WIPO Indicators 2012

WIPO Economics & Statistics Series
2012 | World Intellectual Property Indicators

For more information contact
WIPO at www.wipo.int
World Intellectual Property Organization

34, chemin des Colombettes
2012
P.O. Box 18
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland World Intellectual Property Indicators
Telephone :
+4122 338 91 11
Fax :
+4122 733 54 28 WIPO Economics & Statistics Series
WIPO Publication No. 941E/2012 ISBN 978-92-805-2305-8

2012
World Intellectual Property Indicators

Foreword
Against the background of a world economy in turmoil, As in the past, we provide statistical information and
last year’s World Intellectual Property Indicators reported analysis on many other important IP trends. This year’s
a strong rebound, in 2010, in intellectual property (IP) fil- special theme focuses on industrial designs – a form
ings worldwide. This year’s Report paints a remarkably of IP that has recently featured prominently in disputes
similar picture: while the global economy continued to among information technology (IT) companies. After
underperform, IP filing growth persisted in 2011. discussing the growing importance of design in innova-
tion, we describe how different countries and industries
Patent filings worldwide passed the 2 million mark in make use of the industrial design system.
2011, showing significant growth of 7.8 percent over
2010 and exceeding 7 percent growth for the second In addition, World Intellectual Property Indicators 2012
year in a row. Similarly, trademark filings increased by includes – for the first time – statistics on the use of plant
13.3 percent, the very same growth rate as in 2010. As I variety protection systems.
pointed out last year, this performance bodes well for the
future of the world economy, as it signals that companies I would like to thank our Member States and national and
continue to innovate. regional IP offices for sharing their annual statistics with
WIPO, and look forward to our continued cooperation.
World Intellectual Property Indicators 2012 also contains
important news. For the first time in 2011, more patents
were filed at the patent office of China than at any other
office in the world. In the 100 years before 2011, only
three patent offices had occupied this position – those
of Germany, Japan and the United States. China had
already become the top recipient of trademark filings (in
2001) and design filings (in 1999). Even though caution
is required in directly comparing IP filing figures across
countries, these trends nevertheless reflect how the Francis GURRY
geography of innovation has shifted. Director General
3

acknowledgements
World Intellectual Property Indicators 2012 was pre-
pared under the direction of Francis Gurry (Director
General) and supervised by Carsten Fink (Chief
Economist). The report was prepared by a team led by
Mosahid Khan comprising Ryan Lamb, Bruno Le Feuvre,
Emma Vestesson, Sacha Wunsch-Vincent and Hao Zhou,
all from the Economics and Statistics Division.
Colleagues in WIPO’s Innovation and Technology

Sector, Brands and Designs Sector, 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.
Samiah Do Carmo Figueiredo provided administrative

support. Gratitude is also due to Heidi Hawkings and
Odile Conti from the Communications Division for edit-
ing and laying out the report and to the Printing and
Publication Production Section for their services.
Readers are welcome to use the information provided

in this report, but are requested to cite WIPO as the
source. Data and graphs can be downloaded at www.
wipo.int/ipstats
Contact Information
Economics and Statistics Division
Website: www.wipo.int/ipstats
e-mail: [email protected]
4

Highlights
For the first time in 2011, China had the Property Office (SIPO) in total patent filings increased
top-ranked offices for each of the four forms from 15.1% in 2008 to 24.6% in 2011. Conversely, the
of IP – patents, utility models, trademarks European Patent Office (EPO), the JPO, the Korean
and industrial designs Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and the USPTO saw
decreases in their shares of world totals. Trademark and
The intellectual property (IP) offices of China became industrial design filings followed a similar trend.
the largest in the world, as measured by the number of
applications received for patents, utility models (UMs), Between 2008 and 2011, both SIPO and the USPTO
trademarks and industrial designs. China’s patent office saw filing growth in patents, trademarks and industrial
overtook the United States Patent and Trademark Office designs. However, filings at SIPO increased at a faster
(USPTO) in 2011 to become the largest in the world, after rate than at the USPTO. OHIM saw growth in trademark
having surpassed the Japan Patent Office (JPO) in 2010. and industrial design filings. Meanwhile, the JPO saw
In terms of trademarks, application class count data show declines in application numbers for these three types of IP.
that the trademark office of China has been the largest
in the world since the early 2000s. Similarly, according High-income countries accounted for the majority of
to industrial design count data, China has received the patent filings. However, offices of upper middle-income
largest volumes of filings since the late 1990s. countries accounted for around 60% of design filings
worldwide – most of them in China. Offices of high-
Between 2008 and 2011, the share of China in world income and upper middle-income countries received
totals considerably increased for each of these forms of similar shares of total trademark applications (about 45%).
IP. In contrast, other larger offices - except the Office for Again, China received the most trademark filings among
Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), in relation middle-income countries, although its share was smaller
to trademarks - saw decreases in their shares of world than those for patents and industrial designs.
totals. For example, the share of China’s State Intellectual
IP filings by office and income group
Share in world total (%) Average annual growth (%)

2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008-2011
Marks Designs
Office and Income Group Patents (class count) (design count) Patents Marks Designs
China 15.1 24.6 12.8 22.8 43.6 53.1 22.0 26.6 18.6
European Patent Office 7.6 6.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. -0.8 n.a. n.a.
Japan 20.4 16.0 3.7 3.0 4.7 3.1 -4.3 -2.1 -2.8
OHIM n.a. n.a. 4.6 4.9 11.3 8.9 n.a. 6.7 2.4
Republic of Korea 8.9 8.4 3.7 2.8 8.2 6.0 1.6 -4.8 -0.2
United States of America 23.8 23.5 7.3 6.6 3.9 3.1 3.3 0.9 3.1
World 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.8 4.3 11.0
High-income 74.8 67.0 52.8 45.1 44.9 37.2 -0.3 -1.0 4.2
Upper middle-income 22.2 29.8 35.5 43.9 52.0 59.5 14.2 12.1 16.0
Lower middle-income 3.0 3.2 10.4 9.9 2.8 3.1 5.2 2.7 15.9
Low-income 0.1 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.3 0.2 -38.5 -2.4 -7.4
World 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.8 4.3 11.0
Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market; Trademark data refer to class counts, i.e., the number of classes specified in applications.
Industrial design data refer to design counts, i.e., the number of designs contained in applications; n.a. = not applicable
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012
5
Highlights
The majority of the top 20 offices saw

Patents & utility models
growth in filings in 2011
More than two million patent applications
Between 2010 and 2011, the majority of the top 20 offices
filed worldwide in 2011
saw growth in patent applications. China experienced
For the first time in 2011, the total number of patent ap- the largest growth (34.6%), followed by China Hong
plications filed worldwide exceeded the 2 million mark. Kong, SAR (15.3%) and South Africa (13.5%). Despite this
The 2.14 million applications filed consisted of 1.36 mil- growth, the majority of offices received fewer applications
lion resident and 0.78 million non-resident applications. in 2011 than at the pre-crisis peak in 2008.
Following a drop of 3.6% in 2009, patent applications
rebounded strongly in 2010 with growth of 7.5%, and Filing behavior at middle-income offices showed mixed
continued to grow by 7.8% in 2011. trends. The patent offices of Algeria (+11.3%) and
Madagascar (+41.9%) saw double-digit growth in 2011,
International patent filings set a new
mainly due to growth in non-resident filings. In contrast,
record in 2011
filings at the patent offices of Guatemala (-13.1%), Jamaica
International filings through the Patent Cooperation (-27.6%) and Jordan (-15.6%) saw substantial declines in
Treaty (PCT) set a new record in 2011, with 182,354 filings, mainly due to decreases in non-resident filings.
applications. The 11% growth in 2011 was the fastest
Patent filings for digital communication
since 2005. China, Japan and the US accounted for
technologies grew by 8%
82% of this growth.
Filings for digital communication technologies saw the
In 2011, China overtook the US to become
highest average annual growth rates (+8.1%) between
the largest patent office in the world
2006 and 2010, while filings for pharmaceuticals have
In 2011, China received 526,412 applications compared continuously declined since 2007. Filings for computer
to 503,582 for the US and 342,610 for Japan. The growth technology accounted for the largest number of applica-
in patent filings in China was mostly due to substantial tions filed worldwide, with 126,897.1
growth in resident filings. Between 2010 and 2011,
Chinese resident filings grew by 41.9%, while the Republic Since 1995, growth in patent filings for complex tech-
of Korea and the US saw resident filings grow by 4.7%, nologies (e.g., smartphones) has been consistently faster
and 2.4%, respectively. than that for discrete technologies (e.g., pharmaceuticals).
Between 1995 and 2010, the number of applications for
Continuing shift in the geography of
complex technologies worldwide increased 2.4-fold,
patent filings
compared to 1.9-fold for discrete technologies.
Between 2009 and 2011, patent filings worldwide grew
by 293,900. SIPO was the main contributor to growth
in applications worldwide – accounting for 72% of total
growth. China’s contribution to overall growth has in-
creased in recent years while that of the other top five
offices has declined.
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
PATSTAT database has a time lag, hence 2010
is the latest year for which data are available.
6
Highlights
Continuous growth in applications for Continued decrease in pending

energy-related technologies applications
The total number of patent applications for four energy- The total number of potentially pending applications
related technologies – fuel cells, geothermal, solar and worldwide – defined as all unprocessed applications at
wind - increased by 8% in 2010 compared to 2009. any stage in the applications process – declined by 4.9%
The total number of applications in these categories in 2011, following a 3.3% decrease in 2010. A decline
amounted to 34,873 in 2010. Residents of Japan filed the in potentially pending applications at the JPO was the
largest number of applications relating to solar energy and main contributor to this trend. The number of potentially
fuel cell technologies, while residents of Germany and pending applications worldwide stood at 4.8 million in
the US had the largest numbers of applications relating 2011. This estimate is based on 76 offices. The USPTO
to geothermal and wind energy, respectively. (with 1.2 million) had the largest number of potentially
pending applications, followed by the JPO (1.1 million).
Patents granted worldwide approached
1 million in 2011
The number of applications undergoing examination
In 2011, the estimated number of patents granted ap- worldwide – and indeed, in most of the top offices – also
proached the 1 million mark, with 606,800 issued to resi- fell substantially in 2011. Chiefly, the JPO had 38.9%
dents and 390,000 to non-residents. Grants worldwide fewer pending applications undergoing examination in
grew by 9.7% in 2011, following growth of 12.3% in 2010. 2011 than in 2010.
The JPO (with 238,323) granted the largest number of
Substantial growth in utility model filings
patents, followed by the USPTO (224,505). The majority
of the top 20 offices granted more patents in 2011 than In 2011, an estimated 670,700 UM applications were filed
in 2010. Among the top five offices, KIPO and SIPO saw across the world, corresponding to a 35% increase on
the fastest growth – with 37.6% and 27.4% respectively. 2010. This growth was driven by the high numbers of ap-
plications received by SIPO. Residents of Japan and the
Around 7.88 million patents in force
US filed the largest numbers of UM applications abroad,
worldwide in 2011
of which a large proportion were destined for SIPO.
The total number of patents in force grew by 6.9% in 2011
Middle-income countries opt for utility
to an estimated 7.88 million. This estimate is based on
models more frequently than patents
data from 81 offices. The USPTO had the largest number
of patents in force – in excess of 2.1 million. The JPO Residents of middle-income countries tend to use the
also had a substantial number of patents in force (more UM system more intensively than the patent system.
than 1.5 million). The number of patents in force at SIPO For example, Ukrainian residents filed about four times
was less than half that of the JPO or the USPTO, but it more UM applications than patent applications in 2011.
has seen considerable growth over the past few years. Residents of the Philippines, China Hong Kong (SAR),
In contrast, the patent offices of India and the Russian China and Thailand also showed high ratios of UM of
Federation had fewer patents in force in 2011 than in 2010. patent applications.
7
Highlights
Shift in the geography of trademark filings

Trademarks
towards Asia
Record number of trademark applications
Between 2007 and 2011, Asia saw its share of trademark
filed in 2011
applications increase by nearly nine percentage points,
Between 1995 and 2011, the number of trademark ap- while the share of Europe fell by an almost equal amount.
plications filed worldwide doubled from around 2 million Asia surpassed Europe as the largest receiver of filings in
to 4.2 million. In 2011, 6.2 million classes were specified in 2009, and in 2011 received 44% of applications world-
these 4.2 million applications. Of the 6.2 million applica- wide. Latin America and the Caribbean accounted for
tion class counts, 4.5 million were attributed to resident nearly 10% of filings worldwide, which is a percentage
and 1.7 million to non-resident applications. point higher than in 2007.
Middle- and low-income countries account

Applications (class counts) grew by 9.6% in 2011, follow-
for majority of trademark filings globally
ing the 9% growth recorded in 2010. Rapid growth in
filings in China has been the main contributor to growth More than half of all trademark filing activity occurred at
worldwide in recent years. In 2011, China accounted for the offices of middle- and low-income countries. These
61.8% of total growth. offices accounted for 55% of filings worldwide in 2011,
7.8 percentage points higher than in 2008.
International registrations returned to
pre-crisis high Most of the top 20 offices saw growth in
filings in 2011
International registrations – via the Madrid system – saw a
continuation of the growth witnessed in 2010. Madrid reg- The majority of the top 20 offices saw growth in filings
istrations increased by 8.5% in 2011, with a total of 40,711, in 2011 (based on class count data), with China (31.2%),
almost returning to the pre-crisis peak reached in 2008. Brazil (21.6%), the United Kingdom (16.4%) and China
Hong Kong, SAR (16.1%) recording the fastest growth.
Nearly half of all trademark applications
The IP office of India has also seen considerable growth
received by offices arrived via the
over the past few years. In fact, India surpassed Japan
Madrid system
and the Republic of Korea in 2011. Growth at eight of the
Since 2004, applications received in the form of Madrid top 20 offices was mostly due to growth in non-resident
designations have accounted for around half off all non- applications, most notably at the IP offices of Australia,
resident applications filed globally. This share is higher Canada, China Hong Kong (SAR) and Switzerland.
when confining the data to Madrid members only. In
German applicants filed more than
particular, 64% of all non-resident applications received
2.1 million applications worldwide
by Madrid system member offices in 2011 arrived in the
form of a Madrid designation. German applicants filed more than 2.1 million equivalent
applications worldwide in 2011 – based on class counts
One-third of all applications were for
and regional filings. Residents of China (1.4 million), the
“service” marks
US (1.3 million) and France (1.0 million) were the only three
Together, the 11 service-related classes accounted for other origins to have filed more than a million applications
one-third of all classes specified in applications filed in each. The bulk of Chinese filings were filed domestically.
2011. This is up by 3.5 percentage points on 2004, dem- In contrast, the majority of the applications originating in
onstrating the continued importance applicants place Germany, France and the US were filed abroad – partly
on protecting their brands in service-oriented industries. reflecting the broad country coverage of the Community
Trade Mark. Most filings of middle- and low-income origin
were domestic filings.
8
Highlights
Trademark registrations worldwide income country, received 41,218 filings, which is larger
decreased by 7.1% than the number of filings at the JPO or the USPTO.
Between 2010 and 2011, the IP offices of China (23.8%),
In 2011, there were an estimated 3 million trademarks
India (16.7%), Mexico (17.2%), Turkey (17.6%) and Ukraine
registered across the world, for which 4.5 million classes
(17.5%) each saw substantial growth in filings.
were specified. This represents a 7.1% decrease on 2010,
largely reflecting a substantial decrease in registrations Residents of China and Germany filed the
issued by the IP office of China (-23.7%). Despite this, the largest numbers of applications across
IP office of China issued more than 1 million trademarks the world
in 2011. Of the top 20 offices, the IP office of India saw
Residents of China and Germany filed similar numbers
the fastest growth in registrations in 2011, during which
of design applications in 2011, with a combined total of
registrations more than doubled, while registrations in
around 1.1 million (based on equivalent design count
Italy fell by around 40%.
data). Applications filed by residents of China have grown
More than 20 million trademarks in force rapidly over the past few years, with China surpassing
across the world Germany to become the top origin in 2011. Most of the
top 20 origins saw growth in filings in 2011, with Bulgaria
In 2011, around 23 million trademarks were in force at
(+42.8%) recording the fastest growth.
70 IP offices worldwide. More than 5.5 million – or 24%
of these trademarks – were in force at SIPO, which saw More than 2.5 million designs in force
20% growth on 2010. The JPO and the USPTO each worldwide in 2011
had more than 1.7 million trademarks in force. For the
In 2011, more than 2.5 million industrial designs were
top 20 IP offices, OHIM saw the fastest growth (24.2%),
in force at 77 offices, including all larger offices except
while Italy experienced a 6.8% decrease.
Brazil, France and Italy. SIPO had the largest number of
designs in force in 2011 (37% of the total). The share of
Industrial designs SIPO is of similar magnitude to the combined share of
the JPO, KIPO, OHIM and the USPTO – the four largest
Record number of design applications filed
offices after SIPO. The IP offices of Malaysia and Mexico
in 2011
saw the fastest growth in the number of designs in force.
Industrial design applications worldwide grew strongly
over the last two years. In 2011, design filings increased
by 16%, following 13.9% growth in 2010. This consider-
able growth was mostly due to strong growth in China.
SIPO accounted for 90% of total growth from 2009 to
2011. The 775,700 industrial design applications filed
worldwide in 2011 consisted of 691,200 resident and
84,500 non-resident applications.
Substantial increases in applications at

offices of middle-income countries
Unlike patents, the list of top 20 offices includes 9 offices
located in middle-income countries. China (521,468) – a
middle-income country – received the largest number
of design applications in 2011. Turkey, another middle-
9

data description
Data sources WIPO's annual IP
statistical survey
The IP data published in this report are taken from the
WIPO Statistics Database, primarily based on WIPO’s WIPO collects data from national and regional IP offices
Annual IP Survey (see below) and data compiled by WIPO around the world through annual questionnaires and
in the processing of international applications/registra- enters these in the WIPO Statistics Database. In cases
tions through the PCT, Madrid and Hague systems. Data where offices do not provide data but data are published
are available for downloading from WIPO’s Statistics Data on their websites or in annual reports, these data, where
Center at: www.wipo.int/ipstats/. possible, are used to supplement the survey responses.
A continuing effort is made to improve the quality and
Patent family and technology data are a combination of availability of IP statistics and to obtain data for as many
those taken from the WIPO Statistics Database and the offices and countries as possible. The annual IP ques-
PATSTAT database of the European Patent Office (using tionnaires can be downloaded at: www.wipo.int/ipstats/
the April 2012 edition of the PATSTAT database). en/data_collection/questionnaire/.3
GDP and population data were obtained from the World The data are broken down by office, origin, applications
Development Indicators Database maintained by the abroad, resident and non-resident applications, class
World Bank. R&D expenditure data are those from the counts, design counts, etc. Refer to the Glossary for the
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. definitions of key concepts contained in this publication.
This publication uses the World Bank income clas-

