exhibited substantial declines.979 3.600).000 20.927 1.4. There were around 94.3 5. 2011 7.1 Trend in plant varieties in force worldwide Plant varieties in force 100.6 6.8 5.551 1.8 8.4 Plant variety grants in force The protection of plant varieties is granted for a limited period of time.280 Plant varieties in force 13.1 6.Section dplant variety protection D. The offices of the Netherlands. Figure D.213 2.036 3. This reflects the fact that this office has issued the largest number of grants over the past few years.425 str ali a Ca na da Ge rm an y il nc e ng do m a( A) ine a( B) ina nd fic pa ric az nd ea nd tio Ita Uk ra er la er ic er ic fK Po la Ch Fra Of Ja ra Af Au de ty co th Am Am rie ut Ki Fe Ne bli So d Va ian of of pu nt es es ss Pla at St ity d un ite mm Un Co Un ite d St at Ru Re .6 2. October 2012 Figure D.4.

.

F24J 2/13. F24J 2/02. The correspondence between IPC symbols and technology fields is not always clear-cut. H01L 31/04. H01M 8/02. E04D 13/18. H01M 8/22.wipo. F24J 2/16. H01M 8/04. B60L 8/00 F24J 3/08. F03D 7/00. Therefore. F03G 7/05 Fuel cell technology Wind energy Geothermal energy Note: For a definition of IPC symbols. F24J 2/36. E04D 1/30. F24J 2/07. H02J 7/35. H01L 31/052. G02F 1/136. H01M 8/14. H02N 6/00 H01M 4/00.annex a annex. H01M 8/20. F24J 2/38. F24J 2/08. F24J 2/05. G02B 5/10. H01M 8/12. Nonetheless. H01L 31/042. F24J 2/24. F24J 2/04. F24J 2/23. H01M 4/88. glossary and list of abbreviations Annex A Definitions for selected energy-related technology fields Energy-related technologies Solar energy technology International Patent Classification (IPC) Symbols F24J 2/00. F24J 2/42. F03D 3/00. H01M 8/00. H01M 8/10. G05F 1/67. Source: WIPO 159 . F24J 2/12. H01L 25/00. F03G 4/00. H01M 8/06. H01M 8/18. F03G 6/06. it is difficult to capture all patents in a specific technology field. H01M 4/86. F24J 2/06. F03D 11/00. F24J 2/18. F24J 2/10. F24J 2/46. F03D 9/00. F03D 5/00. the IPC-based definitions of the four technologies presented above are likely to capture the vast majority of related patents. H01M 8/16. F24J 2/14. see www. H01L 33/00. H01L 31/00. H01M 4/90. F24J 2/15. H01M 8/24 F03D 1/00. H01L 31/048. H01L 31/18. H01M 8/08.int/classifications/ipc/en/.

side arms. photographic. science and photography. transforming. optical. recording discs. whips. eyes and teeth. cash registers.annex b Annex B International classification of goods and services under the nice agreement Class Headings Class 1 Products Chemicals used in industry. stationery. mica and goods made from these materials and not included in other classes. apparatus for recording. calculating machines. transportable buildings of metal. incubators for eggs Hand tools and implements (hand-operated). suture materials Apparatus for lighting. mordants. varnishes. trunks and travelling bags. unprocessed plastics. chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs. cutlery. dietetic substances adapted for medical use. small items of metal hardware. data processing equipment and computers. safes. cooking. pipes and tubes of metal. asbestos. lubricants. sanitary preparations for medical purposes. life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments. materials for dressings. photographs. refrigerating. ammunition and projectiles. explosives. plastics in extruded form for use in manufacture. horticulture and forestry. fuels (including motor spirit) and illuminants. printing blocks Rubber. as well as in agriculture. animal skins. regulating or controlling electricity. drying. printers and artists Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use. fire-extinguishing apparatus Surgical. nautical. paint brushes. scouring and abrasive preparations. fireworks Precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith. signaling. metals in foil and powder form for painters. candles and wicks for lighting Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations. tempering and soldering preparations. hides. hair lotions. cleaning. printed matter. steam generating. preparations for destroying vermin. raw natural resins. adhesives used in industry Paints. manures. herbicides Common metals and their alloys. dental wax. ventilating. flexible pipes. essential oils. magnetic data carriers. bookbinding material. lacquers. horological and chronometric instruments Musical instruments Paper. apparatus for locomotion by land. ironmongery. cinematographic. cardboard and goods made from these materials. parasols and walking sticks. not included in other classes. heating. polishing. accumulating. gutta-percha. soaps. umbrellas. preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood. typewriters and office requisites (except furniture). water supply and sanitary purposes Vehicles. dentifrices Industrial oils and greases. packing. wetting and binding compositions. ores Machines and machine tools. adhesives for stationery or household purposes. gum. tanning substances. weighing. perfumery. colorants. materials of metal for railway tracks. precious stones. decorators. dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments. fungicides. unprocessed artificial resins. agricultural implements other than hand-operated. instructional and teaching material (except apparatus). stopping and insulating materials. artists’ materials. razors Scientific. not included in other classes. metal building materials. air or water Firearms. food for babies. measuring. checking (supervision). fire extinguishing compositions. not of metal Leather and imitations of leather. cosmetics. disinfectants. plasters. material for stopping teeth. non-electric cables and wires of common metal. artificial limbs. automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus. jewellery. motors and engines (except for land vehicles). switching. medical. harness and saddlery Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13 Class 14 Class 15 Class 16 Class 17 Class 18 160 . transmission or reproduction of sound or images. surveying. dust absorbing. plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes). printers’ type. and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes. orthopedic articles. apparatus and instruments for conducting. machine coupling and transmission components (except for land vehicles). goods of common metal not included in other classes.

live animals. jams. bed and table covers Clothing. pastry and confectionery.annex b Class 19 Class 20 Class 21 Building materials (non-metallic). sails. brushes (except paint brushes). cane. artificial flowers Carpets. padding and stuffing materials (except of rubber or plastics). awnings. frozen. wicker. smokers’ articles. tents. poultry and game. not included in other classes. spices. meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials. baking-powder. repair. industrial analysis and research services. real estate affairs Building construction. glassware. cocoa. natural plants and flowers. tarpaulins. combs and sponges. ribbons and braid. installation services Telecommunications Transport. foodstuffs for animals. rice. shell. footwear. wall hangings (non-textile) Games and playthings. personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals Note: See www. hooks and eyes.int/classifications/nivilo/nice/index. financial affairs. amber. nets. mother-of-pearl. Source: WIPO 161 . veterinary services. fruit drinks and fruit juices. fish. buttons. seeds. office functions Insurance. asphalt. whalebone. packaging and storage of goods. edible oils and fats Coffee. rugs. milk and milk products. matches Class 22 Class 23 Class 24 Class 25 Class 26 Class 27 Class 28 Class 29 Class 30 Class 31 Class 32 Class 33 Class 34 Class Headings Class 35 Class 36 Class 37 Class 38 Class 39 Class 40 Class 41 Class 42 Class 43 Class 44 Class 45 Services Advertising. steelwool. string. mustard. goods (not included in other classes) of wood. travel arrangement Treatment of materials Education. mats and matting. fresh fruits and vegetables. headgear Lace and embroidery. design and development of computer hardware and software Services for providing food and drink. compotes. unworked or semi-worked glass (except glass used in building). ice Agricultural. articles for cleaning purposes. pins and needles. horticulture and forestry services Legal services. raw fibrous textile materials Yarns and threads. brush-making materials. gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes. mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks. business administration. eggs. ices. porcelain and earthenware not included in other classes Ropes.wipo. non-metallic rigid pipes for building. hygienic and beauty care for human beings or animals. bone. dried and cooked fruits and vegetables. temporary accommodation Medical services.htm?lang=EN for further information on the International Classification of Goods and Services under the Nice Agreement. ivory. flour and preparations made from cereals. for textile use Textiles and textile goods. sporting and cultural activities Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto. preserved. non-metallic transportable buildings. mirrors. security services for the protection of property and individuals. horticultural and forestry products and grains not included in other classes. entertainment. sacks and bags (not included in other classes). syrups and other preparations for making beverages Alcoholic beverages (except beers) Tobacco. yeast. tea. vinegar. monuments. artificial coffee. cork. not of metal Furniture. meat extracts. malt Beers. sauces (condiments). bread. tapioca. horn. or of plastics Household or kitchen utensils and containers. treacle. salt. business management. jellies. decorations for Christmas trees Meat. pitch and bitumen. monetary affairs. picture frames. honey. providing of training. sugar. reed. linoleum and other materials for covering existing floors. agriculture. sago.

45 7. 32.Clothing and Accessories Construction. 40 3. 10. 44 8. 15. 41 9. 23. 2. 22. 39 162 . 21 13. 36 1. Training Scientific research. 30. Communications. 25. 27. 24. 26.annex b Class groups defined by Edital® Industry sector Agricultural products and services Management. 16. Education. 28. 33. Infrastructure Pharmaceuticals. Information and Communication technology Transportation and Logistics Source: Edital® Nice classes 29. 19. 42. 12. 38. 37. 20. 4 14. Health. 17. 18. 31. Real estate and Financial services Chemicals Textiles . 43 35. Cosmetics Household equipment Leisure & Education = Leisure. 5. 11. 34 6.

Where an invention involves a microorganism or the use of a microorganism. utility model. “application”). which examines the application and decides whether to grant or refuse protection. Normally. Class: Refers to the classes defined in the Locarno and Nice Classifications. it is useful to compare their respective application and registration class counts. Application abroad: For statistical purposes. Classes indicate the categories of products and services (where applicable) for which trademark or industrial design protection is requested. Applicant: An individual or other legal entity that files an application for a patent. China and Mexico follow a single-class filing system. which describes an application filed by a resident of a foreign state/jurisdiction from the perspective of the office receiving the application.. For example. In order to eliminate the need to deposit a microorganism in each country in which patent protection is sought. disclosure is not always possible in writing but can sometimes only be effected by the deposit. Complex technology: A technology usually defined as one for which the resulting products or processes consist of numerous separately patentable elements. with a specialized institution. the Republic of Korea and the United States of America (US) as well as many European offices have multi-class filing systems. and for which patent ownership is typically widespread. the 163 Budapest Treaty provides that the deposit of a microorganism with any “international depositary authority” (IDA) suffices for the purposes of patent procedure before the national patent offices of all contracting states and before any regional patent office (where such a regional office recognizes the effects of the Treaty). the offices of Japan. Offices use either a single. . There may be more than one applicant in an application. an invention is disclosed by means of a written description. For the statistics presented in this publication. This differs from a “non-resident application”.glossary Glossary This glossary seeks to assist readers in better understanding key technical terms and concepts. smartphones fall into the category of complex technologies. an application filed by an applicant domiciled in France with the JPO is considered an “application abroad” from the perspective of France. an applicant can file a trademark application that specifies one or more of the 45 goods and services classes of the Nice Classification. For example. The offices of Brazil. Application: The procedure for requesting IP rights at an office. Application also refers to a set of documents submitted to an office by the applicant. Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of the European Union (EU): An EU agency that manages a system of plant variety rights covering the 27 EU member states. trademark or industrial design. Budapest Treaty: Disclosure of an invention is a requirement for the granting of a patent. To capture the differences in application numbers across offices. Application date: The date on which the IP office receives an application that meets the minimum requirements. Many of the terms are defined generically (e. but apply to several or all of the various forms of IP covered in this report.) Class count: The number of classes specified in a trademark application or registration. In the international trademark system and at certain offices.g. an application filed by a resident of a given state/jurisdiction with an IP office of another state/jurisdiction. For example. (See “Locarno Classification” and “Nice Classification”. Application date is also referred to as the filing date. requiring a separate application for each class in which applicants seek trademark protection.or multi-class filing system. of a sample of the microorganism. the name of the first-named applicant is used to determine the owner of the application.