Estimation procedure for
sification. Economies are divided according to 2011
world totals
gross national income per capita, calculated using the
World Bank Atlas method. The groups are: low-income World totals for applications and grants/registrations for
($1,025 or less); lower middle-income ($1,026-$4,035); patents, utility models, trademarks, industrial designs and
upper middle-income ($4,036-$12,475); and high-income plant varieties are WIPO estimates. Data are not available
($12,476 or more).1 for all offices for every year. Missing data are estimated
using methods such as linear extrapolation and averag-
The report uses the UN definition of regions and sub- ing adjacent data points. The estimation method used
regions. The geographical terms used by WIPO may depends on the year and the office in question. Data are
differ slightly than those defined by the UN. However, available for the majority of the larger offices. Only small
the composition of regions and subregions is identical. 2
shares of world totals are estimated. The table below
shows data availability by IP type and data coverage.
Application data availability

(based on 2011 statistics collection)
Estimated world Data Data

IP type totals based on: available for: coverage
Patents 125 offices 91 offices 98%
1 For further details on World Bank classification, see Utility models 74 offices 49 offices 99%
http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications. Trademarks 151 offices 121 offices 95%
2 For further details on UN classification, see http:// Industrial designs 133 offices 108 offices 99%
unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.
Plant varieties 66 offices 59 offices 98%
3 All questionnaires are available in English, French
and Spanish.
10
data description
Where an office provides data that are not broken down

by origin, WIPO estimates the resident and non-resident
counts using the historical shares at that office.
National and international data

Application and grant/registration data include both direct
filings and filings via the international systems (where ap-
plicable). This publication employs the following terms:
patent applications and grants; utility model applications
and grants; trademark applications and application class
counts, and registrations and registration class counts;
industrial design applications and application design
counts, and registrations and registration design counts;
and plant variety applications and grants. In the case of
patents and utility models, data include direct filings at
national patent offices and PCT national phase entries.
For trademarks, data include filings at national and
regional offices and designations received by relevant
offices via the Madrid system. Data for industrial designs
include national and regional applications combined
with designations received by relevant offices via the
Hague system.
International comparability
of indicators
Every effort has been made to compile IP statistics
based on the same definitions and to facilitate interna-
tional comparability. As mentioned above, the data are
collected from offices using WIPO’s harmonized annual
IP questionnaires. However, it must be kept in mind that
national laws and regulations for filing IP applications
or for issuing IP rights, as well as statistical reporting
practices, may differ across jurisdictions.
Please note that due to the continual updating of data

and the revision of historical statistics, data provided in
this publication may differ from previously published fig-
ures and from the data available on WIPO’s web pages.
11

table of contents
special section
The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual
Property - definitional and measurement issues 19
Overview of IP Activities 38
section A
Patents, Utility Models and Microorganisms 41
A.1 43
Patent applications and grants worldwide
A.1.1 Applications worldwide 43
A.1.2 Grants worldwide 45
A.2 47
Patent applications and grants by office
A.2.1 Applications by office 47
A.2.2 Grants by office 52
A.3 54
Patent applications and grants by origin
A.3.1 Applications and grants by origin 55
A.3.2 Applications abroad by origin 56
A.3.3 Applications by office and origin 57
A.4 59
Patent Families
A.4.1 Patent families 59
A.4.2 Patent families by office and origin 60
A.5 62
Patent applications filed through the patent cooperation treaty
A.5.1 PCT applications 62
A.5.2 PCT applications by type of applicant 64
A.5.3 PCT national phase entries 65
A.6 68
International collaboration
12
table of contents
A.7 70
Patents by field of technology
A.7.1 Applications by field of technology 70
A.7.2 Applications in selected energy-related technologies 74
A.8 76
Patents per gdp and r&d expenditure
A.9 79
Patents in force
A.10 80
Opposition and invalidation of patents granted
A.11 82
Pending patent applications
A.12 86
Patent prosecution highway
A.13 90
Utility models
A.13.1 Utility model applications 90
A.13.2 Utility model grants 93
A.14 95
Microorganisms
13
table of contents
section b
Trademarks 97
B.1 98
Trademark applications and registrations worldwide
B.1.1 Applications worldwide 98
B.1.2 Registrations worldwide 101
B.1.3 Applications by geographical region, income group and Nice class 103
B.2 106
Trademark application and registration class counts by office
B.2.1 Applications by office 106
B.2.2 Registrations by office 109
B.3 112
Nice classes specified in trademark applications by office
B.3.1 Industry sectors by office 112
B.3.2 Goods and services classes by office 114
B.4 115
Trademark application class counts by origin
B.4.1 Applications by origin 115
B.5 118
Nice classes specified in trademark applications by origin
B.5.1 Industry sectors by origin 118
B.5.2 Goods and services classes by origin 120
B.6 120
International trademark registrations and renewals through the Madrid System
B.6.1 Madrid registrations and renewals 121
B.6.2 Number of classes and designations per Madrid registration 122
B.6.3 Registrations and renewals by designated Madrid member 123
B.6.4 Registrations and renewals by origin 124
B.6.5 Madrid applicants 125
B.6.6 Non-resident applications by filing route 126
B.7 127
Trademark application class count per GDP and population
B.8 129
Trademarks in force
14
table of contents
section c
Industrial Designs 131
C.1 132
Industrial design applications and registrations worldwide
C.1.1 Applications worldwide 132
C.1.2 Registrations worldwide 135
C.2 136
Industrial design applications and registrations by office
C.2.1 Applications by office 136
C.2.2 Registrations by office 140
C.3 141
Industrial design applications and registrations by origin
C.3.1 Equivalent applications and registrations by origin 141
C.3.2 Industrial design applications by office and origin 143
C.4 144
Industrial design registrations through the hague system
C.4.1 International registrations of industrial designs 144
C.4.2 Top Hague applicants 146
C.4.3 Non-resident industrial design applications by filing route for selected Hague members 146
C.5 147
Industrial design registrations in force
15
table of contents
section D
plant variety protection 149
D.1 149
Plant variety applications and grants
D.1.1 Applications worldwide 149
D.1.2 Grants worldwide 150
D.2 151
Plant variety applications and grants by office
D.2.1 Applications for the top 20 offices 151
D.2.2 Grants for the top 20 offices 152
D.3 152
Plant variety applications and grants by origin
D.3.1 Applications and grants by origin 153
D.3.2 Equivalent applications and grants by origin 154
D.3.3 Non-resident applications by office and origin 156
D.4 157
Plant variety grants in force
16
table of contents
annex, glossary and list of abbreviations 159
Annex A 159
Definitions for selected energy-related technology fields
Annex B 160
International classification of goods and services under the nice agreement
Class groups defined by Edital®
Glossary 163
List of abbreviations 171
statistical tables 172
Table P1 Patent applications by patent office and origin, 2011 172

Table P2 Patent grants by patent office and origin, and patents in force, 2011 176
Table T1 Trademark applications by office and origin, 2011 179
Table T2 Trademark registrations by office and origin, and trademarks in force, 2011 183
Table ID1 Industrial design applications by office and origin, 2011 187
Table ID2 Industrial design registrations by office and origin, and industrial designs in force, 2011 190
Table PV1 Plant variety applications and grants by office and origin, 2011 193
17
special SectionThe rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property
special section
The rise of Design IN Innovation and
INtellectual Property - definitional
and measurement issues
Introduction quantifying the importance

of design: conceptual and
Intellectual Property (IP)-related disputes among com-
measurement challenges
panies in the high-technology industry have drawn
significant attention to design in 2012. Historically, innovation studies and efforts to analyze
the impact of IP have focused on other forms of IP –
Frequently, these disputes focus on the infringement of especially patents. Yet today, evidence on the role of
patents and the underlying technological inventions.1 Yet design as a source of innovation and economic growth
some of the highest profile conflicts relating to smart- is slowly emerging.2
phones and tablet computers have centered on product
designs. Courts worldwide are making decisive judg- An increasing, albeit still limited, number of analytical
ments on which designs can be protected and what studies and policy discussions assert the importance
constitutes infringement of a design right. of design in the innovation process.3 The fact that firms’
design efforts are a growing and sizeable investment in
Design plays an increasingly important role in the world their intangible assets is well established in high-income
economy. Industrial design filings worldwide have seen countries.4 In innovation studies, design is sometimes
continued growth over the last decade, often at double- treated on the same footing as a firm’s expenditure on
digit rates, notwithstanding the global economic down- research and development (R&D), software, training
turn. The look and feel of devices – their design – helps and other knowledge-based investments. As a result
drive consumer choice, as it determines the ease of of this emerging evidence and the above-mentioned
use and influences consumer experience of a product. court cases, policymakers have shown greater interest
Design enables firms to differentiate their products and in “industrial designs” as a form of IP.
foster a particular brand image, ultimately establishing a 2 See the following studies, mostly from the United
competitive edge in the marketplace. Firms are therefore Kingdom (UK), in particular with the support of the
UK Design Council or the UK Intellectual Property
sensitive to the copying of their designs, as it may lead
Office: DTI (2005), HM Treasury (2005), Design
consumers to purchase other products and result in a Council (2005), European Commission (2009), BIS
loss of market share. (2010), Design Council (2010), Pesole et al. (2011),
Thompson et al. (2012) and OECD (2012a). The
Barcelona Design Centre is considering a new project
This special section discusses the importance of design on “Measuring Design: Developing Strategies for
in innovation and as a form of IP. It first explores key con- Improving the Evidence Base”, see BCD (2012).
3 Ibid.
ceptual and measurement questions, and then provides
4 Awano et al. (2010), Hargreaves (2011) and WIPO
a global statistical overview of the formal use of industrial (2011), Box 1.6. According to Gil and Haskell (2008),
design protection. for instance, estimates for the UK put spending on
new engineering and architectural design at GBP 44
billion, or 30 percent of all intangible investments. This
represents one and a half times firms’ expenditure
1 WIPO (2012a) on training and five times their spending on R&D.
19
special Section The rise of Design IN Innovation and INtellectual Property
Analyzing the economic role of design involves non-trivial The design community’s definition covers an ever-grow-
conceptual and measurement challenges. First, no of- ing array of economic and social aspects. Although often
ficial statistical definition exists for the term “design”. The associated with the ‘look” and physical design of goods,
professional design community’s definition of design has for the design profession the concept of design is much
not been fully integrated into contemporary innovation broader.8 Design involves not only aesthetic elements but
metrics and concepts. It is also significantly broader than also functional ones, as well as considerations such as
the legal definition of an “industrial design” (see Box 1 ease of manufacture sustainability reliability and quality,
for both definitions), which raises important questions on and business processes themselves.9
how best to measure design activity.
Design is not preoccupied solely with the physical as-
Box 1: Contrasting definitions of design pects of goods. In the case of high-technology products,
for instance, it increasingly also relates to the design of
Designers’ definition
According to the International Council of Societies of Industrial De- graphical user interfaces, such as the form of icons on
sign (ICSID), “Design is a creative activity whose aim is to establish tablet computer screens and other intangible attributes
the multi-faceted qualities of objects, processes, services and their of high-technology products. Furthermore, design is not
systems in whole life cycles. Therefore, design is the central factor
of innovative humanization of technologies and the crucial factor of only relevant for goods; it also matters to services and
cultural and economic exchange.” processes within firms, governments and other entities
– in fields as diverse as the check-in at hotels, online
”Thus, design is an activity involving a wide spectrum of professions
in which products, services, graphics, interiors and architecture all ordering in supermarkets, design of electoral systems
take part. [...] Therefore, the term designer refers to an individual and polling processes.
who practices an intellectual profession, and not simply a trade or
a service for enterprises.”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.”6
Industrial Design rights: a legal perspective

According to WIPO, “an industrial design is the ornamental or aesthetic
aspect of an article. The design may consist of three-dimensional
features, such as the shape or surface of an article, or of two-
dimensional features, such as patterns, lines or color.”7
In most countries, an industrial design must be registered in order

to be protected under industrial design law. As a general rule, to be
registrable the design must be “new” or “original”. Once a design
is registered, the term of protection is generally five years, with the
possibility of further periods of renewal for up to, in most cases, 15
years. In most countries, protecting a product design is relatively
inexpensive and easier to obtain than a patent.
5 International Council of Societies of

Industrial Design definition at:
www.icsid.org/about/about/articles31.htm
6 Design Council (2010)
7 “Industrial Designs - What is an Industrial
Design?” www.wipo.int/designs/en/ 8 European Commission (2009)
9 DTI (2005)
20
Accordingly, the task of the designer relates to aesthetics This does not imply that the economic value of designs
and functional product features, but also to improving in- has not been recognized. International measurement ef-
dustrial processes and systems, overall quality of life and forts in the area of R&D and innovation already perceive
environmental protection. The definition on Wikipedia
10
design as an integral part of R&D and the development
specifies that, “industrial design is the use of a combina- and implementation of product innovations.12 Yet, the
tion of applied art and applied science to improve the definitions used in the two key international measurement
aesthetics, ergonomics, functionality and usability of a manuals – the Frascati Manual and the Oslo Manual – are
product, but it may also be used to improve the product’s not aligned, and the international guidelines currently
marketability and production. The role of an industrial do not propose a unified measurement framework for
designer is to create and execute design solutions for design.13 Work is ongoing in this field, however, within
problems of form, usability, physical ergonomics, market- the relevant international statistical bodies, at the national
ing, brand development, and sales.” 11
level and in the design community.14
However, this broad understanding of design has not yet Turning to design as a form of IP, there is an important
been fully integrated into internationally agreed innovation difference between the broad design concept and what
metrics and concepts. The latter would need to clearly set is protected by an “industrial design” from a strictly legal
out how design relates to products, processes and other point of view. Specifically, industrial designs are only
forms of innovation; what its main inputs and outputs afforded legal protection for the aesthetic aspect of a
are; and its impact on firm performance and innovation product (see Box 1 for the legal definition). Contrary to
more broadly. the broader design concept, an industrial design does
not protect any technical or functional features of the
product to which it is applied.
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. See also OECD (2012a).
13 The Frascati Manual describes the scope of
design as a specific activity within R&D. In this
context, design is limited to the creation of plans
or drawings aimed at defining mainly “functional”
issues. The Oslo Manual describes design as
part of the development and implementation of
product innovation, limited to aesthetic/form
10 See, on the role of design for sustainability, elements and as part of marketing innovation.
“The Contribution of Design to Sustainable 14 The competent body for revising the international
Development”, Francis Gurry, Director General, definitions as they relate to innovation and R&D is the
WIPO, July 6, 2011, on the occasion of World IP OECD National Experts on Science and Technology
Day, uncsd.iisd.org/guest-articles/the-contribution- Indicators. The design community has also started
of-design-to-sustainable-development/ complementary work in this field. See, for example,
11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design BCD (2012) and the work of the UK Design Council.
Following these broad definitions, various The BCD analyzes and defines the conceptual
national studies have sought to better define framework of design in the economic context, in order
what constitutes the “design industry” and to measure it as a tool for user-centered innovation
the “design profession”, aiming to identify the and as an economic factor of production. The initiative
industry and profession in official industry and is part of the first Action Plan of the European
employment classifications. See Thompson and Design Innovation Initiative to exploit the potential
Montgomery (2012), Gertler and Vinodrai (2004) of design for innovation and to reinforce the links
and the other studies mentioned in footnote 2. between design, innovation and competitiveness.
21
Hence, industrial design rights only cover a subset of the Table 1: Knowledge investment and different
designs falling within the modern design concept. Other forms of intellectual property rights
forms of IP play an equally important role. Technical or Industrial
Investment type Patent Copyright design Trademark
functional design features may be eligible for patent, utility
R&D X X
model or trade secret protection. If designs distinctively
Software development X X X
identify products or companies, they may also qualify for
Design X X X X
trademark protection. Finally, copyright law may protect
Creative outputs X X
certain designs as works of art. Figure 1 illustrates how
Market research &
different forms of IP can represent a subset of the pro- advertising X X
fessional community’s broad design definition. Table 1
Note: The shading indicates: (i) the types of knowledge investment that can
similarly shows that a design can be protected by various be protected by industrial design rights; and (ii) the different forms of IP that
can be used to protect designs according to the broader design concept.
IP rights, but also illustrates that certain types of knowl-
Source: Adapted from Gill and Haskel (2008)
edge investment may lead to industrial design protection.
Due to the complex interrelationship between different

Figure 1: The broad design concept and
different forms of intellectual property rights knowledge investments and forms of IP, it is difficult
to accurately capture the level of design activity. Also,
the interaction between design activity and the formal
Modern design concept protection of designs by different forms of IP is hard to
quantify.15 For instance, there are no data on the share of
Industrial
designs covered by industrial design rights. Differences
design protection
across countries in the propensity to file for industrial
Trademark design rights often seem to reflect institutional, legal and
cultural differences. Furthermore, the extent to which the
Copyright
existence of narrower industrial design rights spurs invest-
ment in better design in the broad sense and enables
Other IP
firms to protect market share have not been studied.16
Patents
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. It also illustrates that one and the same design To help improve our understanding of design activity, this
can be protected by different IP forms at the same time. For instance, design
rights could protect the ornamental aspects while patents protect the functional section reviews the statistics on global industrial design
aspects of a design.
filings. It complements Section C of this report.
Source: WIPO
15 WIPO (2011)
16 Ibid.
22
As discussed above, statistics on industrial design filings Designs are the only form of IP for which offices of high-
do not capture the broad understanding of design. 17
income countries do not account for the largest share of
Yet, these data are the only pertinent and internationally IP filings. Upper middle-income countries accounted for
comparable source of information when it comes to the majority of industrial design filings, followed by high-
identifying how active firms, individuals or others are in income countries and a small share of lower middle- and
seeking formal IP protection for designs. low-income countries. However, if one excludes China,
the upper middle-income countries accounted for only
WIPO collects aggregate industrial design data through around 4% of design filings. Compared to other forms of
its annual IP questionnaires. A few key challenges relat- IP, the increased share of the State Intellectual Property
ing to data availability and comparability complicate Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) was
the interpretation of statistics on industrial design filings particularly pronounced, accounting for 68% of design
worldwide (see Box 2). filings worldwide in 2011. The rapid growth of Chinese
filings also explains the marked decrease in the overall
The data presented below refer to industrial design ap- share of high-income countries – from 52.5% in 2004 to
plication data, excluding registration data.18 Time series 24.5% in 2011. The lower middle-income and low-income
analysis is based on application counts as there are groups accounted for less than 4% of all applications, and
insufficient historical design count data (see Box 2). their combined share declined between 2004 and 2011.
The pattern for the income groups described above holds

Application trend worldwide true where the analysis is based on available design count
by income group data. However, design count data are not available for a
The total number of industrial design applications filed number of offices, mostly from middle- and low-income
worldwide increased from around 344,700 in 2004 to groups, hence their true shares are bound to be higher.
775,700 in 2011. Table 2 presents the shares of global The 2011 design count data (Table 2, last column) show
industrial design applications by income group. For that upper middle-income countries accounted for 59.6%
comparison, the equivalent patent and trademark shares of total design count filings reported – a lower share than
are also shown. for application count data (72%). High-income countries
accounted for around 37% of the 2011 reported total,
which is higher than for application count data (24.9%).
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 – al-
lows only one design per application while IP offices in a
large number of high-income countries permit applica-
tions to contain more than one design.
17 The single existing effort to compile a
representative index on countries’ different
design capacities shows that industrial designs,
though important, are only one among many
variables. See Moultrie and Livesey (2009).
18 Application data are most often used to measure
the level of IP activity. Statistics for industrial design
registrations tend to mirror those for applications,
since, at many offices, registration of an industrial
design involves only a formality examination.
23
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 France United Kingdom Spain Italy
25,000
20,000
Applications
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Application year
Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(i) Institutional differences: To protect industrial designs, some offices for statistical and economic analysis.20 In the case of designs, however,
permit only one design per application (e.g., the IP office of China), while the international IP registration system is only now reaching the level
other offices allow applications to contain more than one design for the of the PCT and Madrid systems. Presently, the volume of design filings
same product or same class (e.g., the IP office of Germany). To enable through the WIPO-administered Hague System for the International
better cross-country comparability, industrial design indicators should Registration of Industrial Designs is growing strongly but remains limited.
report the number of designs contained in applications (i.e., design counts) This is due to the fact that the Hague system has fewer members than
rather than the number of applications.19 WIPO has made substantial the PCT and Madrid systems. In 2011, the Hague system comprised
progress in recent years in improving design count data coverage. For 60 members, mostly from Europe. Thus, the underlying statistics are
2011, design count data were available for 55 offices. However, design not sufficiently representative to be used for detailed analysis, and
counts for a significant number of countries are only available from researchers must rely mainly on national/regional IP filing data. The
2008 onwards, rendering long-term historical comparison difficult. coming years are likely to see significant expansion of the Hague system’s
membership – a welcome statistical development. Countries such as
(ii) Regional office data: In 2003, the Office for Harmonization in the China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United States of America (US)
Internal Market (OHIM) of the European Union (EU) began issuing the and others are currently considering joining the Hague system. Hague
Registered Community Design (RCD). This procedure enables applicants system data will then become more meaningful for statistical analysis.
to file a single application for protection across all EU member states.
Since the introduction of the RCD, a number of European IP offices (iv) Lack of an industrial design unit record database with global
have experienced decreases in applications received (see Figure 2). coverage: WIPO’s statistical database contains aggregate data collected
This clearly indicates changes in applicant behavior, with applicants from national and regional IP offices via annual questionnaires and in-
preferring to use the OHIM system to seek protection for their designs dividual application data (unit record data) for international registrations
across all EU countries rather than filing separate applications with all through the Hague system. At present, a database with global coverage
or even some national offices. The downward trend in filings at national containing individual applications filed at national IP offices is lacking.
offices in Europe therefore reflects institutional changes rather than a
decrease in the demand for design rights. This factor should be taken 20 It is often argued that IP data based on WIPO
into consideration when compiling data for residents of EU countries. registration systems are more reliable than
national IP data. The latter are impacted by
(iii) Absence of fully representative data on international registra- country-specific institutional differences,
tions: In patent and trademark studies, researchers can rely on data such as single- versus multi-class systems for
from international IP systems such as the Patent Cooperation Treaty trademarks, making comparison across countries
(PCT system) and the Madrid System for the International Registra- tricky. In contrast, international IP data from the
tion of Marks (Madrid system). Membership and use of the PCT and, PCT and Madrid systems are comparable across
increasingly, the Madrid system have attained wide coverage. The data member countries without caveat. Consequently,
available from these WIPO systems are representative and meaningful key IP- or innovation-related publications rely
heavily on data on patents filed under the PCT
system in analyzing patenting behavior across
19 See WIPO (2012b) and Section C of this report. countries. See, for instance, OECD (2012b).
24
Table 2: Shares of global IP applications In all income groups, resident applicants accounted for
by income group the majority of industrial design applications filed in 2011.
Designs For the high-income group, the non-resident share of
Patents Trademarks Designs (design
Income group (applications) (class count) (applications) count) total applications was 24.6%. The upper middle-income
2004 2011 2004 2011 2004 2011 2011 group had the lowest non-resident share (4.7%); however,
High-income 82.7 67.0 55.5 45.1 52.5 24.9 37.1 excluding China yields a share of around 41%. Moreover,
Upper middle-income 14.9 29.8 34.2 43.9 42.4 72.0 59.6 non-resident share by income group masks the differ-
… China 8.3 24.6 13.4 22.8 33.4 68.1 53.2 ences across offices (see Table 3).
Lower middle-income 2.3 3.2 9.2 9.9 4.6 2.9 3.2
Low-income 0.1 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 The distribution of resident versus non-resident ap-
Note: Design count data for 2004 are not available. The design count share of
plications for industrial designs differed markedly from
middle- and low-income countries shows a downward bias due to a lack of
data for a number of offices.
that of patents. In particular, for all income groups the
non-resident share of industrial design applications was
smaller than the non-resident share of patent applica-
tions. In addition, for low- and lower middle-income
countries, non-residents accounted for a minority of
industrial design applications, whereas they accounted
for a majority of patent applications (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Comparison of non-resident shares in total applications for industrial designs

and patents (%), 2011
Industrial designs (application count) Patents
100 100
89.5
78.8
80 80
Non-Resident share (%)
60 60
38.2
40 40
33.3
26.8
24.6 25.0
20 20
4.7
0 0
High-income Upper middle-income Lower middle-income Low-income 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. Despite this, the resulting bias is likely to be limited as all the
major offices are included.
25
OHIM received the second highest number of design

Rapid increase in filings in filings in 2011, with 87,225 designs contained in appli-
recent years
cations. This represents a 5.4% increase over 2010. Its
non-resident share was around 26.2%. The possibility to
Applications by office
seek protection throughout the EU via a single applica-
Industrial design filings have increased each year from tion at OHIM meant its non-resident share was above
2000 to 2011 (see Section C, Figure C.1.1.1). In 2000, that of most high-volume European offices. As can be
roughly 290,800 applications were filed. By 2011, the seen, France, Italy and Spain each had low shares of
number of applications filed in a single year increased non-resident filings. By contrast, Germany, with 23.3%,
to around 775,700, representing 16% growth on 2010. had a relatively high share of non-resident designs con-
Figure 4 shows industrial design application counts for tained in applications. Of the top 10 offices, the US had
selected offices from 1965 to 2011. Except for Japan, the largest non-resident share (42.5%) in 2011.
all offices saw modest growth until the mid-1990s, after
which growth picked up considerably. Applications re- Apart from SIPO, a number of middle- and low-income
ceived by SIPO and the IP offices of Turkey, Bangladesh offices received a large number of designs contained in
and Thailand increased by 23.6%, 11.8%, 9.4% and 9.3% applications. For example, Turkey’s design count was
per year, respectively, between 1995 and 2011. OHIM 41,218, which is considerably higher than that of Japan
saw 10.5% growth between 2003 and 2011. 21
or the US. The share of non-resident applications varied
widely, however, for the majority of the reported offices,
Table 3 presents data on the number of designs con- with non-resident applicants accounting for the largest
tained in applications for all national and regional offices share of applications at many middle- and low-income
for which data are available. SIPO, with 521,468 designs, offices. However, for offices of middle-income countries
received by far the largest number of applications in with high design counts, such as Brazil, China, India,
2011, most of which were filed by resident applicants. Morocco and Turkey, resident applicants accounted for
Non-resident applicants accounted for only 2.7% of the the largest shares of total applications. The table shows
total. Of all the reported offices, SIPO, along with the that the use of the design system varies widely within
offices of Cyprus, Spain and Portugal had the lowest and across income groups.
non-resident shares.
21 Growth rate refers to average annual growth.
26
Figure 4: Trend in industrial design applications (application count) for selected offices, 1965-2011
China Republic of Korea Japan

United States of America OHIM
500,000
60,000
400,000
40,000
Applications
300,000
Applications
200,000
20,000
100,000
0 0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Application year Application year
Turkey India Thailand Vietnam

Brazil Mexico Bangladesh Colombia
10,000 5,000
8,000 4,000
Applications
Applications
6,000 3,000
4,000 2,000
2,000 1,000
0 0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Application year Application year
27
Table 3: Number of designs contained in applications (design counts) by office, 2011
Growth Non- Growth Non-

Non- rate (%): Resident Income Non- rate (%): Resident Income
Office Resident Resident Total 2010-11 Share (%) Group Office Resident Resident Total 2010-11 Share (%) Group
China 507,538 13,930 521,468 23.8 2.7 UM Saudi Arabia 246 506 752 0.0 67.3 H
OHIM 64,343 22,882 87,225 5.4 26.2 H Oman (1) .. 697 697 -6.1 .. H
Republic of Bulgaria 614 50 664 19.2 7.5 UM
Korea 54,300 4,271 58,571 -1.1 7.3 H Azerbaijan 27 605 632 790.1 95.7 UM
Germany 41,441 12,600 54,041 6.2 23.3 H Sweden 583 23 606 -25.0 3.8 H
Turkey 35,488 5,730 41,218 17.6 13.9 UM OAPI (1) .. 595 595 132.4 .. L
Japan 26,658 4,147 30,805 -3.0 13.5 H Belarus 236 337 573 81.9 58.8 UM
United States Slovenia (2) .. .. 566 26.3 .. H
of America 17,443 13,024 30,467 4.8 42.7 H
Lithuania 61 472 533 16.6 88.6 UM
Italy 28,306 968 29,274 -9.8 3.3 H
Belize (1) .. 450 450 -7.2 .. LM
Spain 18,540 454 18,994 24.3 2.4 H
Slovakia 362 54 416 -29.4 13.0 H
France 14,795 1,411 16,206 -11.1 8.7 H
Colombia 147 237 384 -4.0 61.7 UM
India 5,156 3,060 8,216 16.7 37.2 LM
Peru 86 248 334 -11.4 74.3 UM
Ukraine 3,444 3,291 6,735 17.5 48.9 LM
Uzbekistan 301 26 327 22.0 8.0 LM
Russian
Federation 2,887 3,190 6,077 8.2 52.5 UM Iceland 52 274 326 -4.1 84.0 H
Australia 2,664 3,302 5,966 1.8 55.3 H D. P. R. of
Korea (1) .. 311 311 51.0 .. L
Brazil (2) 3,863 1,638 5,501 3.9 29.8 UM
Denmark 209 102 311 -15.7 32.8 H
Morocco 3,457 1,937 5,394 -10.4 35.9 LM
Finland 258 51 309 -4.9 16.5 H
China, Hong
Kong SAR 1,818 3,021 4,839 14.0 62.4 H Guatemala 35 205 240 6.2 85.4 LM
Mexico 1,909 2,240 4,149 17.2 54.0 UM Cyprus 206 0 206 0.0 0.0 H
Singapore 663 3,322 3,985 3.9 83.4 H Syrian Arab
Republic (1) .. 200 200 3.6 .. LM
Croatia 622 2,101 2,723 -8.3 77.2 H
Latvia 117 77 194 -14.5 39.7 UM
Viet Nam 1,367 737 2,104 7.1 35.0 LM
Namibia (1) .. 168 168 75.0 .. UM
Greece (2) 1,526 415 1,941 -23.6 21.4 H
Botswana (1) .. 166 166 104.9 .. UM
Republic of
Moldova 936 918 1,854 42.5 49.5 LM Ecuador (2) 52 110 162 28.6 67.9 UM
Argentina (2) .. .. 1,676 18.7 .. UM China, Macao
SAR 7 151 158 116.4 95.6 H
Portugal 1,598 25 1,623 1.4 1.5 H
Ghana (1) .. 139 139 139.7 .. LM
Monaco 29 1,562 1,591 -10.3 98.2 H
Suriname (1) .. 125 125 247.2 .. UM
T F Y R of
Macedonia 87 1,372 1,459 7.5 94.0 UM Ireland (2) 110 14 124 0.0 11.3 H
Egypt (1) .. 1,445 1,445 5.6 .. LM Gabon (1) .. 89 89 43.5 .. UM
New Zealand Mali (1) .. 85 85 66.7 .. L
(2) 449 849 1,298 0.0 65.4 H Niger (1) .. 85 85 97.7 .. L
Liechtenstein Sao Tome
(1) 24 1,256 1,280 -11.1 .. H and Principe
Czech (1) .. 83 83 118.4 .. LM
Republic 1,189 49 1,238 -15.2 4.0 H Benin (1) .. 79 79 364.7 .. L
Serbia 107 1,109 1,216 43.6 91.2 UM Dominican
Romania 1,030 134 1,164 -14.5 11.5 UM Republic (2) .. .. 79 0.0 .. UM
Georgia 206 943 1,149 -3.4 82.1 LM Senegal (1) .. 79 79 17.9 .. LM
Bosnia and Jordan 9 68 77 -26.0 88.3 UM
Herzegovina 25 1,069 1,094 18.7 97.7 UM Panama 0 70 70 0.0 100.0 UM
Montenegro 14 1,037 1,051 4.6 98.7 UM Costa Rica
Hungary 755 138 893 12.0 15.5 H (2) 10 57 67 0.0 85.1 UM
Albania 16 832 848 11.6 98.1 LM Côte d'Ivoire
(1) .. 51 51 -27.1 .. LM
Armenia 27 791 818 23.2 96.7 LM
Rwanda (1) .. 5 5 0.0 .. L
Algeria 699 104 803 0.0 13.0 UM
Tajikistan 0 5 5 0.0 100.0 L
Mongolia 182 583 765 -25.2 76.2 LM
Note: “..” = not available; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market; OAPI = African Intellectual Property Organization; D.P.R. of Korea =
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; H = High-income; UM = Upper middle-income; LM = Lower middle-income and L = Low-income. (1) = Only Hague
designation data are available; therefore, data on application design count by office may be incomplete; (2) = 2010 data; and growth rate refers to 2009-10.
28
As mentioned above, not all offices report design count Table 4: Number of industrial design applications
data. Table 4 provides industrial design application data (application counts) by office, 2011
(application counts) for offices for which data on the num- Growth Non-
Non- rate (%): Resident Income
ber of designs contained in applications (design counts) Office Resident Resident Total 2010-11 Share (%) Group
are unavailable. A number of middle- and low-income of- Canada 790 4,437 5,227 1.7 84.9 H
United Kingdom 4,290 221 4,511 25.2 4.9 H
fices received a large number of applications in 2011. For
Indonesia .. .. 4,196 3.2 .. LM
example, the offices of Indonesia (4,196), Thailand (3,749), Thailand 2,905 844 3,749 3.7 22.5 UM
Switzerland 1,114 1,411 2,525 0.4 55.9 H
South Africa (2,044) and Malaysia (1,871) received large
South Africa 853 1,191 2,044 17.0 58.3 UM
numbers of applications in 2011. Resident applicants Malaysia 743 1,128 1,871 11.6 60.3 UM
accounted for the bulk of applications in Thailand. In Poland 1,548 31 1,579 -10.0 2.0 H
Israel 1,030 481 1,511 -6.6 31.8 H
contrast, the majority of the applications filed at the offices
Barbados 142 1,229 1,371 14.6 89.6 H
of Malaysia and South Africa came from non-resident ap- Bangladesh 1,155 142 1,297 44.8 10.9 L
Philippines 533 579 1,112 31.3 52.1 LM
plicants. This reflects intensive use of the design system at
Benelux 917 170 1,087 -16.7 15.6 H
offices in middle-income countries. However, the resident Norway 288 772 1,060 11.0 72.8 H
and non-resident breakdown shows that at some offices Pakistan 755 159 914 66.5 17.4 LM
Austria 494 243 737 -24.9 33.0 H
residents accounted for a high share of total applications, Chile 57 472 529 7.3 89.2 UM
while in others the opposite holds true. The majority of Madagascar 307 2 309 8.0 0.6 L
Sri Lanka (2) 233 51 284 -9.3 18.0 LM
the reported offices saw growth in applications in 2011
Paraguay (2) 121 150 271 -11.4 55.4 LM
compared to the previous year. Kyrgyzstan 17 150 167 12.1 89.8 L
Kyrgyzstan 17 150 167 12.1 89.8 L
Uruguay 46 64 110 1.9 58.2 UM
Lebanon .. .. 109 -3.5 .. UM
Kenya (2) 69 7 76 -15.6 9.2 L
Estonia 51 20 71 -24.5 28.2 H
Jamaica 41 23 64 45.5 35.9 UM
Bahrain (1) .. 53 53 .. .. H
Honduras 11 33 44 .. 75.0 LM
Tunisia (1,2) .. 20 20 .. .. UM
Yemen 13 4 17 -72.6 23.5 LM
Cuba 8 5 13 .. 38.5 UM
Netherlands
Antilles (1,2) .. 10 10 .. .. H
Malta 7 1 8 100.0 12.5 H
Mauritius (2) .. .. 7 -30.0 .. UM
San Marino .. .. 6 -25.0 .. H
Burkina Faso (2) 4 0 4 .. 0.0 L
Note: See note for Table 3.
29
Figure 5: Applications abroad (application