) Gross domestic product (GDP): The total unduplicated output of economic goods and services produced within a country as measured in monetary terms. or to nationals of one of these contracting parties. The entitlement to file an international application under the Hague Agreement is limited to natural persons or legal entities having a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment. EAPO. OAPI or OHIM data. European Patent Office (EPO): The EPO is the regional patent office created under the European Patent Convention (EPC). Equivalent application: Applications at regional offices are equivalent to multiple applications. or as one resident and one grant abroad if the applicant resides in a member state. a pharmaceutical product is considered a discrete technology. Filing: See “Application”. in charge of granting European patents for EPC member states.) Grant: A set of exclusive rights legally accorded to the applicant when a patent or utility model is “granted” or “issued”. 164 . one in each of the states that is a member of those offices. EAPO. each application is multiplied by the corresponding number of member states. Designation: The specification in an international registration of a Hague or Madrid member’s jurisdiction in which holders of registrations seek protection for their industrial designs or trademarks. in at least one of the contracting parties to the Agreement. the EPO acts as a receiving office. each grant (registration) is multiplied by the corresponding number of member states. each grant is counted as one grant abroad if the applicant does not reside in a member state. is a multilateral treaty instituting the European Patent Organisation and providing a legal system according to which European patents are granted.glossary Contracting Party (Hague member): A state or intergovernmental organization that is a member of the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. To calculate the number of equivalent grants (registrations) for BOIP. (See “Patent” and “Utility model”. OAPI or OHIM data. one in each of the states that is a member of those offices. For EPO and ARIPO data. an international application may be filed on the basis of habitual residence in the jurisdiction of a contracting party. Direct filing: See “National route”. For EPO and ARIPO data. (See “Patent Family”. In addition. European Patent Convention (EPC): The Convention on the Grant of European Patents. For example. but only under the 1999 Act. Foreign-oriented patent families: A patent family having at least one filing office that is different from the office of the applicant’s origin. or a domicile. To calculate the number of equivalent applications for BOIP. an international searching authority and an international preliminary examining authority. and for which patent ownership is relatively concentrated. The expression “contracting party” includes any state or intergovernmental organization party to the 1999 Act and/or the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement. The EPC permits applicants to file a single application at the European Patent Office (EPO) and to designate any of the participating European countries. The equivalent application concept is used for reporting data by origin. or as one resident and one application abroad if the applicant resides in a member state. commonly known as the European Patent Convention (EPC). Discrete technology: A technology describing products or processes that consist of a single and/or relatively few patentable elements. The equivalent grant (registration) concept is used for reporting data by origin. each application is counted as one application abroad if the applicant does not reside in a member state. or of a member state of an intergovernmental organization that is a contracting party. Under PCT procedures. Equivalent grant (registration): Grants (registrations) at regional offices are equivalent to multiple grants (registrations).

It simplifies the process of multinational registration by reducing the requirement to file separate applications with each IP office. The term of protection is usually 15 years for most jurisdictions. which facilitates the acquisition of industrial design rights in multiple jurisdictions. trademarks. The system also simplifies the subsequent management of the industrial design. Presently. IP protection must be maintained (see “Maintenance”). the Hague route enables an application for international registration of industrial designs to be filed using the Hague system.typically a “culture collection” . Hague and Madrid systems. the International Bureau of WIPO acts as a receiving office for international applications from all contracting states/parties. producers of phonograms in their recordings. the Hague Act and the Geneva Act). 165 . utility models. since it is possible to record changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step. If the registration is not refused by the IP office of a designated Hague member. This system consists of several international treaties (the London Act (currently frozen). poems and plays.capable of storing microorganisms that has acquired the status of an "international depositary authority" under the Budapest Treaty and that provides for the receipt. musical works. and architectural designs. International Depositary Authority (IDA): A scientific institution . Industrial design registrations are valid for a limited period. To remain in force. The Hague system makes it possible for an applicant to register up to 100 industrial designs in multiple jurisdictions by filing a single application with the International Bureau of WIPO. They refer to the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a useful article. paintings. there are 41 such authorities.glossary Hague international application: An application for the international registration of an industrial design filed under the WIPO-administered Hague system. including compositions of lines or colors or any three-dimensional forms that give a special appearance to a product or handicraft. However. The holder of a registered industrial design has exclusive rights against unauthorized copying or imitation of the design by third parties. Hague route: An alternative to the Paris route (direct route). films. Hague international registration: An international registration issued via the Hague system. and copyright. It also handles processing tasks with respect to these applications and the subsequent management of Hague and Madrid registrations. Intellectual property (IP): Refers to creations of the mind: inventions. An application for international registration of an industrial design leads to its recording in the International Register and the publication of the registration in the International Designs Bulletin. Hague system: The abbreviated form of the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. images and designs used in commerce. the international registration will have the same effect as a registration made in that jurisdiction. In Force: Refers to IP rights that are currently valid. literary and artistic works. Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances. acceptance and storage of microorganisms and the furnishing of samples thereof. industrial designs and geographical indications of source. and symbols. differences in legislation do exist. names. IP is divided into two categories: industrial property. which includes literary and artistic works such as novels. photographs and sculptures. notably in China (which provides for a 10-year term from the application date) and the US (which provides for a 14-year term from the date of registration). International Bureau (IB): In the context of the PCT. which includes patents. Industrial design: Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of industrial products and handicrafts. and those of broadcasters in their radio and television programs. artistic works such as drawings.

which receives and accepts it. 1961. subclasses and groups.glossary International Patent Classification (IPC): The IPC provides for a hierarchical system of language-independent symbols for the classification of patents and utility models according to the different areas of technology to which they pertain. The LOC comprises a list of 32 classes and their respective subclasses. A trademark can be maintained indefinitely by paying renewal fees. or the storage of such a microorganism by the IDA. the invention must be novel. which facilitates the acquisition of trademark rights in multiple jurisdictions. utility models and industrial designs can only be maintained for a limited number of years.) Microorganism deposit: the transmittal of a microorganism to an international depositary authority (IDA). The Madrid system simplifies the process of multinational trademark registration by reducing the requirement to file separate applications at each office. Madrid international registration: An international registration issued via the Madrid system. established under the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol and administered by WIPO. however. Maintenance: An act by the applicant to keep the IP grant/registration valid (in force). and the decision to register or refuse the trademark remains in the hands of national and/or regional office(s). UPOV provides and promotes an effective system of plant variety protection. and an indication of the classes and subclasses into which they fall. Madrid system: The abbreviated form of the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks. since it is possible to record changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step. with explanatory notes and an alphabetical list of goods in which industrial designs are incorporated. the 166 international registration will have the same effect as a registration made in that jurisdiction. with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants for the benefit of society. An application for international registration of a trademark leads to its recording in the International Register and the publication of the registration in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks. classes. To obtain patent rights. or both transmittal and storage. National Phase Entry (NPE): See “National Phase under the PCT”. (See “Renewal”. . The symbols contain information relating to sections. the Madrid route enables an application for international registration of a trademark to be filed using the Madrid system. patents. Trademark rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the trademark registration office(s). The Madrid system makes it possible for an applicant to register a trademark in a large number of countries by filing a single application at their national or regional IP office that is party to the system. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV): An intergovernmental organization established by the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants ("UPOV Convention"). It also simplifies the subsequent management of the mark. Madrid route: An alternative to the Paris route (direct route). Locarno Classification (LOC): The abbreviated form of the International Classification for Industrial Designs under the Locarno Agreement used for registering industrial designs. primarily by paying the required fee to the IP office of the state/jurisdiction providing protection. If the registration is not refused by the IP office of a designated Madrid member. The fee is also known as a “maintenance fee”. involve an inventive step and be industrially applicable. Madrid international application: An application for the international registration of a trademark filed under the WIPO-administered Madrid Agreement or Madrid Protocol. as judged by a person skilled in the art. Registration through the Madrid system does not create an “international” trademark. which was adopted on December 2. Invention: A new solution to a technical problem.

which remains under the control of the national or regional patent offices. The PCT system facilitates the filing of patent applications worldwide and makes it possible to seek patent protection for an invention simultaneously in each of a large number of countries by first filing a single "international" patent application. applicants are obliged to disclose their inventions to the public in a manner that enables others. when filing an application in countries other than the original country of filing. It establishes the “right of priority” that enables an IP applicant. and consists of the entry and processing of the international application in the individual countries or regions in which the applicant seeks protection for an invention. the Paris route (also called the “direct route”) enables individual IP applications to be filed directly with an office that is a signatory of the Paris Convention. plicants for inventions that are new. Non-Resident: For statistical purposes. Paris route: An alternative to the PCT. a “non-resident” application refers to an application filed with the IP office of or acting for a state/jurisdiction in which the first-named applicant in the application does not have residence. National route is also called the “direct route” or “Paris route”. skilled in the art. For example. the country of origin is determined by the residence of the assignee instead of that of the applicant. non-obvious and commercially applicable. Patent opposition: An administrative process for disputing the validity of a granted patent that is often limited to a specific time period after the patent has been granted.glossary National Phase under the PCT: This follows the international phase of the PCT procedure. 167 . In return. The patent system is designed to encourage innovation by providing innovators with time-limited exclusive legal rights. For example. The granting of patents. Non-resident applications are sometimes referred to as foreign applications. at the EPO anyone may oppose a patent within nine months of publication of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin. to claim priority of an earlier application filed up to 12 months previously. is carried out in what is called the "national phase" or "regional phase”. “Hague route” or “Madrid route”). Patent: A set of exclusive rights granted by law to ap- National route: Applications for IP protection filed directly with the national office of or acting for the relevant state/jurisdiction (see also “PCT route”. the “origin” of an application means the country/territory of residence of the first-named applicant in the application. It is valid for a limited period of time (generally 20 years). filed in one or more countries/jurisdictions to protect the same invention. A non-resident grant or registration is an IP right issued on the basis of a non-resident application. Paris Convention: The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883). Patent Family: A set of interrelated patent applications Origin (Country/Region): For statistical purposes. 1883. signed on March 20. to replicate the invention. during which patent holders can commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive basis. an application filed with the JPO by an applicant residing in France is considered a non-resident application from the perspective of this office. PCT Filing: Abbreviated form of “PCT International Application”. thus enabling innovators to appropriate a return on their innovative activity. Nice Classification (NCL): The abbreviated form of the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of Registering Marks under the Nice Agreement. Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): The PCT is an international treaty. In some cases (notably in the US). The Nice Classification is divided into 34 classes for goods and 11 for services. Hague or Madrid routes. is one of the most important IP treaties. administered by WIPO.

Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) of the US: Under the PVPA. and concludes with the national phase. hybrids and newly found seedlings. Publication date: The date on which an IP application is disclosed to the public. distinct. In jurisdictions where a request for examination is obligatory to start the examination process. during which an international search and possibly a preliminary examination are performed. including cultivated sports. However. 168 Plant Patent Act (PPA) of the US: Under the law commonly known as the “Plant Patent Act”. Priority date: The filing date of the application on the basis of which priority is claimed. The PCT system simplifies the process of multiple national patent filings by reducing the requirement to file a separate application in each jurisdiction. before a given date. These work products can include the results of a favorable written opinion by an ISA. the US protects all sexually reproduced plant varieties and tuber propagated plant varieties excluding fungi and bacteria. whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant. the subject matter of the application becomes “prior art”. . the breeder’s right is only granted (title of protection is issued) where the variety is new. uniform. other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. (b) distinguished from any other plant grouping by the expression of at least one of the said characteristics. On that date. and (c) considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated unchanged.glossary PCT International Application: A patent application filed through the WIPO-administered Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). during which national and regional patent offices decide on the patentability of an invention according to national law. Plant Variety Grant: Under the UPOV Convention. The PCT international application process starts with the international phase. whereby patent examiners can make use of the work products of another office or offices. Pending patent application: In general. and patent rights remain limited to the jurisdiction of the patent-granting authority. which. nor the application withdrawn. a patent application filed with a patent office and for which no patent has yet been granted or refused nor the application withdrawn. may obtain a patent therefor. “variety” means a plant grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank. PCT route: Patent applications filed or patents granted based on PCT international applications. the decision of whether to grant patent rights remains in the hands of national and regional patent offices. irrespective of whether the conditions for the grant of a breeder’s right are fully met. the written opinion of an IPEA or the international preliminary report on patentability (IPRP) issued within the framework of the PCT. Prior art: All information disclosed to the public about an invention. stable and has a suitable denomination. an international treaty administered by WIPO. mutants. By requesting this procedure. Information on prior art can assist in determining whether the claimed invention is new and involves an inventive step (is nonobvious) for the purposes of international searches and international preliminary examination. applicants can generally obtain patents from participating offices more quickly. can be (a) defined by the expression of the characteristics resulting from a given genotype or combination of genotypes. PCT system: The PCT. in any form. Plant Variety: According to the UPOV Convention. PCT-Patent Prosecution Highway Pilots (PCT-PPH): A number of bilateral agreements signed between patent offices enable applicants to request a fast-track examination procedure. facilitates the acquisition of patent rights in a large number of jurisdictions. a pending application may refer to an application for which a request for examination has been received but for which no patent has been granted or refused.

The procedure varies among European offices but usually involves a translation into the national language and/or a payment of fees.) Research and development (R&D) expenditure: The money spent on creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge. Validation: Procedure by which patent protection is validated post-grant at the offices designated in an EPO patent grant. kept in force). (See “Maintenance”. or by filing an international application through the Madrid system. Trademark: A trademark is a distinctive sign that iden- Regional route (or regional direct): Applications for IP protection filed or granted based on applications filed with a regional IP office. tifies certain goods or services as those produced or provided by a specific person or enterprise. Regional IP offices in operation include: the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO). Unlike patents. The owner can prevent unauthorized use of the trademark. 169 . This usually consists of paying renewal fees to an IP office at regular intervals. including knowledge related to human culture and society. “short-term patents” or “innovation patents”. particularly in the case of trademarks. For example. Resident: For statistical purposes. Trademarks can be registered by filing an application at the relevant national or regional office(s). the Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO). (See “Industrial design” or “Trademark”. the registration may lapse. Trademark rights are limited to the jurisdiction of the authority that registers the trademark. Registration: A set of exclusive rights legally accorded to the applicant when an industrial design or trademark is “registered” or “issued”. If renewal fees are not paid. Registered Community Design (RCD): A registration issued by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) based on a single application filed directly with this office by an applicant seeking protection within the EU as a whole. be renewed indefinitely. the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) of the EU. the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP). Utility Model: A special form of patent right granted by a state/jurisdiction to an inventor or the inventor’s assignee for a fixed period of time. The procedures for registering trademarks are governed by the rules and regulations of national and regional IP offices. Renewal: The process by which the protection of an IP right is maintained (i.glossary Regional Application/Grant (Registration): An application filed with or granted (registered) by a regional IP office having jurisdiction over more than one country. The terms and conditions for granting a utility model are slightly different from those for normal patents (including a shorter term of protection and less stringent patentability requirements). Resident applications are sometimes referred to as domestic applications. The term “utility model” can also describe what are known in certain countries as “petty patents”. an application filed with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) by a resident of Japan is considered a resident application for the JPO.e. and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. a “resident” application refers to an application filed with the IP office of or acting for the state/jurisdiction in which the first-named applicant in the application has residence. so as to prevent consumers and the public in general from being misled.. trademarks can be maintained indefinitely by paying renewal fees. A resident grant/registration is an IP right issued on the basis of a resident application.) Registrations are issued to applicants to make use of and exploit their industrial design or trademark for a limited period of time and can. the European Patent Office (EPO). The holder of a registered trademark has the legal right to exclusive use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered. in some cases. or a confusingly similar mark.

glossary World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): A United Nations specialized agency with a mandate from its Member States to promote the protection of IP throughout the world through cooperation among states and in collaboration with other international organizations. WIPO is dedicated to developing a balanced and effective international IP system that rewards creativity. 170 . stimulates innovation and contributes to economic development while safeguarding the public interest.

 list of abbreviations List of abbreviations ARIPO BOIP CPVO EAPO EPO EU GDP IB ID IDA IP IPC JPO KIPO OAPI OHIM PCT PCT NPE PPA PPP PVPA R&D RCD SIPO UM UPOV USPTO WIPO African Regional Intellectual Property Organization Benelux Office for Intellectual Property Community Plant Variety Office of the European Union Eurasian Patent Organization European Patent Office European Union Gross Domestic Product International Bureau Industrial Design International Depositary Authority Intellectual Property International Patent Classification Japan Patent Office Korean Intellectual Property Office African Intellectual Property Organization Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent Cooperation Treaty National Phase Entry Plant Patent Act of the United States of America Purchasing Power Parity Plant Variety Protection Act of the United States of America Research and Development Registered Community Design State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China Utility Model International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants United States Patent and Trademark Office World Intellectual Property Organization 171 .

0 n.176 0 84 17. . 21 184 . 2 0 n. . n..717 140 .212 12 394 3 ... 1 32 0 1..111 .a. 6 0 519 n.. 2. 2.... 28 0 n. n.. 283 2 . .. 0 783 NonResident . 8 .154 193 .847 185 9 .368 11. 1 36 2 366 157 1 340 1..906 5. 35. . 6 766 ...a. .686 .a.. . 139 274 71 146 127 ...012 2 65 1 . 2 1 24....608 1.3. 8.statistical tables .486 . . 262 2 . 43 .a..357 44 230 12...792 526..a.383 2..a. 644 .. ... 62 1 2 .690 566 10 n.871 763 ... ..3) Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso (2. . .471 0 n.. .a.453 110.829 181 4 183 . . 2 . . ... n.. 2 22 3 6 112 7 .754 .. n. 1.770 . 30.. 10 ..031 1 79 .a..a.647 28 386 . 11 897 ... 19 .. .a.725 636 ..739 1. .929 0 118 16. 1. ..981 ..528 52 657 435.. 14 . 26..199 64. 3 102 29 4 10 307 200 2 11... 2...... 2.... 1 . 44 Origin 3 n.. . 136 . 1 7 . 2 0 45 9 n. 4. . . 59 83 . 3 94 .802 PCT International Applications Receiving Office n.143 276 12 . . 140 306 71 1. . 3 2 0 3 n.348 11.a.a.a. 251 246 .705 .... 8 880 Resident .. . . .. . 8 803 . .. .412 13. .a..6) Burundi Cambodia Cameroon (6) Canada Chad (6) Chile China China.. n... Hong Kong SAR China. 21 0 ..a.. 10 183 .. 138 511 Applications by Office Name Afghanistan African Intellectual Property Organization African Regional Intellectual Property Organization Albania Algeria Andorra Angola (5) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina (2. 630 ...patents statistical tables Table P1: Patent applications by patent office and origin.. 0 126 Origin 0 n. n. 6.701 .. 121 .... 8 97 172 .... 2011 Equivalent Applications by Origin Total (1) 4 n.. .. 25..a. . 12 . 55 . ..a.a.... 230 62 . 1. . .713 216 3 145 . 71 102 . .393 418 115 9 36 402 2. 9 .. n. 4. ...759 .654 .a.953 . 0 4 3 0 1 25 6 0 1... 18. n. .191 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 564 0 28 0 3 0 3 2. n. 0 n. . 18. Saint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil (2.402 0 0 57 1 0 3 2 47 10 0 26 148 PCT National Phase Entry Office .430 205 ... . . 1 289 6 6. .199 . . . ...a..a... . 2. .. . .. .a...583 13. 4 n..526 2... n....a.427 12 157 1 2 1 48 4 4. 619 . Macao SAR Colombia Congo (6) Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire (6) Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Total . 23.493 60 1.357 .312 56 1. 8 72 0 n. 2. 22...a... 339 415.4) Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados (5) Belarus Belgium Belize Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Bonaire.a.346 9 9 0 0 110 14 1. . . 19..