Applications abroad count with no regional multiplier)
for selected origins, 2001-11
Figure 5 shows growth in applications abroad for selected
origins. Data are based on application counts rather than
China Russian Federation India
equivalent application counts.22 In terms of absolute num-
Turkey Republic of Korea
bers, residents of the US (15,593) filed the largest number
10
of applications abroad in 2011, followed by residents of
Applications abroad (2001=1)

Japan (14,384) and the Republic of Korea (4,388). 8
However, the numbers of applications filed abroad by

4
residents of China, India and the Russian Federation – all
2
middle-income countries – have grown at faster rates than
0
those of Japan and the US. Despite substantial growth,
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
residents of these origins filed only a small proportion of
Application year
their applications abroad. Figure 6 shows applications
abroad as a percentage of resident applications. For
example, Chinese residents filed 0.5% of their applica- Mexico Japan United States of America
tions abroad. In contrast, around 90% of US resident South Africa Brazil
applications were filed abroad. 3

Applications abroad (2001=1)
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Application year
22 To derive equivalent count data, applications

filed at regional offices, such as OHIM, are
multiplied by the number of member states party
to the regional system. See the Glossary of this
publication for the definition of equivalent counts.
30
Figure 6: Applications abroad as a percentage of resident applications (application

count with no regional multiplier) for selected origins, 2011 (%)
0.6 0.9 3.7 5.5 8.3 8.1 4.9 2.8 8.2 9.1 33.7 97.2
Applications abroad as a percentage
Share: 2006
of resident applications
89.4
54.0
16.7
8.2 8.3 8.4 9.5 10.0
3.1 3.2 6.0
0.5
ine
a
ina
n
y
rea
*
d
ico
ia
n
rke
ric
ric
pa
an
tio
Ind
zil
ra
ex
Ch
Ko
Af
me
Ja
ail
ra
Tu
a
Uk
Br
de
Th
h
of
A
ut
Fe
of
c
So
bli
an
tes
pu
ssi
ta
Re
dS
Ru
ite
Un
Origin
Note: *2010 data
Comparison of resident design

counts and resident patent
applications
Figure 7 shows the ratio of design count for resident ap-
plications to number of resident patent applications for the
top origins. Origins with resident design counts that are
higher than resident patent applications will have a ratio
greater than 1. The list includes high- and middle- as well
as low-income origins. Of the reported origins, residents
of Morocco filed 20 times more designs (design counts)
than patents in 2011. Large high-income origins – such
as France, Germany, Japan, and the US – had lower
resident design counts than resident patents.
31
Figure 7: Resident application design count to resident patent

application ratios for selected origins, 2011
20.5
resident patent applications
Resident design count /
10.0
8.7 8.3
7.4
5.8
4.6 4.6 3.9
3.0 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.3
a
ne
ain
*
ria
ly
ia
ico
co
ia
gia
a
us
ia
l
ru
R
ga
bli
ri
ov
rke
SA
Ita
k
on
ce
Na
Pe
pr
oc
rai
ge
lga
oa
ex
Sp
va
or
rtu
pu
old
ee
Tu
Cy
ed
or
Uk
ng
Al
Cr
Ge
Slo
t
Bu
Re
Po
Vie
Gr
M
fM
ac
o
gK
ch
co
e
of
on
Cz
bli
R
,H
pu
Y
ina
Re
TF
Ch
Origin
1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2

1.1
resident patent applications
1.1 1.1
Resident design count /
1.0
0.9
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5
y
ia
ina
ia
re
o
ro
ina
d
ia
y
nia
ia
a*
ce
bia
ia
an
ar
tvi
ac
ali
lan
ta
str
an
Ind
rb
po
rab
eg
n
Ch
ng
ov
ma
lom
Ric
kis
rm
on
str
Fra
La
Se
Au
hu
Ice
ga
ten
iA
eg
Hu
be
M
Au
Ge
Ro
Lit
sta
Co
Sin
on
ud
erz
Uz
Co
M
Sa
dH
an
ia
sn
Bo
Origin
Note: *2010 data. Origins with a design count or with patent applications of less than 10 are not shown in this figure.
Top industrial design applicants The electronics and the information and communication
at selected major offices technology (ICT) industries featured prominently in most
of these rankings. At all the offices experiencing intense
Table 5 shows the list of the top 10 industrial design ap- filing behavior listed in Table 5, firms such as Samsung
plicants in 2011 for eight selected offices in high-income (Republic of Korea), LG (Republic of Korea), Research
countries and in China. In the case of the United States in Motion (Canada), Panasonic (Japan), Sony (Japan),
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), data refer to the Electrolux (Sweden), Philips (Netherlands), Microsoft (US)
number of industrial designs registered in 2011. and Foxconn (Taiwan, Province of China) consistently
emerged as the top users in the electronics, ICT and
software industries. Apple (US) ranks 21st at the USPTO
and 13th at OHIM.
32
The other prominent sectors in the top filer lists are the For OHIM, a mix of mainly electronics and textile and
automotive industry, clothing and fashion (including fashion industry firms were among the top 10 filers. In
shoes and sportswear), interior design and decoration France, however, firms belonging to the fashion industry
(including lighting) and – to a lesser extent - firms in the emerged as the top users of the design system. In the
consumer product industry, namely Procter & Gamble US, Canada and Singapore, the top user lists reflected
(US) and Colgate-Palmolive (US). In the automotive sector, a more diverse mix of industries.
Kia (Republic of Korea), Honda (Japan), Goodyear (US),
Toyota (Japan) and firms such as Nissan (Japan), mainly A look at the top 30 list shows the presence of firms in
Asian firms, made the top 10 list at these IP offices. In the apparel and tools and the tobacco industries – sec-
the clothing and fashion industry, top filers included Nike tors that do not feature in the top 10 lists – in particular
(US), Sketchers (US) and Rieker (Germany), all three being for OHIM, the USPTO, SIPO and the Korean Intellectual
shoe manufacturers, and firms in the fashion industry. Property Office (KIPO). The use of the design system
considerably varies across sectors and countries (see
However, differences exist across offices with respect to Section C of this report for further details).
sector affiliation in the top 10 rankings for these offices. In
the Asian offices covered (China, Japan and the Republic
of Korea), firms in the electronics and ICT industries - and
to some extent the automotive industry – ranked among
the most intensive users of the industrial design system.
Singapore was the exception among the Asian offices,
with jewelry companies being their most active filers. In
the case of China, for the most part foreign firms occupied
the top 10 ranks. Interestingly, the only entity of Chinese
origin in these rankings is a university.
33
Table 5: Top 10 industrial design applicants for selected offices, 2011
Rank Name Applications Rank Name Applications

Office: Canada Office: Republic of Korea
1 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 253 1 CJ CORP. 833
2 MICROSOFT CORPORATION 158 2 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 804
3 PHILIPS ELECTRONICS LTD. 106 3 LG ELECTRONICS INC. 791
4 NIKE INTERNATIONAL, LTD. 60 4 AMOREPACIFIC CORPORATION 526
5 RESEARCH IN MONTION LIMITED 55 5 LG HAUSYS, LTD. 293
6 SPIN MASTER LTD. 54 6 DECO TRADE CO.,LTD 224
7 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY 52 7 ALUTEK CO., LTD. 205
8 HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. 48 8 LG HOUSEHOLD & HEALTH CARE LTD. 201
9 VICTAULIC COMPANY 41 9 DAE AN TEXTILE., LTD 194
10 LG ELECTRONICS INC. 40 10 KIA MOTORS CORPORATION 182
Office: China Office: Singapore
1 PANASONIC 3,634 1 SK JEWELLEY SINGAPORE PTE LTD 175
2 SAMSUNG 3,335 2 ASPIAL-LEE HWA JEWELLERY SINGAPORE PTE LTD 99
3 LG ELECTRONIC 2,844 3 SOO KEE JEWELLERY 85
4 JIANGNAN UNIVERSITY 2,074 4 ELECOM CO, LTD 54
5 HONDA INDUSTRIAL 2,041 5 LOVE & CO 52
6 TOYOTA AUTOMOBILE 1,695 6 TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA 42
7 SONY CORP. 1,549 7 SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC 28
8 SANYO ELECTRIC., LTD 1,494 8 DAIKIN INDUSTRIES LTD 27
9 PHILIPS ELECTRONICS 1,314 9 HONDA MOTOR CO, LTD 27
10 NISSAN AUTOMOBILE 1,172 10 EITAGOLD MANUFACTURERS SDN BHD 26
Office: France Office: United Kingdom
1 THE KOOPLES PRODUCTION 585 1 AVIRUTH SACHDEV 64
2 CREATION NELSON 522 2 SHOFOO LTD 56
3 COLINE DIFFUSION 271 3 BAILEY WOOD LIMITED 55
4 CARVEN SAS 256 4 AHMET EROL 53
5 SIMOENS 156 5 SUSAN HARDING 44
6 SWAMEE SARL 149 6 REGISTERED DESIGNS LIMITED (SUTTON COLDFIELD) 43
7 OLIVIER DE SAINT LOUP 114 7 DG INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD 40
8 SOCIETE INNOVATION DU BATIMENT 113 8 YANWEI SHOU 32
9 COTON BLANC 100 9 ADNAAN SOLOMON 31
10 SOCIETE M COLLECTIONS 95 10 RUBBERATKINS LTD 28
Office: OHIM Office: United States of America
1 RIEKER SCHUH AG 947 1 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 328
2 MICROSOFT CORPORATION 644 2 PROCTER + GAMBLE COMPANY 270
3 ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION N.V. 500 3 LG ELECTRONICS INC. 236
4 SONY CORPORATION 485 4 MICROSOFT CORPORATION 182
5 EGLO LEUCHTEN GMBH 476 5 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. 148
6 PIERRE BALMAIN, SOCIETE ANONYME 437 6 CHENG UEI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. 130
7 CREATION NELSON 403 7 APPLE, INC 122
8 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 350 8 NIKE, INC. 120
9 NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD. 319 9 HON HAI PRECISION IND. CO., LTD. (FOXCONN) 114
10 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. 318 10 HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. 107
Note: For all offices, except the USPTO, data refer to applications filed.
USPTO data refer to the number of registrations in 2011. OHIM = Office for
Harmonization in the Internal Market
Source: Data were obtained from the respective national/regional IP offices.
34
Although the numbers of design applications abroad

Conclusion have increased over time, resident applications consti-
Today, design accounts for a substantial share of firms’ tute the vast majority of total applications at the global
investments in intangible assets and innovation. There level. Residents of high-income countries tend to file
has been marked growth in the use of IP to protect high shares of their total applications abroad. However,
product designs. Product designs and electronic user- applications filed abroad by residents of middle-income
interfaces are also at the center of legal disputes in the countries, such as China, the Russian Federation and
high-technology industry. India, have grown at faster rates than those of Japan
and the US. Despite substantial growth, residents of
As a result, policymakers have shown greater interest in these origins filed only a small proportion of their ap-
better understanding the role of design in innovation and plications abroad.
economic growth. This special section has discussed a
number of the conceptual and definitional challenges The data presented on the top applicants show that the
that exist on this front. For a start, there is need to agree electronics and ICT, automotive, clothing and fashion,
on a statistical definition of design for the purposes of interior design and decoration industries and – to a lesser
innovation measurement; such a definition would need to extent - firms in the consumer product industries use the
capture the economic relevance of design activity. New industrial design system most intensively. Due to a lack
measurement tools could then be developed based on of data, it is not yet possible to investigate sectoral dif-
that definition. ferences (smartphones versus handicrafts, etc.) across
developed and developing countries.
Despite the absence of adequate definitions and met-
rics, IP statistics can nevertheless provide valuable In order to deepen our understanding of the use of the
information on design activity, even if this information design system and shed light on how its use affects inno-
is invariably partial. The data presented here show that vation and economic growth, a better data infrastructure
the bulk of design filing activity occurs in the offices of is needed. In particular, the creation of unit record design
middle-income countries. In particular, China has seen rights databases would enable refined analysis and new
tremendous growth in design applications over the past insights into the behavior of applicants and their eco-
few years. Offices of other middle-income countries, such nomic performance. It would also reveal how industrial
as Bangladesh, India, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines design activity, in the legal sense, and the design activity
and Turkey, have also seen strong filing growth. However, undertaken by firms relate to one another.
there are considerable differences across offices in the
use of the design system by resident and non-resident
applicants. For the majority of offices, non-resident ap-
plicants accounted for the largest share of total applica-
tions at many middle- and low-income offices. However,
for offices of middle-income countries with high design
counts, such as Brazil, China, India, Morocco and Turkey,
resident applicants accounted for the largest share of
total applications. In the future, it would be instructive
to undertake a detailed analysis – data permitting – of
why use of the system differs so much across countries.
35
Gertler, M. and T. Vinodrai (2004), Designing the

References Economy: A Profile of Ontario’s Design Workforce,
Awano, G., M. Franklin, J. Haskel and Z . Ontario: University of Ontario, www.utoronto.ca/progris/
Kastrinaki (2010), Investing in Innovation, Findings pdf_files/DesigningTheEconomy.pdf
from the UK Investment in Intangible Asset Survey,
London: NESTA, www.coinvest.org.uk/pub/CERIBA/ Gil, V. and J. Haskell (2008), Industry-Level Expenditure
InvestIntangAssetsSurveyLongPaper/Report_59__ on Intangible Assets in the UK, London: Business,
Invest_in_Inn_v9.pdf Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
BDC - Barcelona Design Centre (2012), Analytical Hargreaves, I. (2011), Digital Opportunity: A Review of
Framework Paper: Measuring Design Value, as part Intellectual Property and Growth, An Independent Report,
of the €Design Project, supported by Design Austria May 2011, London: United Kingdom Intellectual Property
(Austria); Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (Hungary); Office, www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-finalreport.pdf
SVID Swedish Industrial Design Foundation (Sweden);
University of Cambridge/Design Management Group HM Treasury (2005), The Cox Review of Creativity in
(United Kingdom); and Copenhagen Business School Business, London: Chancellor of the Exchequer, www.
(Denmark), Barcelona: Barcelona Design Centre designcouncil.org.uk/publications/the-cox-review/
BIS - UK Department for Business Innovation & Moultrie, J. and F. Livesey (2009), International Design
Skills (2010), The Economic Rationale for a National Scoreboard: Initial Indicators of International Design
Design Policy, BIS Occasional Paper, No. 2, August 2010, Capabilities, Cambridge: University of Cambridge, www.
London: BIS, www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/economics- designcouncil.org.uk
and-statistics/docs/B/10-1112-bis-occasional-paper-02
OECD (2012a), New Sources of Growth: Knowledge-
Design Council (2005), The Impact of Design on Stock Based Capital Driving Investment and Productivity in
Market Performance, London: Design Council the 21st Century, Interim Project Findings, May 2012,
Paris: OECD
Design Council (2010), Design in the Knowledge
Economy 2020, London: Design Council OECD (2012b), OECD Science, Technology and Industry
Outlook, Paris: OECD
DTI - UK Department of Trade and Industry (2005),
Creativity, Design and Business Performance, Economics Pesole, A., J. Haskel, E. Bascavusoglu-Moreau,
Paper No. 15, 2005, www.dti.gov.uk/files/file13654.pdf B. Tether, J. Moultrie and F. Livesey (2011), The
Economics of Design Rights, commissioned by the
European Commission (2009), Design as a Driver of United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO),
User-Centered Innovation, Commission Staff Working September 2011, London: UK IPO, www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-
Paper, SEC(2009)501 final ipresearch/ipresearch-right/ipresearch-right-design.htm
36
Thompson, S., A. Sissons and L. Montgomery (2012),