983 . ..330 13 n.172 1 5 1 2 1. . . .079 7.986 ... . 15 Resident 8.537 .024 70. 197 .695 3 38.946 .. 0 n. .a..821 81 100 181 .....793 1. 5. 14 0 n.. .525 .018 .838 .526 927 93 55. .898 1.650 14. 339 694 2.3) Lao People’s Democratic Republic (5) Latvia Lebanon (4) Liberia Libya Liechtenstein (7) Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar (5) Malaysia Mali (6) Malta Total 8.a. 1 .927 6 267 PCT International Applications Receiving Office 4 n.a.026 10. 138 46. 1.. ..847 . 1 158 172.. .a.572 1 1 5 41 4 100 n...a..055 1 11. . .281 4 1. 6. 183 282 ..764 ..519 . 173 .statistical tables . 9 NonResident 39 .679 25 472.874 1 23 9 4 1 5 17 1 1 0 86 25 246 2 263 0 18 PCT National Phase Entry Office 37 ..415 77 .732 197 . 1. 253 36 21 33.574 .061 424 n. 257 1 .. 260 12...444 .586 33.610 400 1. 48 ..560 142.a. 1.297 . 492 . . 268 22 1. . .157 142 2.... 327 .a.. 134 .580 40 1..452 2.. .. 0 0 n. 6 .. 132 118 .698 0 58 0 0 0 0 131 18 897 8 8..687 .516 65.022 41 n.774 16...209 . 2.. .. 494 1. 5 2.230 3... .a. . 255 698 71 42...895 124 2... 195 173 .a. 37. 11. . 102 27 . .314 2 7 33 33 1 35 n. 678 0 6 3 29 1 9 14 30.. 561 6.. 51.852 2 93 0 0 0 0 140 43 1... 10 .841 541 .. 77 3. .591 .. 398 59.. . .. 15 43 58 5.. 62 536 71..a.a. 245 2.754 . ...a. 728 ..a...456 4. .498 0 n.438 3 0 7 18.972 n. 744 ...patents Applications by Office Name Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2. 22 4 n. . n..a.a. 5 4 52 4. 8 .771 . . 15 3. ..... 108 128 61 6. 1. 6. 113 4 4.. 251 0 0 Origin 4 1 1.655 ..131 10.360 8.. 67 5. 236 5 15 28. 140 .895 80.. n.751 .458 . 323 48 1 1 1...3) Egypt El Salvador Estonia Eurasian Patent Organization European Patent Office Finland France Gabon (6) Gambia (8) Georgia Germany Ghana Greece (2. 318 . .452 ..349 . . 5 1.376 .... n. 690 1. ...485 .417 75 1.886 9..794 20 287.721 113 342. n.291 5. 95. 331 .. 13 69. 16 .a. 1 2 820 187 3..258 5 24 13 6 1 .565 3 8 15 727 8 272 n. .3) Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic (2.. .. 6 Equivalent Applications by Origin Total (1) 8. Origin 26 .227 ....275 ... 1 0 415 1.774 n. ...893 1.. 93 85 3 1.4) Ecuador (2.781 5.3) Grenada Guatemala Guinea (6) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia International Bureau Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya (2..3) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan (2.076 .. .821 27. 67 1.099 .030 360 317 120 .695 324 15.a. 2 662 50 8.a.717 607 n.a..... 10 n..a. .057 .. 1.. 4 618 . 4 ..450 5. .

047 . n.a.010 244 75 . 12.a. 40.. 40 Resident . 6. . . 16 14.. .209 .. 0 n. ...352 7 . 509 ... 1.396 1.056 224 442 .....140 98 .a. 347 . . 64 .. ...738 33 11 .. 21 . . . . 968 4. 1.556 .a.708 . 93 1. 49 ..863 142 111 30 191 10 3 32.325 8 139 70 41 75 298 4.129 3. 337 446 .462 4. 990 ..a. .937 120 412 . 953 441 365 1..049 n.924 108 1. . n.845 312 5 0 Origin 0 4 225 26 1 2 19 19 0 3.067 1 240 86 2 4.. 167 0 0 0 18 0 n. 11.480 37.626 460 ..3) Solomon Islands South Africa Spain Sri Lanka (2. 2 2 3. 6...585 1. 656 3.statistical tables .879 571 .073 20....433 ...122 . . .. 2.3. .990 3 69 83 880 .. 178..116 ... . ...196 4. . . . ...002 . 9. . 1. . . . 68 82 857 ....726 18 . 15 9 1 20. 7.045 .... .. 6 20 207 48 0 10... 7 21.. Origin . ..597 31.a.477 7 41 PCT International Applications Receiving Office n.... . 53 53 . 2.065 6 110 20 169 .123 646 . .. ...009 5 0 PCT National Phase Entry Office .564 243 .414 .495 . 3 35 21 32 22 468 287 1 14.043 1 1..055 9 179 103 1.. 996 277 0 0 0 355 0 n. 180 .3) Montenegro (5) Morocco Namibia (8) Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger (6) Nigeria (5) Norway Oman (5) Pakistan Panama Paraguay (2.341 2.4) Mexico Monaco Mongolia (2..patents Applications by Office Name Marshall Islands Mauritius (2. 8 33 68 3 1.. 1. 0 0 1. 37 NonResident . .168 3. 654 ..718 10.529 432 1.. ... 1. 861 420 347 1.287 .413 3 23 1.589 196 235 . ....794 257 453 . 310 4...430 225 . 2.043 .245 3..004 1.890 11 39 14..a.. .501 . 3 Equivalent Applications by Origin Total (1) 2 41 1.454 193 1.424 26..034 97 1. . 31.. 8. . 92 21 18 39 186 3. 2. 0 17 0 n.. n..503 328 1 0 5 698 0 1 10 1 6 21 235 95 0 10. 6. . 6 4 26 ... 4.a.919 .a. . n.143 .. 229 ..895 6.a.. 54 13 ...778 .039 7 15 12. 138..890 992 29 187. 0 n.301 n.. 309 1 36 55 2 1......021 . 10 547 63 37 . . 174 ..049 .. ..776 . 457 49 80 n. 2 17 5..447 2 26 996 1 4 2 1 0 147 2 19 3 1 662 59 125 0 319 1.....000 ...463 41...a. .597 . . . 60 1...376 3. . .. 643 ...5) Sudan Swaziland (8) Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic T F Y R of Macedonia Total .a.3) Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (5) Samoa San Marino (4) Sao Tome and Principe (5) Saudi Arabia Senegal (6) Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone (8) Singapore Slovakia Slovenia (2.. .729 12 2 2 3. 6 14. ..a. .

October 2012 175 .. 4.226 0 49.. 11 n... 70 5 2 928 .a.. 1 4 14 .561 . 3.885 ... as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of applications.582 687 556 . 131 n. 157 . .598 3. 1. .137 16 15 5...a. 4.. the applications by origin data may be incomplete. not applicable .916 . . 6. Origin .312 194 49.924 ... 97.750 20 282 . 5..113 .a... 1 . NonResident 1 2..303 n.....505 19 .649 .. Equivalent Applications by Origin Total (1) 22 1..321 ..937 .343 . .560 44 . .. . 2.. 228 .. 22. . Therefore.. 2. 1 0 Origin 0 67 0 8 539 0 2 141 38 4. not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 2. . (6) The African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) acts as the receiving office for PCT applications. ... 0 n. . 33 300 7 .848 0 49..a.patents Applications by Office Name Tajikistan Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda (8) Ukraine United Arab Emirates (5) United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania (8) United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Total 5 3.a. . n.265 2 2 3.259 .. .. (1) Equivalent patent applications by origin data are incomplete.832 667 274 . 2. 2. 137 51 23..569 2 142... Resident 4 927 . (4) The office did not report resident applications.604 .statistical tables .565 3.298 61 304 1 90 321 9 1 6 PCT International Applications Receiving Office 0 51 0 6 279 0 n... 1. 247. (3) 2010 data are reported for applications by origin.150 ..a.. 1. . . (5) The International Bureau acts as the receiving office for PCT applications.a. (8) The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) acts as the receiving office for PCT applications.945 . (2) 2010 data are reported for applications by office. 15.. (7) The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IFPI) acts as the receiving office for PCT applications.... 503.938 3 432.. . 257 .253 ..260 37 . 255..997 ..051 5 1 0 2 18 1 0 2 PCT National Phase Entry Office . n.

.150 .112 841 10.855 185 56 6 436 2. ..022 ..597 .036 29..527 123 1. 422 97 1.213 237 11. 28 483 129 1.158 690 9 62 17 86 151 139 749 6. 3 16.. . .....263 4... n.827 34..066 527.. 199 3...937 .. 20 1. 12 36 Equivalent Grants by Origin Total (1) 1 1 94 6 2 104 136 6.260 4 3 89 88 n... 1 93 .258 62. Macao SAR Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2. 28 . 40... 18.a.113 5. 87 .162 4. and patents in force..a.208 . 5. . 79 6 109 117 .766 108 72. 115 . 109 1. .120 636 Name Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria (5) Azerbaijan Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Bermuda Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil (2..399 ..474 541 ..511 . 285 105. 85 6 1. 909 59.617 3 195 118. 314 .217 12 57 1 29 4 805 18 136 1 10.003 435. 479 39 Resident . 20.. 2011   Grants by Office Total ...251 . ..719 .. . 128 .patents Table P2: Patent grants by patent office and origin. 2.050 45 617 38 184 154 1 687 6. 137. 61 4. . 67 . 1.. .. 8.815 104 8.612 .791 228 171 9.546 . .. 32.842 ... 36.243 73 ...939 33. ..974 43 583 37 173 101 1 362 47 37 .267 1..365 424 . 6 0 1. n.013 172.917 .346 1 628 3 In Force by Office Total ..293 n. .877 1. .a.. 1.3. .398 133 3.3) Denmark Dominican Republic Ecuador (2..644 696..187 1.066 . ..... . .915 1...979 245 2....001 5.statistical tables ..610 188 9 .585 718 8.059 .4...3. ..5) Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Canada Chad Chile China China.368 ... 64 4..290 110 .463 10. 3. 7. 467 3 Non-Resident .762 .225 429 2... 2. 61 . . . 21 1.625 . 746 .198 118 . . 61 32 222 32.5) Egypt Estonia Eurasian Patent Organization European Patent Office Finland France (5) Georgia Germany Ghana Greece (2.a.766 4. 112 17.347 76 2 34 1 11 53 0 325 6.5) Guatemala 176 ...010 109 . 104 112.453 . Hong Kong SAR (5) China.

.710 .542..112 145 .720 Resident . . .000 1 2 2. 3 1 . 376 1.892 41..680 . ..3) Malawi Malaysia (5) Malta Mauritania Mauritius (2.240 5 46 394 853 . . ..361 ...323 40 1.208 287 3 97. . .. 469 321 .168 .865 4. . . ...485 13 96 406 979 ..612 1.123 49 .489 52.. 112 6. . 11. 625 21. 2.767 326 .060 .042 4....645 634 . . 385 1..594 15 1.462 Equivalent Grants by Origin Total (1) 1 2 643 124 2.258 Non-Resident ... .370 700 .392 . .286 3 34 74 2 20 51 2...992 51. 1. 1..044 24. 12.. .statistical tables . .. 16... 85 39 5 ... . 94.700 . ... 1. 6....152 . 250 5.....096 320 581 .604 38 1. 440 309 ...patents Name Guinea Honduras Hungary Iceland (5) India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan (5) Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan (2.924 1. 22.. . .612 . 1 160 6 776 ...384 ..212 2 304.3.711 4 28 170 285 15 1 550 107 912 5 1 599 94 1 23 473 80 50 12 148 1 2 1 14.. 11 26 50 .. .. 8 11.353 1 .. ..713 35. 2. . 275 4.104 6.. 150 285 61 4. 245 8 50 12 126 .. 88.338 38..5) Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines (5) Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea   Grants by Office Total . 9 6 1. . 96 432 .129 1.....887 . 89.729 25 279 . 106 179 .. 40. . 2....227 1.346 417 .5) Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg (5) Madagascar (2.237 16. 55 4. .....3..900 . .005 177 .714 In Force by Office Total . ... 151 445 67 5. 96 65 55 . . .043 1 .203 .. 1. 310 0 ..877 19 33 2 1. 195 734 5... . 197.. .527 35..135 3. 109 180 ... 2. ..170 .608 ...4) Mexico Monaco Mongolia (2. 255 5.932 ... 678.989 96 . 72. 238... 29 12 .380 .... 409 . ..007 2. . ...