UK Design as a Global Industry: International Trade and
Intellectual Property, commissioned by the UK IPO and
supported by the Design Council, 2012/14, London: UK
IPO www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-ipresearch/ipresearch-right/
ipresearch-right-design.htm
WIPO (2011), The Changing Nature of Innovation and

Intellectual Property, World Intellectual Property Report,
Geneva: WIPO, www.wipo.int/econ_stat/en/economics/
wipr/
WIPO (2012a), The Surge in Worldwide Patent

Applications – Supplement, prepared by WIPO
(Economics and Statistics Division) for the fifth session
of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group,
Geneva, May 29 to June 1, 2012, Geneva: WIPO, www.
wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/pct/en/pct_wg_5/pct_wg_5_4.pdf
WIPO (2012b), Study on the Potential Impact of the Work

of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks,
Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) on
Industrial Design Law and Practice, SCT/27/4, July 18,
2012, presented at the twenty-seventh session, Geneva,
September 18 to 21, 2012, Geneva: WIPO, www.wipo.
int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_27/sct_27_4.pdf
37

Overview of IP Activities
Table 1: Overview of total IP activity (resident activity plus activity abroad) by origin, 2011
Origin Patents Marks Designs Origin Patents Marks Designs

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

(1) 2010 patent data.
(2) 2010 trademark data.
(3) 2010 industrial design data.
(4) Data on patent applications at the national IP office are not available; however, applications at regional IP offices are included.
(5) Data on trademark applications at the national IP office are not available; however, applications at regional IP offices are included.
(6) Data on industrial design applications at the national IP office are not available; however, applications at regional IP offices are included.
(7) Trademark data are estimated.
'..' not available
38
overview of ip activities
Table 2: Overview of resident IP activity by origin, 2011
Origin Patents Marks Designs Origin Patents Marks Designs

China 1 1 1 Norway (5)(6) 27 .. 58
Germany 5 4 2 Slovakia 51 43 38
United States of America 3 2 9 Ireland (3)(5) 32 63 40
Japan (5)(7) 2 8 6 Israel (6) 31 59 ..
Republic of Korea 4 9 3 Saudi Arabia (5) 46 .. 44
France (5)(7) 7 3 8 Luxembourg 45 50 41
Italy 9 10 4 Greece (1)(3)(5) 38 74 26
India 10 5 11 Slovenia (1)(2)(6) 43 49 46
Turkey 17 6 5 Croatia 52 51 37
United Kingdom (6) 8 11 10 Colombia 59 31 50
Russian Federation 6 7 16 Uzbekistan 49 52 42
Spain 15 13 7 Philippines (2)(6) 57 40 ..
Canada (6) 16 14 .. Republic of Moldova 66 61 32
Brazil (1)(2)(3) 22 12 12 Sri Lanka (1)(2)(6) 53 55 ..
Netherlands 11 17 20 Algeria 69 58 35
Switzerland (6) 13 21 18 Peru (2) 78 33 55
Poland (6) 18 19 15 Latvia 56 64 47
Australia 25 16 17 Serbia 58 62 51
Ukraine 23 23 14 Mongolia (1)(2) 65 60 49
Sweden 14 25 22 Azerbaijan (5) 55 .. 61
Mexico 34 15 24 Lithuania 66 57 52
Czech Republic 36 22 23 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)(6) 80 41 ..
Belgium 24 30 28 Georgia 63 73 48
Portugal 41 24 19 Cyprus 74 68 43
Austria (5)(6) 19 46 21 Paraguay (1)(2)(6) 87 37 ..
Denmark 20 39 27 Estonia (6) 70 66 53
Romania 30 26 30 Bangladesh (6) 81 45 ..
Finland 21 36 31 Ecuador (1)(2)(3) 92 44 56
Thailand (6) 37 27 .. Armenia 64 69 61
Viet Nam 48 20 29 Iceland 68 72 56
Chile (6) 47 18 .. T F Y R of Macedonia (5) 79 .. 54
New Zealand (3) 28 35 39 Costa Rica (3) 88 47 68
South Africa (6) 40 29 .. Panama 83 53 ..
Morocco (2) 61 32 13 Liechtenstein (4)(5)(6) 54 87 64
Malaysia (6) 33 38 .. Uruguay (6) 84 54 ..
Belarus (5) 26 .. 45 Guatemala (2) 92 56 59
China, Hong Kong SAR 60 28 25 Jordan 77 65 69
Hungary 39 42 33 Monaco 82 70 60
Bulgaria 50 34 34 Kyrgyzstan (1)(6) 62 83 ..
Singapore 35 48 36 Bosnia and Herzegovina 75 80 63
Note: The rankings are based on the number of resident applications by origin. Patent data refer to the number of equivalent patent applications. Trademark
data refer to the number of equivalent trademark applications based on class count (i.e., the number of classes specified in applications). Industrial design data
refer to the number of equivalent industrial design applications based on design count (i.e., the number of designs contained in applications). The table reports
origins for which at least two types of IP data are available.

(1) 2010 patent data.
(2) 2010 trademark data.
(3) 2010 industrial design data.
(4) Data on patent applications at the national IP office are not available; however, applications at regional IP offices are included.
(5) Data on trademark applications at the national IP office are not available; however, applications at regional IP offices are included.
(6) Data on industrial design applications at the national IP office are not available; however, applications at regional IP offices are included.
(7) Trademark data are estimated.
'.. ' not available
39
Section A patents, utility models and microorganisms
section A
PATENTS, UTILITY MODELS
AND MICROORGANISMS
Over the past two decades, the patent system has

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

Microorganisms under the
international phase, during which an international search
Budapest Treaty
and optional preliminary examination and supplementary
international search are performed, and concludes with The Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition
the national phase, during which national (or regional) of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of
patent offices decide on the patentability of an invention Patent Procedure plays an important role in the field of
according to national law. For further details about the biotechnological inventions. Disclosure of an invention
PCT system, refer to: www.wipo.int/pct/en/. is a generally recognized requirement for the granting
of a patent.
The Utility Model System To eliminate the need to deposit a microorganism in

Like a patent, a UM confers a set of rights for an inven- each country in which patent protection is sought, the
tion for a limited period of time, during which UM holders Budapest Treaty provides that the deposit of a microor-
can commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive ganism with any IDA suffices for the purposes of patent
basis. The terms and conditions for granting UMs are dif- procedure at national patent offices of all contracting
ferent from those for “traditional” patents. For example, states, and before any regional patent office that rec-
UMs are issued for a shorter duration (7 to 10 years) and, ognizes the effects of the treaty. An IDA is a scientific
at most offices, applications are granted without substan- institution – typically a “culture collection” – capable of
tive examination. Like patents, the procedures for granting storing microorganisms. Presently, there are 40 such
UM rights are governed by the rules and regulations of authorities. Further details about the Budapest Treaty
national intellectual property (IP) offices, and rights are are available at: www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/
limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. budapest/.
Around 60 countries provide protection for UMs. In this

report, the UM terminology refers to UMs and other types
of protection similar to UMs. For example, “innovation
patents” in Australia and short-term patents in Ireland
are considered equivalent to UMs.
42
A.1 For the first time, in 2011, the total number of patent
applications filed worldwide exceeded the two million
Patent applications and mark. Following a drop in 2009 (-3.6%), patent applica-
grants worldwide tions rebounded strongly in 2010 and 2011. For the first
time since 1995, the growth rate has exceeded seven
A.1.1 Applications worldwide percent for two consecutive years (Figure A.1.1.1) – this is
noteworthy considering the fragility of the world economy.
Figures A.1.1.1 to A.1.1.3 depict the total number of patent
applications worldwide between 1995 and 2011.1 World The long-term trend shows continuous growth in ap-
totals are WIPO estimates covering around 125 offices, plications, except for declines in 2002 and 2009. Patent
which include both direct national and regional applica- applications worldwide doubled from approximately 1.05
tions and international applications filed through the PCT million in 1995 to around 2.14 million by 2011. This is
that subsequently entered the national or regional phase. mostly due to rapid growth in applications filed in China
and the United States of America (US).
Figure A.1.1.1 Trend in patent applications worldwide
Applications Growth rate (%)
2,500,000
2,000,000
Applications
1,500,000
1,000,000
-1.1 -3.6
. 3.6 6.6 4.6 4.5 8.6 5.9 3.0 5.7 8.4 5.3 4.1 2.6 7.5 7.8
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 125 patent offices (see Data Description). These estimates include direct applications and PCT national
phase entry data.
1 Throughout this publication, “patents”

refers to patents for invention.
43
Figure A.1.1.2 Contribution of offices to growth in patent applications worldwide

1995-2009 2009-2011
China: 37.2% United States of America: 28.6% China: 72.1% United States of America: 16.2%
Republic of Korea: 10.7% European Patent Office: 9.3% Republic of Korea: 5.2% European Patent Office: 2.8%
India: 3.5% Others: 10.7% India: 2.7% Others: 1.0%

Note: The Japan Patent Office (JPO) – third largest in the world – is not included in this figure, as it did not account for any growth in worldwide patent
applications. Since 2005, the total number of patent applications at the JPO has continuously declined (see Figure A.2.1.1).
Figure A.1.1.3 Resident and non-resident patent applicants worldwide
Resident Non-Resident
32.8 35.0 36.5 37.7 37.6 36.4 38.6 38.4 37.8 38.5 39.0 40.1 40.0 39.9 38.3 38.1 36.6
1,200,000
1,000,000
Applications
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
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.1.1.1.
To determine the source of growth in applications world- The contribution of China to total growth in applications
wide, Figure A.1.1.2 breaks down application growth by has increased in recent years while that of other major
office for the 1995-2009 and 2009-2011 periods. Two- offices has declined. This reflects the shift in the geog-
thirds of the growth in applications between 1995 and raphy of patent applications from the US and Europe
2009 can be attributed to the patent offices of China towards China.
and the US. However, the patent office of China was
2
2 For simplicity, country names rather than office
the main contributor to growth in worldwide applications names are used to label graphs. As an example,
from 2009 to 2011 - accounting for 72% of total growth. the patent office of China is referred to as “China”
rather than the “State Intellectual Property
Office of the People’s Republic of China”.
44
Figure A.1.1.3 provides a breakdown of patent applica- A.1.2 Grants worldwide

tions worldwide by residency of the applicant. A resident
application is defined as an application filed with a patent The total numbers of patents granted worldwide have
office by an applicant residing in the country in which that recorded uninterrupted growth since 2001 (Figure A.1.2.1).
office has jurisdiction. For example, a patent application In 2011, grants worldwide approached the one million
filed with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) by a resident of mark, with 606,800 resident and 390,000 non-resident
Japan is considered a resident application for the JPO. grants.5 Patent grants grew by 12.3% in 2010 and 9.7% in
A non-resident application is an application filed with the 2011. For both years, growth in resident grants accounted
patent office of a given country by an applicant residing for around two-thirds of total growth.
in another country. For example, a patent application
filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office Figure A.1.2.2 provides a breakdown of the growth of
(USPTO) by an applicant residing in France is considered patent grants worldwide for the periods 1995-2009 and
a non-resident application for the USPTO. In this report, 2009-2011. From 2009 to 2011, the number of grants is-
regional patent office application data are divided into sued worldwide increased by 23.9%. The US accounted
resident and non-resident applications. An application for 30.4% of total growth, followed by Japan (23.9%),
at a regional office is considered a resident application China (23.3%) and the Republic of Korea (20.2%). This is
if the applicant is a resident of one of its member states; in contrast to patent application data, according to which
and it is considered a non-resident application if the China accounted for 72.1% of the growth in applications
applicant is not a resident of one of its member states.3 worldwide (Figure A.1.1.2). The substantial increase in the
number of grants combined with a drop in the number
The 2.14 million applications filed in 2011 consist of 1.36 of applications at the JPO has resulted in a significant
million resident and 0.78 million non-resident applica- decrease in the number of pending applications undergo-
tions (Figure A.1.1.3). Compared to 2010, both resident ing examination at the JPO (Figure A.11.3).
and non-resident applications grew in 2011; however,
resident applications grew at a faster rate (10.4%) than
non-resident applications (3.7%). Growth in resident
applications in China accounted for around 96% of the
growth in resident applications worldwide. Growth in non-
resident applications in China and the US accounted for
70% of growth in non-resident applications worldwide.
In 2011, non-resident applications accounted for 36.6%

of applications worldwide. However, the non-resident
share in total applications has followed a downward trend
since its peak of 40.1% in 2006. This downward trend,
despite growth in non-resident applications, is due to
the substantial growth in resident applications in China. 3 Resident and non-resident applications are also
known as domestic and foreign applications.
Compared to other types of IP rights, patent applications
4 The non-resident share for patents was
exhibited the highest non-resident share.4 36.6%, compared to 27.1% for trademarks
and 10.9% for industrial designs.
5 The distribution of resident and non-resident grants is
61% and 39%, respectively. The non-resident share
in total grants is slightly higher than the non-resident
share in total applications (see Figure A.1.1.3).
45
Figure A.1.2.1 Trend in patents granted worldwide
Grants Growth rate (%)
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
Grants
400,000
200,000
-6.2 -9.8
. 24.2 10.5 3.7 3.9 4.4 10.6 0.5 1.5 19.2 2.6 0.2 4.8 12.3 9.7
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 115 patent offices (see Data Description). These estimates include patent grants based on direct
applications and PCT national phase entry data.
Figure A.1.2.2 Contribution of offices to growth in patents granted worldwide

1995-2009 2009-2011
China: 32.8% Japan: 22.1% United States of America: 30.4% Japan: 23.9%
United States of America: 17.3% Republic of Korea: 11.6% China: 23.3% Republic of Korea: 20.2%
Others: 16.2% Others: 2.1%
46
A.2
Both the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Korean
Patent applications and grants Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) have seen increases
by office in the numbers of applications received since the early
1980s. The volumes received by these offices are of
This subsection provides detailed data on patent ap-
similar magnitude, but far below those of the JPO and
plications and grants by office - national or regional. For
the USPTO.
presentational purposes, country names (rather than
office names) are used to label graphs for national offices.
SIPO has seen rapid growth in applications since 1985,
For example, patent data for China are labeled “China”
leading it to surpass both the EPO and KIPO in 2005.
rather than the “State Intellectual Property Office of the
Furthermore, in the past two years, SIPO has experienced
People’s Republic of China” (SIPO).
substantial growth in applications.7 As a result, SIPO
overtook the JPO in 2010 and the USPTO in 2011 to
A.2.1 Applications by office
become the largest patent office in the world.
Figure A.2.1.1 shows the long-term trend in total number
of applications for the top five offices. These offices were Figure A.2.1.2 depicts the long-term trend of patent ap-
selected according to their 2011 totals.6 Application plications for five additional selected offices. Compared
numbers were stable until the early 1970s when the JPO to the top five offices mentioned earlier, these offices
started seeing rapid growth in applications, a pattern received lower volumes of applications, but experienced
that was also observed for the USPTO from the 1980s strong growth in applications over the past 10 years. For
onwards. From 1883 to 1967, the USPTO was the lead- example, the number of applications received by the pat-
ing office in the world by filings. The JPO surpassed the ent office of India increased from approximately 11,000
USPTO in 1968 and maintained the top position until in 2002 to around 42,000 in 2011. Similarly, the patent
2005. However, since 2005, the number of applications office of the Russian Federation received around 8,000
received by the JPO has followed a downward trend more applications in 2011 than in 2002.
Figure A.2.1.1 Trend in patent applications for the top five offices
China United States of America Japan Republic of Korea European Patent Office
500,000
400,000
Applications
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1883 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
year
Application year
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 6 State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO),
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),
Japan Patent Office (JPO), Korean Intellectual Property
Office (KIPO) and European Patent Office (EPO).
7 Patent applications at SIPO grew by
24.3% in 2010 and 34.6% in 2011.
47
Figure A.2.1.2 Trend in patent applications for selected offices
India Russian Federation Canada Brazil Mexico
50,000
40,000
Applications
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1883 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
year
Application year
Figure A.2.1.3 shows the number of patent applications At the global level, the non-resident share of total appli-
broken down by resident and non-resident applications cations filed was 36.6% (Figure A.1.1.3), but this differs
for the top 20 offices. As mentioned above, SIPO (with significantly among offices. The non-resident share
526,412 applications) overtook the USPTO (503,582) in ranged from 98.7% (China, Hong Kong SAR) to 0.5%
2011 to become the largest office in the world - in terms (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) in 2011. For
of applications received. This is due to substantial growth 8 of the top 20 offices, non-resident applications ac-
in resident applications over the past few years. The JPO counted for more than four-fifths of total applications.
(with 342,610), KIPO (178,924) and the EPO (142,793) also The distribution of resident and non-resident applica-
received considerable numbers of applications. Together, tions was almost equal at the EPO and the USPTO. In
the top five offices accounted for around four-fifths of the contrast, resident applications accounted for the bulk of
world total, and their combined share has increased over total applications received by KIPO, the JPO and SIPO.
the last decade – from 69.5% in 1998 to 79% in 2011. 8
Among the reported offices, SIPO had the largest drop
in its non-resident share in 2011 compared to 2010.9 The
The list of the top 20 offices consists mostly of those Russian Federation and South Africa, however, had the
located in high-income countries, but there are also a few largest increases in non-resident shares.10
in middle-income countries (e.g., China and India). The
patent offices of India and the Russian Federation each
received more than 40,000 applications in 2011. Brazil
8 The 2011 shares held by the top five offices
and Mexico also received a large number of applications, are: SIPO (24.6%), the USPTO (23.5%), the JPO
the bulk of which were from non-resident applicants. (16%), KIPO (8.4%) and the EPO (6.7%).
9 SIPO saw growth in both resident and non-
resident applications, but growth in resident
applications outpaced growth in non-resident
applications, resulting in a decline in the non-
resident share of total applications for this office.
10 The patent offices of the Russian Federation and
South Africa saw drops in resident applications
and growth in non-resident applications,
resulting in an increase in the non-resident
share of total applications for these offices.
48
Figure A.2.1.3 Patent applications Between 2010 and 2011, the majority of the offices
for the top 20 offices, 2011 listed saw growth in applications. China had the largest
growth (34.6%), while the EPO (-5.4%) and Israel (-5.7%)
21.0 50.8 16.1 22.9 49.6 21.0 79.1 36.0 86.5 90.7 saw the largest declines in applications. To identify the
526,412 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
503,582 source of growth, Figure A.2.1.4 provides a breakdown
of total growth by resident and non-resident applica-
Applications
342,610
tions. Growth in resident applications is the main factor
178,924
142,793 behind the growth in total applications in China and the
59,444 42,291 41,414
35,111 25,526 Republic of Korea. For example, growth in resident ap-
plications accounted for 31.4 percentage points of the
y
a
ina
da
n
rea
ce
a
ia
n
an
ric
pa
ali
tio
Ind
ffi
na
Ch
Ko
rm
e
str
Ja
era
tO
Am
Ca
34.6% increase in applications in China.