.. not applicable ..113. .. ..905 17.5) South Africa (5) Spain Sri Lanka (2. . (5) 2010 data are reported for patents in force.. 123 .. 1..158 8 108 2 33 53 133 In Force by Office Total 799 14..812 504 .626 1 108 .. ... (1) Equivalent patents granted by origin data are incomplete..992 108. 197 125 . Equivalent Grants by Origin Total (1) 72 456 22. .990 ..061 .149 35 18.. therefore..253 .. (4) The office did not report resident patents granted. 7. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of applications for which patents were granted..a....patents Name Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Singapore Slovakia Slovenia (2.177 1 2 5 10 22 228 1 100 29 2. 7.933 .796 .614 220 .068 223 17 10.393 168.465 267 9 4.628 863 679 . . 445..902 .. 4.617 1. 770 .. 253 10. 17 . 1.. 5 143 . ..879 12 71 . 1. . 9. . . 842 243 .485 6. 5..3. not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database..844 . . .039 368 . .339 . ... 4.3) Swaziland Sweden (5) Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic T F Y R of Macedonia Tajikistan Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Viet Nam Zimbabwe   Grants by Office Total 63 430 29. ....227 9 2. 60 . Non-Resident 2 24 9. 235 .132 143. .578 ... ... 80.173 224. ..999 .119 5.771 . 119 . 5 900 ...275 201.530 32.565 . .834 .. . . . .505 13 179 .. 252 .. (2) 2010 data are reported for patents granted by office.558 . 484 50 241 567 2.. ... 893 .043 105 557 1.. . 2. 1. grants by origin data may be incomplete.statistical tables .... 1.380 2.949 317 250 5. Resident 61 406 20..296 2. n. 1. 3. October 2012 178 . .. .... 24. . (3) 2010 data are reported for patents granted by origin. 0 757 .. 5.439 ....729 198 284 . ...159 .... 2...181 115. 48 .. . 179 .660 ...564 2 1 23 231 7 11 1...

013 1.745 7.. n.a.221 7.a.a.108 ... . 5.434 447 288 9. ..723 3. 269 8.822 1.. . 2011 Equivalent Application Class Count by Origin Total (1) 195 488 3. . . 218 3 10 24 361 Designated Madrid Member n.. n. n... 22.a.a. . .a..215 255.722 3.135 8. 2. 3 n.177 2. n.822 600 1 646 29. 73.124 . n.328 1.965 2.. n. 69. . 6..496 22.390 127.062 8.425 3.625 6 6. n. .a. n.645 1. n. 60. ..570 2....a.. 8. 1.a. 0 n. n... 1..a. 32 n. 0 21 0 n.a.a. 15.a.975 . 8. .441 1 44 .a. 1..a.371 15.792 .a.522 n.240 16. 1. 43. 4.a. n.. 19.058 .925 8..213 . n. n. 60.116 4.a.725 3.a.a.227 .493 . n.084 . Saint Eustatius and Saba (4) Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana (4) Brazil (3) Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Cambodia Cameroon Canada Central African Republic Chile (9) China China.822 n.635 8.297 .242 11.954 141. .184 n. 673 4.251 61.. n.a. 788 n... 203 n. n.689 1.a.735 .289 561 4.169 n.a.a. n.867 37.a.370 . n.a.914 1. 48..921 . 70.184 n. 14.666 5 54.236 Resident ..192 . 17.920 n.a... . n.. n. 133. . .815 8.632 142 . n. 22. 2. ..441.a.418. 3.791 .a.420 3..a.084 . 10. .a. 1.976 .280 n. 11.a. 0 3 n.a..a..572 12.004 864 n..199 .a.a. 957 39 120.599 3.497 2.007 125 12.493 .. n. 2.306 3.711 . 3. n.590 29. 10.a.927 172. n. 479 . 20.199 152. 664 n.132 2.759 ...565 Application Class Count by Office Name Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda (4) Argentina (2.732 2..a.149 n. Macao SAR Colombia Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Total ..317 1.905 3. n. 13..246 76.statistical tables .717 106. 9..565 10..254 3.224 46...424 38.. 427 3. .118 n.886 214 70. n.a.a..917 1.367 1..054 n.456 677 .577 8.a.620 2.774 179 .a.827 22.091 2.164 1.791 .273.476 .. 7.632 n.a. n. n.. 112. n. 6..057 144.a.423 Madrid International Applications Origin n.trademarks Table T1: Trademark applications by office and origin. 75.294 4.a. .081 .. ..a.a. 987 803 5 n. n..4) Armenia Aruba Australia Austria (4) Azerbaijan (4) Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus (4) Belgium (5) Belize Benelux (6) Benin Bermuda Bhutan (4) Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Bonaire..a.a.. 189 n.a.. n. Hong Kong SAR China.a.208 1. 2.252 n. .a.350 12. 6.975 69.a. ..050 165 46 8.974 1.572 12. 0 n. 1.067 7 35 149 155.a. 1.663 1. . .462 Non-Resident .229 15.925 8..a. n.a.a.a. .703 .457 765 1.365 .. 2. n.047 .a.868 11.729 .

54 9 n..343 6 2 30 18.118 .a.598 719 871 338 273 10...232 1. 1. 35 n. 8. .. 7 n.028 ...182 4..a. n.750 4. n..399 1. 10.825 2 4.. 8..120. n.936 .564 n.a..a..217 6. n..a.. .166 . 13. 1. n. n.427 4...970 n.028 .. 271 .175 .730 n. n.103 7.a..8) Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana (4) Greece (4) Grenada Guatemala (2.301 205.817 8.514 12.397 .762 1.a. 2. 13.454 181.298 .974 1.a.. 103 113 n.8) Jordan Kazakhstan (4) Kenya (4) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho (4) Liberia (4) Libya Liechtenstein (4) Lithuania Luxembourg (5) Total 3.750 .a.978 n. n. 189 3.a. n.028 322 1 16.466 13.961 2.814 5. 3. 4.054 .a. 1..170 345..a.470 n..397 .391 .913 5 39.a. n. 8. 1. . 1.778 .950 .949 .. 1.737 255 71.trademarks Application Class Count by Office Name Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4) Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador (2.804 n. 7 4.392 85. .997 14.623 n. .400 n.202 2.051 2. 16.610 16.224 288. .statistical tables .999 22 70 n..a. 3.a.560 198.. ..a. 4. 15 n. 7.723 2. n. 0 8. 5.a..a. 0 0 n.. 3 3.a.. 2. 4.a. 9.355 n.925 .660 1 105 727 9.. 6.. n.a.a.812 12.872 2. n.a.625 11 8 577 162 112 38. ..868 .067 19 161 110...a.. 690 818 n.a.. 7.a..742 2.851 194.715 n.793 n..a. n.330 n.388 .a.a.a..a.161 .446 12..a. . 7. n.a.789 1.a.. n.766 .141 .393 3.225 .845 n..472 1..445 11.397 .434 2.a.. .634 . .. 7.129 . .117 .3) Egypt (4) El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France (4.. 1.. 42 n.a.a. 7. 189. n. .. 3.059 22.501 176. 2.994 3.a. Non-Resident 3.667 Madrid International Applications Origin 0 350 n.a.809 .a.847 24.468 . .997 6.a.538 n.a. . 2. 7..865 8.054 n. .756 . 5. 2.791 2..163 n. 4.152 n.466 5.454 5.a. 1.750 4.. 15..124 .a. 10..a..306 n. .. n. 180 .936 . .904 1. 1.020 . .. 1. 572 .833 n. n..124 .697 2.377 . Equivalent Application Class Count by Origin Total (1) 86 115. .153 1. .. .a.a.994 3.a.195 11.722 3. . 8. 1.. 109 n. . 235 45 n..a. . . ...3) Guinea Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) (4) Iraq Ireland (4) Israel Italy Jamaica Japan (4.a.446 23.020 .724 4. Resident .386 .. 1..a.547 .032..843 2.782 13 1. n.723 2.446 12.. ... n.a. n.838 98. Designated Madrid Member 1.. . 7. . n. n.a..a. 2.540 .263 86. . 8.. 3.. 5.a. 63 200 2.274 776.

n.3) Peru (3) Philippines (2.a.433 10.. .. n. 2. . .597 48..584 5. n.. n.a.a.766 24..a.. n.361 n..009 10.a.a.705 209..367 .a.a. n. ...703 1. . n. 12.390 570 n. 16. .. n..a. . 17.a.079 .a.a.826 9.147 13.581 . .. 13.a.001 . .. n.a..a.102 28. 61 6 10 84 0 n.909 278 21 2. 423 .794 3.995 255 597 9.a..356 208.637 29 Madrid International Applications Origin 1 n.. n. 3. n.a..a.. n. n..540 4. 1..a..190 7.. .a. . n.167 .362 214.957 21 18. n... n.771 39. n.a. 16. . n.012 n.362 2. .538 94. n. 174. n.. n. .555 .013 1.872 .a. .281 9. . 28.a. 100. n.352 n. 22.777 14.. n... 2. 41.859 0 n.. n.a.statistical tables .775 10.832 .a. n. 2. n. . 8. 399 . 779 181 . .374 43 2 391 33.trademarks Application Class Count by Office Name Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Monaco Mongolia (2..675 91 1.3) Mozambique (4) Myanmar Namibia (4) Nepal Netherlands (5) New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway (4) Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (7) Oman (4) Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay (2. n.a..926 8...901 ..297 13. 132.784 2 3.a.a. .a. n.a.026 0 1.049 22. 3. 14.457 . n.448 522 20.648 4.a.703 1. n. n. 7.840 17 9.a..093 61.. 822 . n..a.a..649 91 .a. ...473 113 33 108 50 396. 11. n..a.. 32. n.835 30.. .468 19.3) Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino (4) Sao Tome and Principe (4) Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone (4) Total 5. n. n. n. 13.a.. 488 46 76 1.970 4. n.291 .343 7.. 2. .457 ..911 12.730 .849 .805 23.a. .a.908 Equivalent Application Class Count by Origin Total (1) 1. 7 0 n.a.612 148.a.802 1.. . 1.395 ...564 3.a.a.a. 22.361 31.908 Resident 1..901 88..a. 0 Designated Madrid Member 992 n. 22.234 .750 .a..700 2.449 69.a. 234..a. .091 1.a. .304 57 4 14.504 . .843 n.a. n.a.956 3.192 .960 187.a.962 .829 2. 11.a.205 .a.239 .483 .a.100 131 76 115 488 3.833 ..504 .727 2.. 29...663 5..581 . 10..595 16. n.3) Montenegro (4) Morocco (2.a.221 79.a. . ..864 3.147 29.140 .a.396 .. 18..557 3.449 303.a. 3.380 1.a. . .. n. 342 175 n. n. Non-Resident 3. n.030 6...a.a. n... n..433 2.328 n. . n.665 . . 423 5.392 29. n.372 .432 77.a.354 39 13.652 n. 4.555 . 5. 71.185 17. . 0 n. 15. .. 9.114 n. 163 n.618 2.