Ge
Au
of
ed
ten
of
F
bli
Pa
an
tes
pu
an
ssi
ta
Re
pe
dS
Ru
ro
ite
Eu
Un
Office Growth in both resident and non-resident applications

contributed to the overall growth in the US. For a num-
ber of offices (e.g., Australia and South Africa), growth
88.1 31.1 12.5 92.4 98.7 89.2 9.5 0.5 90.9 80.2
22,686 22,259 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 in non-resident applications was the main contributor
to total growth.
16,754
Applications
14,055 13,493
9,794 9,721
8,057 7,245 6,886
ca
AR
e
il *
re
m
l
*
ico
ly
ae
nc
Ita
do
po
ea
fri
gS
ex
Isr
az
Fra
hA
or
ing
ga
M
Br
on
fK
Sin
dK
ut
gK
.o
So
ite
P.R
on
Un
,H
D.
ina
Ch
.
Office
Note: *2010 data; D.P.R. of Korea = Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Figure A.2.1.4 Contribution of resident and non-resident applications to total growth for the top 20
offices, 2010-11
Contribution by resident applications Contribution by non-resident applications

34.6 2.7 -0.6 5.2 -5.4 0.3 6.4 -2.6 -1.0 2.6 3.4 1.5 1.0 -3.6 15.3 0.2 -0.0 0.6 13.5 -5.7
Total growth rate (%): 2010 - 11
Contribution to growth
31.4
14.9 16.1
8.9
6.4
3.2 3.7 2.7 2.7 2.2
1.2 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.6 1.6 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.8 0.8
0
-0.7 -0.1 -0.0 -1.5 -0.1 -0.7 -0.6 -1.4 -0.9 -0.2 -1.2
-1.7 -2.6
-3.8 -5.2 -4.4 -4.5
-5.5
y
a
ca
da
ina
an
ea
AR
m
re
il *
l
a
*
ico
ly
ia
ae
an
c
c
nc
ali
tio
Ita
Ind
do
po
ea
ffi
fri
eri
or
na
p
gS
ex
Isr
Ch
az
rm
Fra
str
Ja
ra
tO
hA
fK
or
ing
ga
Am
Ca
M
Br
de
on
Ge
Au
fK
Sin
co
ten
dK
ut
Fe
gK
of
.o
So
bli
Pa
ite
an
tes
P.R
on
pu
Un
an
ssi
Sta
,H
Re
D.
pe
Ru
ina
ed
ro
Ch
Eu
it
Un
Office
Note: *Growth rate refers to 2009-2010; D.P.R. of Korea = Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
49
High-income countries are prominent in the list of top 20 and Romania, non-resident applications accounted for
offices (Figure A.2.1.3). However, a considerable amount the bulk of total applications. For example, non-resident
of IP activity also occurs in the offices of middle- and applications accounted for almost all applications filed
low-income countries. Figure A.2.1.5 depicts patent in Ecuador and Guatemala. However, for a number of
application data for selected middle- and low-income these offices, the contribution of resident applications to
countries.11 The patent offices of Indonesia and Ukraine overall growth outweighed that of non-resident applica-
each received more than 5,200 applications in 2011. The tions (Figure A.2.1.6). For example, growth in resident
Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) and the offices of applications accounted for more than half of the 4.3%
Viet Nam and the Philippines also received large num- overall growth in Colombia.
bers of applications. In all offices listed, except Ukraine
Figure A.2.1.5 Patent applications for offices of selected middle- and low-income countries, 2011
Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident

90.7 49.6 84.9 91.6 94.2 72.0 90.6 2.7 83.9 64.9 90.3 89.5 99.4 51.1 90.0 98.8 89.5 60.9 82.3 95.1
5,838 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 953 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
897
5,253
Applications
694
Applications
3,560 3,560
3,196
460
400
2,209 1,953 331 306
1,463 197
1,049 990 113
61
ria
an
r
r*
a*
ica
n
a*
ala
ca
ta
es
ine
t
n
es
m
ia
bia
nia
co
bia
yp
rd
ge
do
ma
tio
as
em
nk
ny
kis
es
lad
Na
pin
oc
Jo
ra
Eg
ra
ma
lom
Al
ag
ua
iza
Ke
on
La
Ja
Pa
at
or
ng
Uk
iA
ilip
et
ad
Ec
Ro
Gu
Ind
an
Sri
Co
Vi
Ba
ud
Ph
M
rg
Sa
tO
en
at
nP
sia
ra
.
Eu
Office
Office
Note: *2010 data
Figure A.2.1.6 Contribution of resident and non-resident applications to total growth for offices of
selected middle- and low-income countries, 2010-11
3.5 -1.1 -0.6 6.9 -5.8 -0.9 4.3 3.2 1.5 6.3 -12.9 11.3 3.0 14.4 -15.6 -13.1 -10.5 15.2 -27.6 41.9
55.8
17.0
6.3 9.1 5.7 8.7
0.4 3.1 1.8 1.9 5.1 0.5 0.6 2.7 1.7 3.0 0.2 1.6 0.0 2.2 3.3 3.8
0
-2.9 -0.2-0.4 -1.5 -0.2 -2.0 -0.3 -1.1 -0.8 -0.6 -1.8
-6.3 -10.9 -14.6 -12.3 -9.9 -14.0
-31.4
ine
an
ria
r
r*
n
ion
a*
es
ica
ia
bia
nia
co
a*
ala
bia
yp
ca
ta
es
es
Na
pin
oc
rd
ge
do
ma
ra
as
Eg
at
ra
em
ma
nk
lom
kis
ny
lad
on
Jo
or
Uk
Al
niz
iA
ag
ilip
ua
et
Ke
La
Pa
Ja
at
Ro
Ind
ng
M
Co
Vi
ad
Ec
ud
a
Gu
Ph
Sri
Ba
rg
M
Sa
tO
en
at
nP
sia
ra
Eu
Office
Note: *Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.

11 The selected offices are from different
world regions. Data for all available offices
are presented in the statistical annex.
50
Figure A.2.1.7 shows the distribution of patent applica- Over the past decade, China saw rapid growth in both pat-
tions worldwide and that of gross domestic product (GDP) ent applications and GDP. This resulted in a considerable
by income group.12 The share of high-income countries increase in the share of upper middle-income countries
in patent applications worldwide declined from 85.8% in in the world total for both patents and GDP. Furthermore,
2001 to 67% in 2011. Despite the decline, they accounted patent applications grew more rapidly than did economic
for two-thirds of the world total, which is substantially output in China, so that the gap between patent ap-
higher than their GDP share (54.6%). plications and GDP shares of the upper middle-income
countries narrowed considerably between 2001 and 2011.
Figure A.2.1.7 Patent applications and GDP share by income group

Patent applications
2001 2011
High-income: 85.8% Upper middle-income: 11.7% High-income: 67.0% Upper middle-income: 29.8%
Lower middle-income: 2.3% Low-income: 0.1% Lower middle-income: 3.2% Low-income: 0.0%
GDP

2001 2011
Source: WIPO Statistics Database and World Bank, October 2012
12 The income groups correspond to those used by the

Word Bank. Economies are divided according to 2011
gross national income (GNI) per capita, calculated
using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are:
low-income (US$1,025 or less); lower middle-income
(US$1,026-$4,035); upper middle-income (US$4,036-
$12,475); and high-income (US$12,476 or more). 51
Figure A.2.1.8 Resident and non-resident patent applications worldwide by income, 2011
38.2 26.8 78.8 89.5

Distribution of Non-Resident applications
Non-Resident share: 2011

100
75
50
25
0
High-income Upper middle-income Lower middle-income Low-income
Office
In both high-income and upper middle-income countries, The combined shares of the top five offices for applica-
resident applications accounted for the majority of total tions and grants worldwide were nearly equal (around
applications (Figure A.2.1.8). In contrast, resident applica- 79%). However, when looking at the JPO’s and SIPO’s
tions accounted for around one-fifth of total applications shares in total applications and grants worldwide, large
in lower middle-income countries. For high-income differences emerge. SIPO accounted for 24.6% of appli-
countries, the non-resident share increased from around cations but only 17.3% of grants worldwide, but the JPO
35% in 2001 to 38% in 2011, while that of upper middle- witnessed an opposite trend, with 16% of applications
income countries declined from 60% to 26.8%. This is and 24% of grants worldwide.
due to the substantial growth in resident applications in
China. Excluding data for China, the non-resident share The non-resident share ranged from 0.7% in the
for upper middle-income countries was around 65% in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to 98.5% in
2001 and 58% in 2011. China, Hong Kong SAR. For a number of offices, the
non-resident share exceeded 80%. However, for most
A.2.2 Grants by office offices, non-resident application and grant shares (Figure
A.2.1.3) were of similar magnitude. Exceptions include
The JPO (238,323) issued the largest number of patents China, Germany and the United Kingdom (UK), which
in 2011, followed by the USPTO (224,505). The number of all have higher non-resident shares for grants than for
patents granted by SIPO grew considerably in absolute applications.
terms (+37,003) in 2011, but its rank in third position did
not change.13 Brazil, one of the top 20 offices in terms
of applications, does not, however, appear in the top 20 13 In absolute numbers, SIPO had the largest
list for grants. Of the top 20 offices, India showed the increase in patent grants (+37,003), followed
by KIPO (+25,877) and the JPO (+15,630).
largest difference between its numbers of applications
14 In 2011, the patent office of India received 42,291
and grants. In contrast, application and grant numbers applications and issued 5,168 patents, while the
for Mexico were of similar magnitude.14 patent office of Mexico received 14,055 applications
and issued 11,485 patents. However, care should
be exercised in making direct comparisons
between application and grant data, due to the
time lag between application and grant dates.
52
Figure A.2.2.1 Patent grants for the top 20 offices, 2011
17.1 51.6 34.7 23.7 47.5 32.2 89.6 92.9 30.0 97.9 13.7 58.3 11.0 0.7 91.9 89.3 85.0 85.6 98.5 93.1
238,323 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 10,213 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
224,505
172,113 7,173
Grants
6,380 6,290
Grants
5,949
5,296 5,168 5,104 5,050 4,710
94,720
62,112
29,999 20,762
17,877 11,719 11,485
ca
R
m
re
l
*
e
ly
ia
nd
ae
nc
A
Ita
y
a
da
n
ina
rea
ce
ico
Ind
n
do
po
rea
fri
ala
an
gS
ric
Isr
pa
ali
tio
Fra
ffi
na
hA
ing
ga
ex
Ch
Ko
rm
Ko
e
str
Ja
Ze
ra
tO
on
Am
Ca
Sin
dK
ut
de
Au
Ge
of
of
gK
w
ten
So
Fe
Ne
of
ite
R.
on
bli
Pa
an
tes
P.
Un
pu
,H
D.
an
ssi
ta
Re
ina
pe
dS
Ru
ro
Ch
ite
Eu
Un
Office Office
Figure A.2.2.2 Contribution of resident and non-resident patent grants to total growth for the top 20
offices, 2010-11
7.0 2.2 27.4 37.6 6.9 -1.1 8.6 22.8 -14.3 22.2 3.2 28.2 -60.4 2.3 33.9 -0.7 -27.6 37.1 -5.7 8.4
30.3 31.3
24.1 22.2 22.0 23.0

16.3 14.0
12.0 9.9
4.7 2.4 7.3 7.3 4.1
0.4 1.8 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.2 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 2.8 1.9 0.5 2.6
0
-4.2 -0.3 -1.6
-3.9 -5.9 -4.8 -6.1 -5.3
-10.4
-21.5
-54.5
y
ca
ca
da
n
ina
ea
ce
AR
e
re
m
l
a
*
ico
ly
ia
nd
n
ae
an
nc
pa
ali
tio
Ita
Ind
do
po
ea
ffi
fri
eri
or
na
ala
gS
ex
Isr
Ch
rm
Fra
str
Ja
era
tO
hA
fK
or
ing
ga
Am
Ca
Ze
on
Au
Ge
fK
Sin
ed
co
ten
dK
ut
gK
w
of
.o
F
So
bli
Pa
Ne
ite
an
tes
P.R
on
pu
Un
an
ssi
Sta
,H
Re
D.
pe
Ru
ina
ed
ro
Ch
Eu
it
Un
Office
Note: *2010 data
The majority of the top 20 offices issued more patents in Figure A.2.2.1 illustrates that high-income countries are
2011 than in 2010 (Figure A.2.2.2). In percentage terms, prominent in the list of top 20 offices for patent grants.
KIPO had the highest growth rate (37.6%), followed by Figure A.2.2.3 presents grant data for offices of selected
Israel (37.1%) and Singapore (33.9%). 15
middle- and low-income countries.16 Among these coun-
tries, Ukraine issued the largest number of patents, fol-
For all offices, except the JPO, KIPO and SIPO, the in- lowed by Brazil, Kazakhstan and Viet Nam. In all offices,
crease in non-resident grants was the main contributor except Kazakhstan, non-resident grants accounted for
to each office’s growth. For example, the increases in the largest share in total grants. The majority of reported
Australia, Mexico and Singapore were almost entirely offices issued more patents in 2011 than in 2010.
driven by growth in non-resident grants. Italy saw a
15 For absolute numbers, see footnote 13.
substantial drop in patent grants (-60.4%) in 2011. India 16 The selected offices are from different
also issued fewer patents in 2011 than in 2010 (-27.6%), world regions. Data for all available offices
due to declines in both resident and non-resident grants.
53
Figure A.2.2.3 Patent grants for offices of

selected middle- and low-income countries, 2011 A.3
53.2 90.3 14.8 97.4 94.0 82.4 99.5 87.1 84.1 94.5
Patent applications and grants
by origin
3,251
Patent application counts based on the applicant’s origin

Grants
1,887 1,844
1,546
1,258
complement the picture of patent activity worldwide.
1,135 979 900
617 Patent activity by origin includes resident applications
and applications abroad.17 The origin of a patent ap-
ine
ria
n
il *
es
n
d
co
bia
tio
sta
an
Na
pin
oc
ge
ra
az
lom
plication is determined based on the residency of the
ail
iza
kh
or
Uk
Al
ilip
Br
et
Th
an
za
Co
Vi
Ph
Ka
rg
tO
first-named applicant. As some offices do not provide

en
at
nP
sia
data broken down by origin, the number of applications

ra
Eu
Office
and grants by origin reported here is likely to be lower
Resident Non-Resident than the actual number.
56.3 87.4 93.8 97.7 93.3 65.6 99.3 92.9 62.5 92.3
504 483 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
469
Applications at regional offices are equivalent to multiple
385
applications in the respective states members of those
Grants
252
154
offices. This subsection reports figures based on an
151
85
40 39
equivalent applications or grants concept. For instance,
to calculate the number of equivalent applications or
t
an
n
ru
bia
ba
a*
h
as
ala
yp
ta
es
Pe
ur
rd
Cu
Eg
ra
em
kis
nk
grants for the EAPO or the African Intellectual Property

lad
nd
Jo
iA
La
Pa
at
ng
Ho
ud
Gu
Sri
Ba
Sa
Organization (OAPI), each application is multiplied by the

corresponding number of member states. By contrast,
.
Office
the EPO and the African Regional Intellectual Property
Note: *2010 data Organization (ARIPO) do not issue patents with automatic
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 region-wide applicability. Thus, for these two offices,
each application is counted as one application abroad
if the applicant does not reside in a member state; or as
one resident and one application abroad if the applicant
resides in a member state. This method might underes-
timate the number of applications at the EPO or ARIPO,
as applications at these offices may lead to protection
in more than one jurisdiction. 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.
17 See Glossary for the definition of resident

application and application abroad.
54
A.3.1 Applications and grants by origin Figure A.3.1.1 Equivalent patent applications
for the top 20 origins, 2011
Figure A.3.1.1 presents equivalent patent application Resident Abroad
0.9 41.3 -0.1 4.9 -0.4 -0.4 -1.8 -4.9 -3.0 -4.3
data for the top 20 origins. Residents of Japan filed
472,417 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
the largest number of applications across the world 435,608 432,298
Applications
(472,417) in 2011.18 China, which saw a 41.3% increase
in 2011, overtook the US to become the second largest 187,454 172,764
country for origin counts.19 The ranking of the top three

65,349 49,938
37,477 32,376 31,433
origins is different than that for offices. In terms of of-
fices, China ranked first, but it ranked second for origin
ny
ca
n
ea
d
ce
om
ds
n
in
pa
an
tio
n
eri
n
or
Ch
gd
rm
Fra
rla
Ja
erl
era
fK
Am
Kin
Ge
e
itz
d
co
th
Fe
Sw
data. In contrast, Japan ranked third for office data, but
of
Ne
d
bli
ite
an
tes
pu
Un
ssi
Sta
Re
Ru
first for origin data. Large differences in the numbers of d
ite
Un
Origin
applications abroad for China and Japan partly explain
the differences in the ranking between office and origin Resident Abroad
data (See Figure A.3.2.1). The majority of origins filed -0.8 1.3 -4.3 5.8 3.0 -11.7 -3.2 3.0 -1.8 -1.0
27,679 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
fewer than 50,000 applications in 2011. China, India and 24,528
21,480
the Russian Federation are the only three middle-income
Applications
15,717
origins in the top 20 list. 11,565 11,516 11,427 11,393 11,348 10,821
Residents of China filed fewer than 20,000 applica-

tions abroad (i.e., 4.5% of all applications worldwide). In
ia
da
en
ly
um
l
k
a
d
ia
ae
ar
ali
lan
Ita
str
Ind
ed
na
Isr
lgi
nm
str
Au
Fin
Sw
Ca
Be
Au
contrast, Japan and the US each filed around 184,000

De
applications abroad. All European countries, Australia,

.
Canada, and Israel filed a high proportion of their total Origin
applications abroad. 20
Among the top 20 origins, most countries saw growth

in applications between 2010 and 2011. China was the
only country with double-digit growth, due mostly to
growth in resident applications. Finland and Switzerland
saw considerable declines in applications. In the case of
Finland, the drop in applications abroad was the main
contributor to the overall decline. As for Switzerland, the
fall in resident applications was the main factor for the
overall decrease.
18 The sum of resident applications

and applications abroad.
19 If the present trend continues, China will soon
overtake Japan to become the top origin.
20 For these offices, shares of applications filed abroad
ranged from 87% for Israel to 57% for Germany.
55
Figure A.3.1.2 Equivalent patent grants For all origins reported – except Finland, Italy and the
for the top 20 origins, 2011 Russian Federation – the number of equivalent grants
Resident Abroad increased between 2010 and 2011.21 Thirteen of these
6.1 5.0 39.3 28.5 2.3 3.8 -6.2 8.6 6.1 -34.8 20 origins were granted the majority of their patents
304,604 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
by foreign patent offices.22 Residents of Denmark and
201,158 Switzerland obtained more than four-fifths of their total
Grants
patents from offices other than their national patent office.