. Non-Resident 30. .974 . 790 2.238 5. 13.264 .011 6..974 .179 10.437 85.514 . n.a.532 .220 2 15 Madrid International Applications Origin 226 0 105 183 n.375 976.125 14.365 34. Resident 6. 9.835 2.500 ..585 3.. .a.184 15. .173 . 31.a.996 2.. 1.703 6.208 38.a.197 744 2. 11.885 22 282 40.. 152.942 . 1. ...608 . n.796 407.971 607 1..529 1.747 6.191 .131 ..a.240 .301 5. not applicable not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database. Total 36..308 .244 2.. n. .420 34.807 n.302 2.261 ..504 0 8.266 .3) Sudan (4) Suriname Swaziland (4) Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic (4) T F Y R of Macedonia (4) Tajikistan Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan (4) Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Viet Nam Yemen Zambia (4) Zimbabwe (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) n.453 n.950 .911 15.767 6.108 . This country does not have a national trademark office.a. .a.a.a. 939 n.764 .194 108 97 288 208.066 34. .109 . 4. 19... 17. n.536 n...a. 982 0 n.939 5.a.a. 568 n. 31.661 735.240 ..a.a.152 n. . 89.114 n.507 n.718 2. .878 5.311 4.a. 32..410 3.727 5..a. 0 259 2. 8.493 . 92.014 10.950 2.. n.a.591 .trademarks Application Class Count by Office Name Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch Part) Slovakia Slovenia (2.881 25..233 2. 17. 9.579 2....628 2.791 n. .308 .. 2010 data are reported for equivalent application class count by origin. .a.a.866 41 2 29. 5.a.484 73. n.statistical tables .329 9.a..079 36.522 62. 72.211 4.245 6. 412..274 n. .075 2. 19.184 6.. 4.a. 365 n.680 201.145 963 297 31.099 4.881 6.678 5.266 .962 10. therefore. . 184. .822 n.587 56. 3..a..3) Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka (2. 19. 0 n.a. All applications for trademark protection are filed at the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) or the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) of the European Union (EU).571 7. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of application class counts. n. 0 n..... 1. n.042 2. . n.. 60.a.017 50..767 5. 0 n. .510 4 12. Equivalent Application Class Count by Origin Total (1) 36. 28. 56 n. Designated Madrid Member 8. application class count by office and origin data may be incomplete. n.a. 33. 2. Data on equivalent application class count by origin are incomplete. . .928 5 24 0 n... Only Madrid designation data are available. Resident applications include those filed by residents of EU member states.a. 297 23. 2010 data are reported for application class count by office.329 9.052 2.726 .777 15.420 1. October 2012 182 . n.a. n.a.a. 1.467 n.129 n.a.a. Equivalent application class count by origin is calculated using an estimated component for the missing resident application class count at the national office..a.a. n.670 12.138 3.457 . n.521 21.a. Application class count by office data include renewal statistics..705 2.a.a..020 n. 319. Luxembourg and the Netherlands.315.811 1 87 12 3.. Resident applications include those filed by residents of Belgium..

a.597 .. n.726 111. 16.. 17.769 2. 10. 71.a.. 35.. .823 1.591 .870 22..055 .. 62.773 2..405 821 13.170 6. .a.. . ..684 .408 3.270 1 48 5. 1.170 401 1 628 Non-Resident .860 . 476. n. 10... 0 34 0 n...789 .030 ..657 8.. .a.083 . .705 114 11. 6..144 688.. n.. 7..a. 78.... 10.167 15.077 276.332 152.564 107...318 183 .a.. ..a. 2011 Madrid International Registrations by Registrations in Origin Force by Office Total n. .572 13..a. .508 . 1. . n..519 .619 .. n.709 7. .475 . n.524 1.statistical tables ..489 359 523 8.578 4.184 .818 3... 51. . 403. 44 n. and trademarks in force. .071.. .. n. 0 n.970 240.894 673 .a.364 20.a. 33.. 1.357 . .272 1 31 .199 .a.539 ... . n.199 .trademarks Table T2: Trademark registrations by office and origin.709 3.a..874 Resident . 958 799 9 n.525 1..528 8.a. 11.837 25. n.887 229.882 868 1.a.529 507 3.356 Registration Class Count by Office Name Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda (4) Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria (4) Azerbaijan (4) Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh (2. n.767 139 40.a. 28. n. n.. 62..a.a.. 14..644 .... 2.271 18.212 194 14..545 1.932 .596 16.. .036 17.. .. 7.284 1 2 6 7 105.033. .a.. . ....a. . 113.705 .. 1. 180 3 8 25 Total . 297 1..a.. . . 1... 0 n. . .363 .717 2. 356 . .. ..a.a. .a.961 926.789 .443 .710 3..572 13. . 1..468 1.778 823 116. 42..a. ..946 1. .170 2.a. .556 . 100. 45.539 .049 9.a.946 139 5 1 34.027 .908 2. .a.908 .913 4.652 55..571 43.138 . 2 n.. .a.149 ..a. . ..241 28.913 2. 22... 8.436 n. .a.304 ...459 580 2. 142 n.10) China China. n..443 .570 . . 10..006 9.. . n. 576.a. 9.183 8. n.. 422 307 22 .186 56...593 .878 . . 57... 5.519 216 14.330 15.902 n.871 5.553 299 102. n.747 1. .417 2. n. 4.838 n.. 1. . 7.. .. 0 2 n.. Macao SAR Colombia Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Total .510. 796 21 15. Saint Eustatius and Saba (4) Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana (4) Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile (5.. 9..246 Equivalent Registration Class Count by Origin Total (1) 276 360 1.a. . 37.053 n.. . . 476. 166 n.576 .a.3) Barbados Belarus (4) Belgium (6) Belize Benelux (7) Bermuda Bhutan (4) Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Bonaire. n. 132. . n. ..528 8...687 .838 n..... Hong Kong SAR China..a. 1.860 . 5.575 6.526 . .

686 . 36. 32 n. 8.672 20.104 .... 89..a.a. 1.a.356 122. .. .a... .723 2.352 . 12...a.. 192 3. 3..547 ..124 . .084 . .575 278 27 103..458 16. n.778 . .295 . 1.785 n. n. .794 28. 8.503 .a. 3..872...300 ...717 . 6. 11. .549 159 62.. 165..607 .102 . .a.301 788 929 231 140 9.a...a.363 22. 3 n.. 5..934 ..295 . . n.943 0 65 n. 6. 10. 214 33 n.886 .047 148.073 3... 98 88 Total 117. 1..101 2.a. n.354 Resident 23.a.162 . 51 9 n. 44 n.752 .124 . 1. 7..043 2.a.949 ...979 6.. 10.179 4.a.. 7.485 .a. ..440 . ..750 4. .118 53. .157 ..068 1..3. . n.. . 1.435 11.028 142. .723 2. 0 10.a. 4.996 . n.. 59 180 2..a. 7.987 .035 16 650 12.. 29. 6. .a. 45..029 .. 0 0 n. 12.. 16. .. n.982 780.. 114. .a.. 1.a. 9.516 9.633 2...250 881...750 4.761..a.526 137. .848 ... 3 2. n.a.. . 7..108 . .. . . 17 n.775 5..9) Jordan Kazakhstan (4. . .505 164.117 .589 2. .a..820 8. 4.... 1.. .315 .653 2.9) Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana (4) Greece (4) Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) (4) Iraq Ireland (4) Israel Italy Jamaica Japan (4.449 3... ...023 13 23 96. n.. .023 90 33.. 5. n.846 314 85 15.109 1.281 294. .943 ..a.. 61..084 .100 Equivalent Registration Class Count by Origin Total (1) 83..061 782.. . . .179 5.. 18 32 16..333 n. . n.198 33. .717 . 200 . . 115... . 105..... .a...224 13 1.369 8 894 10 4 254 5 162 1. .360 124. .315 .073 875. .278 11.139 2.841 1.784 139.a.758 3.154 . .149 5. 12. ..752 10..825 184 . 6. 364 n. 1.254 Non-Resident 7. ..934 . ..trademarks Registration Class Count by Office Name Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4) Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador (2..394 ..... ..142 . . ..a.778 7. . .352 . 7...305 . ..242 19.575 .161 3.794 175.044 Madrid International Registrations by Registrations in Origin Force by Office Total 283 0 n.950 .5) Egypt (4) El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France (4... 8....001 11. .958 .203 ..540 166.462 . . 1.5) Kenya (4) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho (4) Liberia (4) Libya Liechtenstein (4) Lithuania Total 30.582 n.statistical tables . n...600 9. . .187 20.166 13. 1.225 1.084 .. .376 .211 . 103 n. .821 2... 4.758 3. . 7.416 .852 5.253 10..179 361.. 7 4. .

890 2 Madrid International Registrations by Registrations in Origin Force by Office Total n.a.176 31.514 8..719 9.135 10. .335 .a.252 ... .. ....963 46.. ....932 105.5) Philippines (2. . 845 .757 12. n.201 .457 . 159. n. .... . 3..437 113.. n. .703 1.263 110 32 34 20 350.a..793 152 15 3. 27.a...246 3.. 238.607 . ... .. .985 97. .. . ..677 . n. . . . 10.a.703 1.349 6. n. . 11.870 .127 55.a...865 757.063 150.998 .553 0 n.094 27. . 20.. 1 n. . 3.. .a.a....703 117. .675 91 .495 1.908 Equivalent Registration Class Count by Origin Total (1) 78..714 2.954 . ..844 2..095 2.142 15. 0 Total n.619 .006 62.a. . 56.187 3. .. 22..111 5...a.. . n.. .. n.. n.. n. Non-Resident n..260 423.277 7. 100.314 0 1.a.a. ..662 23.595 18.558 . ..923 3. .554 .a. ....a.a.trademarks Registration Class Count by Office Name Luxembourg (6) Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Monaco Mongolia (2. 221.a. 13.statistical tables . 37.321 78.504 . 721.386 22... 102. 3. n..928 10...a.. n. 5.056 60. 23.330 213 687 8.455 .989 91 1. . 64.879 18.381 . n.510 . 3.349 . n... ...022 51. .573 19.a.090 .716 563 18..457 .094 13. ... 310 158 n. 185 ..3) Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino (4) Sao Tome and Principe (4) Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone (4) Total n.3.. n.a. .874 3 209 217 37 432 3.a.556 64.504 . n. 58 6 10 88 0 n..a..234 9. n.957 1. ..649 .a.. n.554 ..244 7. 4.a. . .. . .. 208.006 270.a.a. 161 n.327 . 45.895 8..465 5 16..a.328 n.a.147 11.. .a. 21.083 . 355 5.819 . 10.. .a. 223.. 16..053 322. . .488 58 12. . .504 84 7. . 2. ..3.019 18.170 21. n..558 . n.. 7.a. .a.519 27.282 ..521 . 9.303 9.648 .972 4.a. 768. n. 0 n.701 1.580 .. . ... .074 ..a. n.010 . .625 10.315 43.a.a... n.... .. n.. ..497 51 1 560 29.021 .. . 5. n.618 .a..438 5.5) Montenegro (4) Morocco (2. 7 0 n. 27. n. n.940 . 2. 433 42 73 1. 14. . . .. 3.298 .5) Mozambique (4) Myanmar Namibia (4) Nepal Netherlands (6) New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway (4) Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (8) Oman (4) Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru (4. 68..908 Resident n.a. 422 .. 15..391 .290 19 338 3.100 .. 1.351 .. 20. 1. 423 .. 6.a..a.270 2.524 .528 86.

052 885.159 6. Equivalent registration class count by origin is calculated using an estimated component for the missing resident registration class count at the national office. .204 76.. 356 n.. Resident registrations include those issued to residents of EU member states.706 2. . . .trademarks Registration Class Count by Office Name Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch Part) Slovakia Slovenia (2.429 .707 .. n. .659 1.266 . . . .464 .468 18.997 ..016 . n. 75.652 n.159 12.721 570 ..774 .236 2.474 .708 4.. n. .881 5.567 31.. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of registration class counts..183 0 6. .a.611 2. 22...430 4.286 66.a.. 11.735. 31.142 7.453 14..938 469 2.010 .288 25.804 .. 136.3) Sudan (4) Suriname Swaziland (4) Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic (4) T F Y R of Macedonia (4) Tajikistan Thailand Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan (4) Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Viet Nam Yemen Zambia (4) Zimbabwe (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) n. not applicable not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 1. n... 59. 4.a. Resident 4.448 .349 646 2.. Non-Resident 21.. 17.887 2. 155.898 .006 43. All trademark registrations for this country are issued by the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) or the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) of the European Union (EU).a..651 4..a.477 ..a. .316 660..a. 2010 data are reported for trademarks in force..356 4.472 . 461. This country does not have a national trademark office.208 .. .. . .455 23..967 9.657 . 509.032..785 104. 133.411 . .050 . 1. 2010 data are reported for equivalent registration class count by origin.928 4 18 0 n.421 296 1. 326 11. October 2012 186 . . . Only Madrid designation data are available. Luxembourg and the Netherlands..859 2.609 33.445 19.a.665 .166 5.034 8.157 . Total 309. 2010 data are reported for registration class count by office.604 3.993 .. 29.880 863. 52.993 2. 1. .868 1.266 . .699 49. 22. ..a.906 .604 7. . n...226 3 14 Madrid International Registrations by Registrations in Origin Force by Office Total 235 0 82 171 n.810 2.093 n.. . n.881 16.a..551 19.478 .829 ..717 6. ..659 375. 28. 0 n.612 .a.717 6. 12..192 4 1 26.041 .428 48. 912 0 n. 558 n. Total 25. 6.. 179.5) Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka (2. therefore.467 8 7. 0 247 2.3. Equivalent Registration Class Count by Origin Total (1) 29....995 79...934 .a.039 2. 0 n.947 2 358 8 182.934 .278 .. Resident registrations include those issued to residents of Belgium.. 0 n.558 9... Registration class count by office data include renewal statistics.083 .278 . 90.206 212. 69.517 9.a... 15.a.statistical tables . 249. 7 31.a.372 . .392 5. 13.. Data on equivalent registration class count by origin are incomplete. .713 ..780 12.264 655 856 327 17.. 9..611 4. registration class count by office and origin data may be incomplete. 61.729 2. 60 n.910 553 63 1.a.. . 287...279 4.728 56.517 9. 5... .057 .403 24....a.215 9. 1.a....

n.a. 573 n. n.. .a. . 57 51 2.. . 303 n.495 . n. n. 507. .. .. .547 20.723 .161 19..a. 110 1. 16 699 ... 10 .. Macao SAR Colombia Cook Islands Costa Rica (2..a.a.. 27 n.472 211.206 89 Resident . 67 51 2.. n. .424 6 39..101 .. . Non-Resident . .693 1 6.a. 251 30 n.638 .a. .a.445 .a. n. . 622 . 236 n. 1. 52 ..219 30 221 4 12 205 342 42.. n. 3.. ..501 .. Hong Kong SAR China. 13.676 818 5.. 450 941 79 .a.a. 206 1.189 . 521. 119 100 13 n. 49 309 16. 206 1.a. 16 485 n.4) Ecuador (2. 96 190 n. 632 .. Hague International Applications Origin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 16 3 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 19 1 3 8 0 18 0 0 3 0 1 15 241 0 Designated Hague Member n.. n.a.a. .544 31 53 405 5 2. 167 n.. 605 .795 . . n.5) Benin (4) Bermuda Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana (4) Brazil (2. . n..a.. .302 ....a.. 337 n....a..a.. n. 2011 Application Design Count by Office Name Afghanistan African Intellectual Property Organization (4) Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina (2. .094 166 5..664 .a. n.. 595 832 104 .a. 167 n. n.. 2.. .411 89 Equivalent Application Design Count by Origin Total(1) 11 12 16 699 189 54 54 43 27 15.a...351 15 150 1 326 127 . 614 .814 21.751 10... 25 .industrial designs Table ID1: Industrial design applications by office and origin. 6. 1.a. .671 39 187 6 12 . 450 941 79 .826 68......839 158 384 . 49 51 1..a.. 50 . 595 848 803 . .. 791 3...a. n.a.a. n.623 6 563.468 4..818 7 147 . .statistical tables .a.a.930 3..a. n. 1. 2. n.238 311 311 79 162 1.3) Côte d'Ivoire (4) Croatia Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4) Denmark Dominican Republic (2.538 1. . 22 14 122 11 187 . 27 2. 27 .3) Egypt (4) El Salvador Estonia (4) Finland France Gabon (4) Total .4) Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium (4) Belize (4) Benelux (4... n. .a.... 664 .445 .579 . 0 49 311 102 ... 209 . n.a. 258 14.966 ... .a.. ...a.3) Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Canada Chile China China.863 .069 166 1. 81 33 n.a.021 151 237 . n.. . n. .

3) Israel Italy Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan (4) Latvia Lebanon Liechtenstein (4) Lithuania Luxembourg (4) Malaysia Mali (4) Malta Mexico Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Namibia (4) Netherlands (4) New Zealand (2. .. n.946 Hague International Applications Origin 0 584 0 10 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 1 1 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 27 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 128 1 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 0 1 4 1 Designated Hague Member 210 125 34 52 n.659 27 1 5. . 10 n.887 Non-Resident 943 12.a.223 9.210 669 8..280 533 n.a.. .a. 360 162 249 398 28 n.a. 1... n.a.298 85 ...658 9 .225 697 70 334 . . 9 n.. n. 2. 755 52 5. 0 86 ..a. . . 202 23 n. 578 1. 85 . 50 25 4. . 150 30 n.... 1.. 14 .a. 2.828 36 1 5. 1. .256 472 n.805 77 .a.343 . 138 274 3.598 54.457 . 124 . 4.941 240 . .158 76 5 7.a.240 1.562 583 1.. 326 2.a...361 606 182 14 3. n.154 26.a.164 6.041 139 1. n.industrial designs Application Design Count by Office Name Georgia Germany Ghana (4) Greece (2...446 1.a.909 29 182 14 3.623 58. n. 98 n. 24 61 n.156 . 85 .728 308.441 . 65.882 697 70 248 . 968 4. n.. 449 .271 918 134 3. 50 1.a.a.274 30.923 195 n. 110 ..598 5..a. 24 n.3) Guatemala Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Ireland (2.179 . n. . 1.216 . 561 194 . 38 92 n.077 Resident 206 41. 324 52 n.007 22.a.896 125. .a..060 ..190 Equivalent Application Design Count by Origin Total(1) 207 561.a.203 5.230 12 55 1 2 . .852 102 4.. 28.394 168 n.133 5.statistical tables . n. 2...166 1. .. n.675 28. ..729 . 561 77 ..a.a.a. 893 326 8.a.. 1.a.a. . 29.. 2.. n. 117 . n...a.055 87.030 2.3) Niger (4) Nigeria Norway (4) Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (5) Oman (4) Panama Peru Philippines Poland (4) Portugal Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Total 1.a.. n.. .a.300 936 1. n. n.a....149 1.571 1.212 .600 139 415 205 .475 7. 849 85 . 86 89 12 81..169 1.526 35 ..a. 1..051 5. 188 . 48 64.306 26.037 1.703 86.921 2 4.937 168 n. ..591 765 1.854 1.147 68 .a. n.....149 54.a.a.

(4) Only Hague designation data are available.. 21 n. 348 2 27 47... n. .656 5 2 Hague International Applications Origin 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 6 0 15 0 32 0 0 0 34 600 0 1 0 0 0 0 86 7 0 29 229 0 0 0 0 0 Designated Hague Member 1 n.628 69 350 n. .810 5. 246 .735 .a..056 123. ...industrial designs Application Design Count by Office Name Rwanda (4) Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe (4) Saudi Arabia Senegal (4) Serbia Seychelles Singapore Slovakia Slovenia (2...994 . n.a. 83 752 79 1. 125 .291 ..... . 83 506 79 1..a.540 ....810 184..a. . 606 7.372 5 . ..444 ..216 .. therefore.985 416 566 . 76 n.. Resident .a. 13. (1) Equivalent application design count by origin data are incomplete. . ..a.a. 23 5.a.218 6.. n.a.a.299 4 228 .093 563 n.statistical tables . (3) 2010 data are reported for equivalent application design count by origin.715 196. (5) Applications by origin could not be attributed to a specific country member of the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) or of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) of the European Union (EU).. .577 . .699 4...730 3.. 3. 76 n.. 14 280 n. October 2012 189 .459 5 .a.. (2) 2010 data are reported for application design count by office.071 6.. n.. 249 . 380 228 2. .a..a... 737 . 629 n..a.322 54 .. 41. 4 30 ... 583 2.024 26 ..367 . 29 n.a. 2. .a.104 . n. 18..488 3.. n. 35..109 . 454 . 30. 663 362 .a. n. .. n. . Non-Resident 5 . 107 .. 18.. 3. .443 301 . 87 0 .4) South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Suriname (4) Swaziland Sweden Switzerland (4) Syrian Arab Republic (4) T F Y R of Macedonia Tajikistan Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States of America Uzbekistan Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Viet Nam Yemen Zimbabwe Total 5 . . 5.151 1.467 327 . not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database.a.220 388 145...849 299 . n. Equivalent Application Design Count by Origin Total(1) . 17.. . .. . . 3 40... . 1. n. 0 1.305 301 16 1. application design count by office and origin data may be incomplete.a. 1..a.. n.a. n.028 200 1..605 200 1.. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of application design counts. not applicable . 125 .