118,158
97,714
72,346
34,766
22,177 18,275 17,564 16,212 A.3.2 Applications abroad by origin
ny
ca
n
d
ea
ce
om
ly
n
in
pa
an
tio
Ita
n
eri
a
or
Ch
gd
rm
Fra
Ja
erl
era
fK
Am
Kin
Ge
itz
The volume of filings abroad reflects, to some extent,

d
co
Fe
Sw
of
d
bli
ite
an
tes
pu
Un
ssi
Sta
Re
Ru
the impact of globalization on IP protection strategies.

d
ite
Un
Origin Companies that expand operations to foreign countries

might have a business need to seek IP protection in those
Resident Abroad
3.9 2.6 6.4 2.1 7.7 -9.8 3.5 6.2 5.6 7.9 countries.23 Therefore, patent applications abroad provide
14,924 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
some indication of how companies are expanding their
10,905 10,617 businesses into overseas markets. Japan and the US, by
Grants
far, filed the largest number of applications abroad – each

6,263 6,162 5,827
5,217 5,068 4,855
4,260 filing more than 184,000 applications in 2011.
ia
en
da
ain
ds
um
a
k
*
ar
ali
lan
str
ea
an
ed
na
Sp
lgi
nm
str
Au
Fin
or
erl
Sw
Ca
Be
Au
De
fK
th
.o
Ne
P.R
D.
.
Origin
For the majority of origins, equivalent patent grants

show similar trends to those for equivalent applications.
However, the applications and grants profiles of China
and the US differ significantly. These two origins had
similar numbers of applications (Figure A.3.1.1), but there
was a substantial difference in their numbers of grants
received. Residents of China received 118,185 equivalent 21 These three origins saw drops in equivalent
grants in 2011, compared to 201,158 for US residents. applications and grants in 2011.
22 Eleven of the 13 origins are members of the EPO – a
However, care should be exercised when comparing
regional office. Patents granted by the EPO are
application and grant data as it takes time (several counted as grants abroad, hence EPO members
years) to process applications. Furthermore, in recent have a high share in total grants abroad.
23 It goes without saying that expanding operations
years there has been substantial growth in applications
abroad does not necessarily mean that companies
filed by residents of China. Once those applications are will seek additional patent rights. For example,
processed, China’s grant total will increase. companies might rely on other types of IP protection,
or IP protection might not be necessary at all
due to the nature of the business activity.
56
Figure A.3.2.1 Applications abroad for the top A.3.3 Applications by office and origin
origins
To provide a detailed picture of patent flows across coun-
1995 2011
tries, Tables A.3.3.1 and A.3.3.2 present a breakdown
3.7 -3.3 0.4 5.5 -0.7 -0.5 -5.0 -2.9 29.7 0.6
184,837 184,548 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 of patent application data by origin (source) and office
(destination). Data are reported for top offices and top
Applications abroad
99,548
origins.24 When deciding where to seek patent protection,
applicants consider factors such as market size and geo-
49,420
41,062
29,831 29,475 24,181
19,779 19,774
graphical proximity. At larger patent offices (e.g., China,
Germany, Japan and the Republic of Korea), resident
ny
ca
a
n
ea
a
ce
om
ds
ad
in
pa
an
applicants accounted for more than three-quarters of

n
eri
n
or
Ch
gd
rm
Fra
rla
n
Ja
erl
fK
Am
Ca
Kin
Ge
e
itz
co
th
Sw
of
Ne
d
bli
ite
tes
total applications. The US is an exception, where there

pu
Un
Sta
Re
d
ite
was an equal distribution between resident and non-

Un
Origin
resident applications.
1995 2011
-4.9 -0.3 -0.2 -2.0 -3.8 -14.3 5.5 8.6 14.4 -0.2
15,866 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
Excluding resident filings, applications of US origin ac-
14,903
counted for the largest shares of total patent applications
Applications abroad
9,461 8,965
in all reported offices, except China, France and the
8,797 8,295 8,193
7,505
6,876
5,718
Republic of Korea. At the patent offices of China and
the Republic of Korea, the largest shares belonged to
residents of Japan, while in France, German residents
accounted for the largest share. In a number of offices,
ia
en
ain
um
l
k
ly
ia
ae
ar
ali
lan
Ita
str
Ind
ed
Isr
Sp
lgi
nm
str
Au
Fin
Sw
Be
Au
De
residents of the US filed more applications than domestic

applicants. For example, at the patent office of India,
.
Origin
residents of the US accounted for a larger share of total
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 applications than residents of India. A similar profile is
visible at the offices of Australia, Canada, Mexico and
For the resident applications measure, China ranked first; Singapore. Residents of Japan accounted for the largest
however, for the applications abroad measure it ranked share of non-resident applications at the patent offices
below Japan, the Republic of Korea, the US and several of China, the Republic of Korea and the US. The share
larger European countries. All reported countries saw of China at most offices was less than 2%, reflecting the
substantial growth in applications abroad between 1995 relatively small number of applications that residents of
and 2011. However, a closer look at the data for 2009 China file abroad.
to 2011 reveals the negative impact of the economic
downturn. All top origins, except Austria and China,
saw decreases in applications abroad at the start of the
economic downturn in 2008. For example, between
2008 and 2009, applications abroad for Japan, the US
and Germany – the top three origins – declined by 6.4%,
12.3% and 6.9%, respectively. However, the 2011 data
show that there are signs of recovery. The top five origins,
except the US, filed more applications abroad in 2011 24 “Origin data” refers to simple application
than in 2008 (2008 being the peak year). count rather than equivalent application
count as presented in Figure A.3.1.1.
57
Table A.3.3.1 Number of patent applications by office and origin: top offices and origins, 2011
Office
Origin
CN US JP KR EP DE IN RU CA AU GB FR MX HK SG
Australia 621 3,767 464 167 837 16 341 70 462 2,383 109 8 123 172 188
Austria 598 1,849 288 190 1,734 836 269 195 243 212 35 17 62 54 34
Belgium 592 2,115 457 263 1,994 53 323 192 324 281 241 76 180 162 88
Canada 1,033 11,975 751 466 2,346 35 583 197 4,754 548 203 8 278 353 126
China 415,829 10,545 1,401 752 2,548 91 976 393 352 383 118 71 203 544 167
Denmark 781 1,974 418 187 1,798 24 411 149 312 287 76 8 169 124 75
Finland 964 2,551 319 334 1,571 116 451 225 273 172 52 4 62 75 40
France 3,973 10,563 3,447 1,753 9,632 230 1,669 1,033 1,793 806 127 14,655 546 312 422
Germany 11,422 27,935 6,773 3,598 26,230 46,986 4,097 2,302 2,723 1,698 372 590 1,252 931 667
India 202 4,548 170 109 473 12 8,841 56 141 169 24 2 80 50 55
Israel 532 5,436 413 212 1,053 15 330 97 308 240 96 3 88 118 83
Italy 1,245 4,282 753 358 3,982 109 700 409 498 298 29 61 241 196 99
Japan 39,231 85,184 287,580 15,234 20,568 3,001 5,048 1,931 1,794 1,691 616 128 759 1,729 1269
Netherlands 2,999 4,418 2,374 1,045 5,610 65 1,513 989 666 606 203 20 445 188 173
Republic of Korea 8,129 27,289 5,007 138,034 4,889 999 737 318 338 339 143 39 183 86 105
Russian Federation 120 719 38 31 168 39 55 26,495 47 16 4 18 13 23 8
Sweden 1,730 4,140 1,342 573 3,610 232 854 340 472 441 77 21 206 243 149
Switzerland 2,665 4,086 2,139 1,073 6,405 853 1,652 803 1,326 1,111 242 213 820 732 516
United Kingdom 1,876 11,279 1,739 737 4,764 111 1,142 404 1,286 1,214 15,343 69 403 450 388
United States of
28,457 247,750 23,414 12,139 34,987 4,499 10,575 3,707 15,342 11,002 2,525 417 6,182 5,901 3594
America
Other / Unknown 3413 31177 3323 1669 7594 1122 1724 1109 1657 1629 1624 326 1760 1050 1548
Total 526,412 503,582 342,610 178,924 142,793 59,444 42,291 41,414 35,111 25,526 22,259 16,754 14,055 13,493 9,794
Note: CN (China), US (United States of America), JP (Japan), KR (Republic of Korea), EP (European Patent Office), DE (Germany), IN (India), RU (Russian
Federation), CA (Canada), AU (Australia), GB (United Kingdom), FR (France), MX (Mexico), HK (China, Hong Kong (SAR)) and SG (Singapore)
Table A.3.3.2 Distribution of patent applications by office and origin: top offices and top origins, 2011
Office
Origin
CN US JP KR EP DE IN RU CA AU GB FR MX HK SG
Australia 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.2 1.3 9.3 0.5 0.0 0.9 1.3 1.9
Austria 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3
Belgium 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.3 1.2 0.9
Canada 0.2 2.4 0.2 0.3 1.6 0.1 1.4 0.5 13.5 2.1 0.9 0.0 2.0 2.6 1.3
China 79.0 2.1 0.4 0.4 1.8 0.2 2.3 0.9 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.4 1.4 4.0 1.7
Denmark 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.9 1.1 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.8
Finland 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.2 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.4
France 0.8 2.1 1.0 1.0 6.7 0.4 3.9 2.5 5.1 3.2 0.6 87.5 3.9 2.3 4.3
Germany 2.2 5.5 2.0 2.0 18.4 79.0 9.7 5.6 7.8 6.7 1.7 3.5 8.9 6.9 6.8
India 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 20.9 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.6
Israel 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.8
Italy 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.2 1.7 1.0 1.4 1.2 0.1 0.4 1.7 1.5 1.0
Japan 7.5 16.9 83.9 8.5 14.4 5.0 11.9 4.7 5.1 6.6 2.8 0.8 5.4 12.8 13.0
Netherlands 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 3.9 0.1 3.6 2.4 1.9 2.4 0.9 0.1 3.2 1.4 1.8
Republic of Korea 1.5 5.4 1.5 77.1 3.4 1.7 1.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.6 1.1
Russian Federation 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 64.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
Sweden 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.3 2.5 0.4 2.0 0.8 1.3 1.7 0.3 0.1 1.5 1.8 1.5
Switzerland 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 4.5 1.4 3.9 1.9 3.8 4.4 1.1 1.3 5.8 5.4 5.3
United Kingdom 0.4 2.2 0.5 0.4 3.3 0.2 2.7 1.0 3.7 4.8 68.9 0.4 2.9 3.3 4.0
United States of
5.4 49.2 6.8 6.8 24.5 7.6 25.0 9.0 43.7 43.1 11.3 2.5 44.0 43.7 36.7
America
Other / Unknown 0.6 6.2 1.0 0.9 5.3 1.9 4.1 2.7 4.7 6.4 7.3 1.9 12.5 7.8 15.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note: See note for Table A.3.3.1
58
A.4 origin.26 By contrast, 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 Families
Applicants often file patent applications in multiple juris- A.4.1 Patent families
dictions, leading to some inventions being counted more
than once in patent counts. To account for this, WIPO has Figure A.4.1.1 shows the number of patent families
developed indicators related to so-called patent families, worldwide for 1995-2009.27 Between 1995 and 2008, the
defined as a set of patent applications interlinked by – or total number of patent families continuously increased,
by a combination of – priority claim, PCT national phase followed by a 4.7% drop in 2009. The drop in the total
entry, continuation, continuation-in-part, internal priority, number of patent families in 2009 coincided with the
addition or division. A special subset of patent families
25
economic downturn, and was consistent with the drop
consists of foreign-oriented patent families, which include in patent applications worldwide (Figure A.1.1.1).
only patent families having at least one filing office that
is different from the office of the applicant’s country of
Figure A.4.1.1 Trends in patent families
Patent families Growth rate (%)
1,000,000
750,000
Patent families
500,000
-4.7
4.2 4.1 5.8 6.2 4.5 10.7 4.6 1.5 4.7 2.3 4.8 2.7 2.4 2.8
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Application year
Note: The patent family dataset includes only published patent applications. Unpublished patent applications (e.g., patent applications withdrawn before
publication) and provisional applications are not included in the patent family count. WIPO’s patent family dataset has the following features: (1) each “first-
filed” patent application forms a patent family; all subsequent patent filings are added to that family; (2) one patent application may belong to more than one
patent family due to the existence of multiple priority claims. “Patent family” is defined as a set of patent applications interlinked by – or by a combination of
– priority claim, PCT national phase entry, continuation, continuation-in-part, addition or division. “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.
Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and EPO PATSTAT Database, October 2012
26 Some foreign-related patent families contain
only one filing office, as applicants may choose
to file directly with a foreign office. For example,
if a Canadian applicant files a patent application
directly with the USPTO (without previously filing
with the patent office of Canada), that application,
and applications filed subsequently with the
USPTO, form a foreign-oriented patent family.
27 Patent family data are based on published
25 In this publication, patent families include applications. There is a minimum delay of 18
only those families associated with patent months between the application and publication
applications for inventions and exclude families dates. For this reason, 2009 is the latest available
associated with utility model applications. year for which complete patent family data exist.
59
Figure A.4.1.2 Domestic and foreign-oriented patent families for the top origins, 2005-09
Domestic Foreign-oriented Domestic Foreign-oriented
20.4 42.4 5.9 16.7 65.8 2.6 62.0 49.8 75.5 61.1 91.5 79.6 89.0 11.4 71.8 74.2 51.4 85.3 79.8 8.3
1,227,601 Foreign-oriented share (%): 2005 - 09 33,357 Foreign-oriented share (%): 2005 - 09
28,984 28,833
Patent families
Patent families
747,799 20,122 20,114 20,104
561,638 534,512 17,118
15,773
11,797 10,900
274,191
95,438 81,308 63,838
45,051 42,252
y
a
da
n
ina
rea
ly
n
an
ia
en
il
ain
nc
l
ric
a
d
ds
pa
d
tio
Ita
ae
do
az
ali
na
an
lan
lan
str
Ch
Ko
rm
Fra
an
e
ed
Ja
era
Isr
Sp
ing
Br
Am
str
Ca
erl
Au
Fin
Po
erl
Sw
Ge
of
ed
Au
itz
dK
th
of
Sw
bli
Ne
ite
an
tes
pu
Un
ssi
ta
Re
dS
Ru
ite
Un
.
Origin Origin
Figure A.4.1.2 presents the number of domestic and A.4.2 Patent families by office and origin
foreign-oriented patent families for the top origins for
2005-2009. Between 2005 and 2009, the largest number Figure A.4.2.1 shows the distribution of total patent fami-
of patent families originated in Japan – the only origin with lies by number of offices for selected origins. The majority
more than 1.2 million families – followed by the US, China of patent families contain only one office, most often the
and the Republic of Korea. However, for these origins, national patent office of the applicant. On average, 22.6%
the distribution of domestic and foreign-oriented families of patent families created worldwide between 2005 and
differed considerably. More than 40% of total patent 2009 included at least two patent offices. However, there
families originating in the US were foreign-oriented. In was considerable variation among the top origins. A small
contrast, less than 6% of all patent families originating in fraction of total patent families originating in Brazil (1.7%),
China were foreign-oriented. Patent families originating China (4.8%) and the Russian Federation (8.5%) included
in Switzerland (91.5%), Sweden (89%) and Israel (85.3%) at least two patent offices. In contrast, large shares of
were predominantly foreign-oriented. patent families originating in European countries, such
as France (49.5%) and Sweden (45.3%), included at least
two patent offices.
Figure A.4.2.1 Distribution of total patent families by number of offices, 2005-09

1 Office 2 Offices 3 Offices 4 Offices 5 Offices More than 5 offices
Average number of offices in foreign-oriented families: 2005-09
Distribution of number of offices
2.3 2.2 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 1.9 3.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.4 3.4
100
75
50
25
0
y
ica
da
en
ina
il
ce
l
om
ly
d
ds
n
ta
an
az
re
pa
lan
lan
tio
Ita
an
lan
ed
na
To
er
Ch
Ko
d
Br
rm
Ja
ra
er
Fin
ng
Fr
m
Sw
Ca
er
de
Ge
itz
of
Ki
th
Fe
Sw
of
lic
Ne
d
ite
b
ian
es
pu
Un
at
ss
Re
St
Ru
d
ite
Un
Origin
Note: The definition of a patent family is explained in the note for Figure A.4.1.1.
60
Table A.4.2.2 illustrates the flow of patent filings from 38% of foreign-oriented families from non-EPC mem-
source countries to destination offices. Data reported bers contained applications at the EPO, whereas 60%
in this table give lower numbers than the applications of those owned by EPC members had EPO filings. The
abroad data reported in subsection A.3 due to data percentage of foreign-oriented families by non-resident
consolidation – that is, repeated filings at the same office applicants that had filings at SIPO was around 35%.
within the same patent family are counted only once. Japan and the Republic of Korea had a high tendency to
file at SIPO – more than two-fifths of total foreign-oriented
The USPTO is the most popular destination for foreign- families from these origins included filings at SIPO. A
oriented patent families – around 67% of foreign-oriented small proportion of foreign-oriented patent families by
patent families from non-US residents included at least non-resident applicants included filings at the patent
one filing at the USPTO. More than four-fifths of foreign- offices of Brazil, Israel and New Zealand.28
oriented patent families originating in Japan and the
Republic of Korea included filings at the USPTO. About
Table A.4.2.2 Foreign-oriented patent families for selected offices and origins, 2005-09
Office
Origin European United
New Republic Russian United Total
Australia Brazil Canada China Patent France Germany Israel Japan Mexico States of
Zealand of Korea Federation Kingdom families
Office America
Australia 5,080 442 2,741 4,146 4,434 14 96 354 2,448 512 2,349 1,749 435 573 8,077 14,909
Austria 590 189 864 1,709 5,899 97 3,256 123 1,170 230 109 690 640 85 3,432 9,415
Belgium 1,053 352 1,321 2,207 5,131 333 255 347 1,621 562 342 1,189 450 1,046 3,726 8,859
Canada 2,405 485 11,603 5,457 9,146 65 245 377 3,082 1,107 478 2,817 645 1,007 24,756 34,000
China 1,167 310 1,306 22,583 9,284 298 632 125 4,777 257 134 2,681 983 572 24,947 33,239
Finland 928 395 1,433 4,520 7,470 32 517 154 1,683 449 85 2,369 1,145 386 8,637 14,450
France 3,380 2,388 8,416 15,069 39,272 32,742 1,075 1,464 14,151 2,633 784 7,281 3,933 602 28,565 50,397
Germany 6,136 3,850 11,667 42,230 100,596 2,504 83,860 1,903 63,186 4,506 1,293 17,210 8,616 1,944 83,756 180,303
Israel 1,143 259 1,685 2,422 4,677 13 128 3,278 1,931 446 141 1,599 359 378 9,983 13,449
Italy 1,494 1,119 2,555 5,498 18,838 241 494 579 3,016 979 338 1,690 1,589 289 10,935 25,813
Japan 5,529 1,644 5,898 106,400 68,739 1,405 12,644 455 209,886 1,236 414 51,100 3,112 2,339 199,513 250,004
Netherlands 1,549 535 1,976 7,166 10,967 91 447 360 5,935 635 475 3,442 1,409 763 11,807 23,057
Republic of
1,844 746 1,623 35,835 20,767 396 3,365 116 25,394 1,095 109 79,869 1,838 805 75,140 89,080
Korea
Singapore 373 47 203 1,650 1,276 4 504 66 1,190 72 58 773 68 334 4,632 6,774
Spain 702 383 1,091 1,485 5,635 257 179 294 974 750 153 473 570 193 3,413 8,797
Sweden 1,853 897 2,363 7,984 13,372 146 1,155 493 5,026 1,061 509 2,923 1,573 572 13,518 25,650
Switzerland 3,928 1,536 5,161 9,106 16,377 361 3,847 1,328 7,014 2,786 1,097 4,939 2,677 1,490 12,884 30,519
United Kingdom 5,788 1,059 6,348 7,998 20,904 158 418 1,293 8,158 1,874 1,501 3,489 1,601 20,450 22,886 31,808
United States
45,602 14,532 81,315 125,256 150,139 1,382 16,110 11,049 98,014 29,233 9,201 67,309 15,090 16,203 159,816 317,340
of America
Others 21,116 7,140 26,568 104,719 128,128 2,614 9,218 6,268 140,048 10,501 6,223 64,138 15,554 7,146 201,762 268,189
Total families 111,660 38,308 176,137 513,440 641,051 43,153 138,445 30,426 598,704 60,924 25,793 317,730 62,287 57,177 912,185 1,436,052
Note: For the definition of a patent family, refer to the note for Figure A.4.1.1.
28 Similarly, a small proportion of foreign-oriented

families included filings at the patent offices of France,
Germany and the UK. 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.
61
A.5 A.5.1 PCT applications
Patent applications filed through Figure A.5.1.1 depicts the total number of PCT applica-
the patent cooperation treaty tions filed between 1995 and 2011. Despite difficult eco-
The PCT, an international treaty administered by WIPO, nomic conditions, PCT applications set a new record in
offers patent applicants an advantageous route for 2011 with 182,354 applications. This represents an 11%
seeking patent protection internationally. It serves as an increase on 2010 and the fastest growth since 2005.
alternative to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Patent applications originating in China, Japan and the
Industrial Property (the Paris Convention) for pursuing US accounted for 82% of total growth.
the acquisition of patent rights in different countries.
The main advantages of the PCT are that applicants The long-term trend shows that the number of PCT ap-
and patent offices of PCT contracting states benefit from plications grew at a double-digit rate until 2001, followed
uniform formality requirements, international search, by a slowdown in growth between 2002 and 2004.29
optional supplementary international search and prelimi- Since the system’s establishment, 2009 was the only
nary examination reports, and centralized international year in which there was a drop in applications; however,
publication. This can lead to time and cost savings for PCT applications have rebounded strongly in the past
applicants. Starting with only 18 members in 1978, there two years.
were 144 PCT members in 2011.
PCT application data presented in A.5.1 and A.5.2 refer to

the international phase of the PCT procedure, while data
presented in A.5.3 refer to PCT national phase entries.
Figure A.5.1.1 Trend in PCT applications
PCT applications Growth rate (%)
200,000
150,000
100,000
PCT applications
50,000
-4.8
17.0 20.5 18.3 17.5 13.9 22.1 16.1 2.0 4.4 6.4 11.5 9.4 6.9 2.1 5.7 11.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Application year
Note: Data refer to the international phase of the PCT system. Counts are based on the international application date.
29 The double-digit growth in PCT applications during this

period was partly due to an increase in the use of the
PCT system, as well as expanded PCT membership.
62
Figure A.5.1.2 provides a breakdown of PCT applications For the top 20 origins, China (+33.4%) saw the fastest
by country of origin. The list of top 20 origins consists growth in applications in 2011, followed by Japan (+20.9%)
mostly of high-income countries – China and India being and Austria (+18%). Four countries – three of which are
the exceptions. The US, with 49,051 applications, was the
30
European – saw decreases in applications in 2011, with
largest user of the PCT system in 2011, followed by Japan the Netherlands recording the largest drop.31 Following
(38,874), Germany (18,852) and China (16,402). Among the three consecutive years of decline, applications filed by
top four origins, the US and Japan each had more than the US grew by 8.9% in 2011. However, the number of
twice as many applications as Germany or China. applications filed in 2011 was still below the pre-crisis
peak reached in 2007.
Figure A.5.1.2 PCT applications for the top 20 origins, 2011

8.9 20.9 7.3 33.4 8.0 2.6 -0.9 7.5 -13.8 4.5 8.6 1.4 -2.8 -1.9 -2.4 -1.6 18.0 3.4 11.9 12.8
49,051 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 2,929 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
2,695
38,874
PCT applications
PCT applications
2,079
1,739 1,729
1,452
1,346 1,330 1,314
1,191
18,852
16,402
10,447
7,438
4,848 4,009 3,503 3,462
ia
ain
um
a
k
ly
ia
da
ae
ar
ali
lan
y
ca
en
n
ina
ea
d
e
ds
Ita
str
Ind
an
na
nc
pa
an
Isr
Sp
lgi
nm
do
str
eri
an
or
ed
Au
Fin
Ch
rm
Fra
Ca
Ja
erl
Be
fK
ing
Au
Am
De
erl
Sw
Ge
itz
co
th
dK
Sw
of
Ne
bli
ite
tes
pu
Un
ta
Re
dS
ite
.
Un
Origin Origin
Note: Data refer to the international phase of the PCT system. Counts are based on residency of the first-named applicant and the international
application date.
Figure A.5.1.3 Country share in total PCT applications

1995 2011
United States of America: 42.8% Japan: 6.9% United States of America: 26.9% Japan: 21.3%
Germany: 12.8% China: 0.3% Germany: 10.3% China: 9.0%
Republic of Korea: 0.5% France: 4.7% Republic of Korea: 5.7% France: 4.1%
United Kingdom: 7.5% Switzerland: 2.2% United Kingdom: 2.7% Switzerland: 2.2%
Netherlands: 3.5% Sweden: 3.9% Netherlands: 1.9% Sweden: 1.9%
Note: See note for Figure A.5.1.2

30 The share of high-income countries in total
PCT applications was around 88%.
31 Over the past two years, the Netherlands
saw a considerable drop in PCT applications
(-8.9% in 2010 and -13.8% in 2011).
63
Figure A.5.1.3 depicts the country share in total PCT research institution, and individual. Overall, the business
applications for the top 10 origins for 1995 and 2011. sector accounted for more than 80% of total applications.
The combined share of China, Japan and the Republic However, the share of the business sector varied across
of Korea in total PCT applications grew by 28 percent- origins. For the top 20 origins, shares ranged from 54.7%
age points between 1995 and 2011. In contrast, the US for Spain to 94.5% for Japan. For all origins, except China,
share declined by 16 percentage points. For all European the business sector share remained more or less stable
countries, except Switzerland, the 2011 share was lower between 2006 and 2011. For China, the share increased
than the 1995 share. This reflects the shift in geography of from 58% to 78.7% over the same period. Universities
PCT applications from the US and Europe towards Asia. accounted for a large share of total applications for Spain
(16.3%), Israel (13.1%) and the Republic of Korea (10%).
A.5.2 PCT applications by type of applicant France and Spain had a high share of applications from
government and research institutions – around 10%.
Figure A.5.2.1 presents the distribution of PCT applica-
tions for the top 20 origins broken down by four types
of applicants – business, university, government and
Figure A.5.2.1 PCT applications by type of applicant for the top 20 origins, 2011
Business University Research/Government Individual
54.7 62.2 66.0 67.3 67.9 71.9 75.2 77.0 77.2 78.7 80.8 82.5 82.7 88.3 88.8 90.4 91.2 92.9 94.3 94.5
Distribution of PCT applications
Business share: 2011

100
by type of applicant
75
50
25
0
y
ia
ain
da
ca
en
ea
ina
n
om
e
l
um
a
k
ly
ia
d
ds
ae
an
nc
ar
ali
an
pa
lan
Ita
str
Ind
eri
an
or
ed
na
Isr
Sp
Ch
gd
lgi
nm
rm
Fra
str
erl
Ja
Au
Fin
fK
Am
erl
Sw
Ca
Be
Kin
Au
Ge
itz
De
co
th
Sw
of
Ne
ed
bli
tes
it
pu
Un
Sta
Re
d
ite
Un
Origin
Note: Data refer to the international phase of the PCT system. Due to confidentiality requirements, counts are based on publication date.
Table A.5.2.2 lists the top 50 PCT applicants, based The top five applicants saw considerable growth in
on the residency of the first-named applicant and pub- published applications in 2011. Qualcomm Incorporated,
lication date. It shows that in 2011, ZTE Corporation the highest ranked US applicant, and Koninklijke Philips
of China, with 2,826 published applications, overtook Electronics of the Netherlands recorded the largest de-
Panasonic Corporation of Japan, which ranked first in clines in 2011. Japan, with 21 different applicants, had
2010. Between 2009 and 2011, applications from ZTE the largest number of applicants ranked among the top
Corporation increased five-fold, leading the company to 50. China, with the highest ranked applicants, has only
surge from 20th position to the top spot. Sharp Kabushiki three different applicants in the top 50 list.
Kaisha of Japan ranked fourth, also seeing considerable
growth in published applications over the same period.
64
Table A.5.2.2 Top PCT applicants
PCT applications
Rank Applicant's Name Origin Change compared
2009 2010 2011 to 2010
1 ZTE CORPORATION China 517 1,868 2,826 958
2 PANASONIC CORPORATION Japan 1,891 2,153 2,463 310
3 HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. China 1,847 1,527 1,831 304
4 SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA Japan 997 1,286 1,755 469
5 ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION Germany 1,588 1,301 1,518 217
6 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED United States of America 1,280 1,675 1,494 -181
7 TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA Japan 1,068 1,095 1,417 322
8 LG ELECTRONICS INC. Republic of Korea 1,090 1,297 1,336 39
9 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. Netherlands 1,295 1,433 1,148 -285
10 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL) Sweden 1,241 1,147 1,116 -31
11 NEC CORPORATION Japan 1,069 1,106 1,056 -50
12 SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Germany 932 830 1,039 209
13 MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION Japan 569 726 834 108
14 BASF SE Germany 739 817 773 -44
15 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Republic of Korea 596 574 757 183
16 NOKIA CORPORATION Finland 663 632 698 66
17 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION United States of America 401 416 661 245
18 HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P. United States of America 554 564 591 27
19 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY United States of America 688 586 563 -23
20 HITACHI, LTD. Japan 190 372 547 175
21 KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOSHIBA Japan 327 319 517 198
22 CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA Japan 401 379 499 120
23 FUJITSU LIMITED Japan 817 475 494 19
24 PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY United States of America 341 359 488 129
25 MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. Japan 373 391 480 89
26 SONY CORPORATION Japan 328 347 471 124
27 MICROSOFT CORPORATION United States of America 644 470 446 -24
27 SUMITOMO CHEMICAL COMPANY, LIMITED Japan 353 323 446 123
29 E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY United States of America 509 452 424 -28
30 SCHAEFFLER TECHNOLOGIES GMBH & CO. KG Germany 167 422 255
31 BOSCH-SIEMENS HAUSGERATE GMBH Germany 413 371 421 50
32 HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. Japan 318 309 418 109
33 FUJIFILM CORPORATION Japan 264 275 414 139
34 DOW GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. United States of America 304 288 399 111
35 SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD. Japan 45 76 382 306
36 KYOCERA CORPORATION Japan 362 279 356 77
37 PANASONIC ELECTRIC WORKS CO., LTD. Japan 235 206 353 147
38 BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED United States of America 375 307 336 29
39 NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS OY Finland 313 345 332 -13
40 HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. China 164 327 163
41 NTT DOCOMO, INC. Japan 249 298 323 25
42 MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Japan 254 305 318 13
43 INTEL CORPORATION United States of America 176 201 309 108
44 APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. United States of America 296 313 308 -5
45 THOMSON LICENSING France 359 311 303 -8
46 ASAHI GLASS COMPANY, LIMITED Japan 177 180 291 111
46 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY United States of America 307 274 291 17
48 ALCATEL LUCENT France 283 275 287 12
49 SANYO ELECTRIC CO., LTD. Japan 142 129 285 156
50 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA United States of America 321 304 277 -27
Note: Data refer to the international phase of the PCT system. Due to confidentiality requirements, counts are based on publication date. Top applicants are
selected according to the 2011 total.
A.5.3 PCT national phase entries strategies. The NPE data presented here refer only to
non-resident applications – that is, resident application
The PCT application process starts with the international data for the national phase are excluded.32 For example,
phase and concludes with the national phase. The nation- if a PCT application filed by a resident of China enters the
al or regional patent office at which the applicant enters national phase procedure at SIPO, it is excluded from
the PCT national phase initiates the granting procedure the statistics reported here.
according to prevailing national law. PCT national phase
entry (NPE) statistics shed light on international patenting 32 The share of resident PCT NPEs out of total
NPEs stood at around 15% in 2011.
65
Figure A.5.3.1 Trend in non-resident PCT national phase entries
Non-resident PCT national phase entries Growth rate (%)
500,000
Non-Resident PCT national phase entries
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
-1.1 -6.3
19.4 43.0 10.9 19.1 7.8 22.8 6.8 9.8 10.1 12.9 6.9 7.1 8.1 3.2
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Note: WIPO estimates
Table A.5.3.2 PCT national phase entries by office and origin for top offices and origins, 2011
Office
Origin
US EP CN JP KR IN CA AU RU MX SG ZA IL MY NZ
Australia 1,731 704 507 347 158 329 430 996 67 108 134 57 67 108 335
Austria 856 726 479 210 172 239 201 175 162 56 29 195 12 19 16
Belgium 1