.688 16 286 ..501 3. 802 5..478 64 772 . 52 . ..231 9 150 . 110 1. . 179 39.810 1.... 1. 16 . . .. 6. ... 53 ..514 34 340 6 1 . 413 ... 13. 4....506 402 688 3. 259 57. . .. 380. 785 3... Registration Design Count by Office Name Afghanistan African Intellectual Property Organization (4) Albania Algeria Andorra Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Barbados Belarus Belgium (4) Belize (4) Benelux (4) Benin (4) Bermuda Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana (4) Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Canada Chile China China..079 166 . Hong Kong SAR China..3) Côte d'Ivoire (4) Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4) Denmark Dominican Republic Ecuador (2..a. 15 . 74 51 2. 366.. 181 552.223 n. 74 51 2.. . . 206 806 . 630 .840 62 459 .. 67 45. ... . 303 .710 34.371 33. ..235 65. . 206 826 311 211 .407 24 83 990 89 946 10. .395 20.347 ......068 ...136 . 2011 Equivalent Registration Design Count by Origin Total (1) 11 12 1 95 190 54 32 33 15.285 . . and industrial designs in force.564 139 Hague International Registrations in Registrations Force by Office Origin 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 3 9 0 18 0 0 1 0 14 229 0 0 573 0 Total .064 89 1..989 18...290 4..779 29 54 371 2. .161 11 419. 917 .720 .038 203. 271 115 . Macao SAR Colombia Cook Islands Costa Rica (2...647 .. 122 . .5) Egypt (4) Estonia (4) Finland France (4) Gabon (4) Georgia Germany Ghana (4) Total . 10. 1. 630 . 595 822 53 . 0 95 .905 139 Resident . 363 n.. 196 n.700 ...778 922. .. . . .. 2. . 272 74 .....612 13.862 2..307 12. .. 614 . . ... 683 .117 . 167 n....407 24 355 1.a.. 4.. 49 999 .. .. 1.. 2. Non-Resident 190 .339 5 35...245 ....341 ..a...511 . ... . 0 20 311 89 .industrial designs Table ID2: Industrial design registrations by office and origin. 162 1. ...125 49. .3. .a.151 4 6.530 .. 17 2.684 21.428 1.. ..064 166 .014 . 1.840 503 .. ..375 .statistical tables . 1. 197 247 39. 2. 595 822 148 ..638 2 313 . 450 941 79 . .706 .. .344 .... . 4 .. 450 941 79 ... 0 ..

... 83 Resident 1...454 242.a.910 118.599 243 ..448 1. . 22.. 531 52 3.023 150 ... n.577 5..3.072 85 22 86. 186 927 .634 1.172 985 246 .a. 1...a.599 829 1. 111 276 2.. 2. 43 183 . .... 937 .3) Namibia (4) Netherlands (4) New Zealand (2. . ..055 879 84 2. 58 39 3. 103 .. 5. Hague International Registrations in Registrations Force by Office Origin 9 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 26 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 133 1 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1.745 5 . ... ..578 1.497 40..572 168 n. . 727 . .371 26. . 88 21. .453 3.736 21. 9.443 1. .5) Guatemala Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Ireland (2...a.233 302.267 3..562 583 1.855 5.703 652 6.. 2. 1....382 23.industrial designs Registration Design Count by Office Name Greece (2. .228 684 44. Non-Resident 419 140 . 1. 21. .204 1.274 85 . .. 865 37 246 0 45 ...991 15 4. .295 .416 27.511 3.a.309 1 1 88 54 6 76. 1.037 1..... 14 . . ..794 .042 27 . 561 180 . .. 26 4.. 734 85 22 23.a....266 .387 1. .814 6.579 325 1.3) Israel Italy Japan Jordan Kazakhstan (5) Kenya Kyrgyzstan (4.232 58 .262 3..... 246. 1.915 4.315 . 989 3...237 . 335 n. 85 . 5 27 . 1.481 12 1 .statistical tables . .a... 270 1.970 74 2 8.604 10 .241 697 . ... 1..600 ... 83 Equivalent Registration Design Count by Origin Total (1) 4.. 191 ..3.143 28 27 1 . n.a.. . 338 .643 382 18... 561 77 .5) Latvia Lebanon Liechtenstein (4) Lithuania Luxembourg (4) Madagascar Malaysia Mali (4) Malta Mexico Monaco (5) Mongolia Montenegro Morocco (2.272 71.969 527 5. 0 46 .115 1.445 1.. 93 .256 474 n.983 12.326 697 ...002 .863 15.085 .915 25. ...945 41 ... 6... 85 .174 27 5. 24 55 n.028 .536 43. .280 529 n.. 1.147 445 1..537 5.298 9..650 .864 158.617 168 n.037 1.5) Niger (4) Norway (4) Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market Oman (4) Pakistan Panama Peru Philippines (5) Poland Portugal Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Rwanda (4) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines San Marino Sao Tome and Principe (4) Total 2.. 43 229 . 79 . 4.747 5 .. . . 63.971 . . 642 328 6. ..841 682 ...206 .. 61.427 . . . ..

699 2 210 .970 1.3.... (2) 2010 data are reported for registration design count by office. 7. therefore. 72 0 .. ..890 5..576 .... 3.359 45 436 .. 6. 1 39. 19.081 .351 .607 5.600 .. 125 . 3.127 .962 184. 9. .224 ..953 200 140.756 . not applicable .613 9.. Non-Resident 395 79 1..637 3. 22 ... 19. .028 55 1.604 55 1. not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database. 7. 613 327 91 .837 2. as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of registration design counts.349 3 .a. October 2012 192 ....926 . 1.534 .316 1 Hague International Registrations in Registrations Force by Office Origin 0 0 11 0 4 0 14 0 27 0 0 0 35 584 0 1 0 0 0 78 5 0 17 227 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1.025 658 13..166 . 180 . 65.. 599 7. 328 108 43.177 3.972 372 527 . (3) 2010 data are reported for equivalent registration design count by origin..356 .745 933 116.741 .... 11.316 580 365 ..513 303 .101 6 180 2 1. 928 . ... . 11. 86 .. registration design count by office and origin data may be incomplete.467 ..... Resident 62 .454 .089 9. 328 221 5. 21.statistical tables . n.286 191..... (1) Equivalent registration design count by origin data are incomplete. . 547 2. Equivalent Registration Design Count by Origin Total (1) 65 .421 3 .080 . ..industrial designs Registration Design Count by Office Name Saudi Arabia Senegal (4) Serbia Seychelles Singapore Slovakia Slovenia (2. (4) Only Hague designation data are available. 2.. 125 .477 ..331 . (5) 2010 data are reported for industrial designs in force. 52 5.5) South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Suriname (4) Swaziland Sweden Switzerland (4) Syrian Arab Republic (4) T F Y R of Macedonia Tajikistan Thailand Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Viet Nam Yemen Total 457 79 1. 31.... 403 ..... 45. 453 ..970 2. 5... .333 38 10. .535 .596 . 37. . 202 .968 44.489 262.

..126 93 .. 109 11 105 . 5.585 ... 12 6 193 . 9 .979 720 2. 81 1 . 92 15 . 330 2 62 59 2 10 324 30 305 92 1. 10 106 ... . 0 4 .410 67 217 233 147 40 1... . 2 2 . 1 200 2 333 59 ... 9 1 14 7 61 . 5 0 NonResident ... 33 12 .. 9 . 17 29 Resident .... 112 40 .. 0 3 13 .. ...204 14 n. 1 119 3 783 47 5 25 1 ..596 ... . 76 4 ..plant variety Table PV1: Plant variety applications and grants by office and origin.184 5 32 . 85 62 . 183 . 13 1 10 .551 427 1. 26 ..834 1....509 36 1.163 293 8 280 34 . 71 942 1..... 151 0 0 19 1 8 158 0 256 86 62 100 781 2 0 . 60 0 .900 .. 80 24 .. 58 60 1 9 9 Grants in Force Office . 686 247 11 402 97 .. 2 365 4 1.282 14 2 60 32 13 409 3... 8 32 13 123 242 .. . 654 56 0 3 0 .. 10 29. 1 8 ... 14 5 10 838 10 1. 179 2 62 40 1 2 166 30 49 6 1. 6 1 14 .. . 33 8 .. 96 10 95 ...a.927 ........072 302 62 41 1.. 12 20 Grants by Office Total . 81 27 . .. 129 65 2 20 2 ..523 2 175 40 174 12 1.. 1 246 1 356 40 0 4 3 . 18 29 5 2 103 44 52 15 235 13 2... 102 .783 862 .177 8.statistical tables . 32 16 .252 5 224 3 .. 717 109 1 22 .. 11 114 . 31 . 595 40 0 9 .. . 83 10 . . 2011 Applications by Origin Total 67 292 42 62 41 119 2 175 40 70 12 1.. .... 1. 6 8 1 9 9 Equivalent applications by Origin Total 587 1...031 .. 3 402 8 1. ... 10 2..769 186 .. 0 . 6 4 27 . 323 38 Applications by Office Name Argentina (1) Australia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia Community Plant Variety Office Costa Rica Croatia Cyprus (2) Czech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic (1) Ecuador Estonia Finland (1) France Georgia Germany Greece (2) Hungary India (2) Ireland Israel Italy Japan Kenya Kyrgyzstan (1) Latvia Lithuania Malaysia (2) Mauritius (2) Mexico Morocco Nepal (2) Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea (2) Paraguay Peru   Total . 81 . 0 9 0 8 69 0 199 100 5 88 554 . . . .... 145 62 . . 87 1 14 7 61 . 647 177 ...487 2. 170 5 88 11.524 10 12..139 87 5 29 4 .. 5 9 NonResident .255 114 3. 250 . .. 5 23 .065 61 .077 3 38 6 15 343 180 973 35 .403 3 32 ... 783 121 2 23 2 . 17 6 Resident .624 2.193 14 2......607 441 18. 18 38 5 10 172 44 251 115 240 101 2. .. 122 69 1 13 ... . 5 .. 2 202 6 793 34 . 2.. 11 14 .205 29 298 58 41 1. 85 12 ..

61 1 448 15 34 571 . 7 64 . as statistics by origin do not distinguish between applications under the PVPA or the Plant Patent Act. .statistical tables .299 5.... . 23 1 70 2 7 78 . therefore.. October 2012 194 .139 68 14 52 Resident . 47 4 517 16 28 374 . 12 71 ... 7 13 28 Equivalent applications by Origin Total 1 622 4 575 18 39 386 58 3 14 28 190 2.280 12 3. 14 0 61 0 0 87 . 42 248 19 252 0 33 8 20 NonResident .979 1... 3 0 181 1 . . 178 796 ..036 13. 47 1 387 15 34 484 . 91 465 26 276 823 62 8 39 Resident .. Not available Source: WIPO Statistics Database.756 12..583 . 19 72 . 6 1 116 46 .. 40 402 21 374 0 6 13 28 NonResident .. 6 0 213 5 .095 49 474 1. .368 7 229 3. applications by origin data may be incomplete.. 9 1 297 47 .a.. 16 1 285 61 .   Total .... . 1. 8 59 .. 49 217 7 24 823 29 0 19 Grants in Force Office .. 11 13 . 280 3...922 .425 332 . Applications by origin are reported under “United States of America (A)”... . 111 1..139 62 1 24 Applications by Origin Total 1 76 4 549 18 39 386 58 3 14 2 86 210 7 47 354 45 51 414 234 1.987 415 43 99 The office did not report data....292 1. 70 5 587 18 35 452 ..871 n..plant variety Applications by Office Name Philippines (2) Poland Portugal Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Serbia (2) Singapore (1) Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Swaziland (2) Sweden Switzerland Thailand (2) Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom United States of America (A) United States of America (B) (3) Uruguay Uzbekistan Viet Nam (1) (2) (3) . 5 7 . The country is not a UPOV member..163 51 414 2...213 86 239 3. 10 1 72 56 . 71 693 28 100 1.. 7 13 28 Grants by Office Total ... 384 21 2. ..

.

chemin des Colombettes P. 941E/2012 ISBN 978-92-805-2305-8 .int World Intellectual Property Organization 34.wipo.O.For more information contact WIPO at www. Box 18 CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Telephone : +4122 338 91 11 Fax : +4122 733 54 28 WIPO Publication No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful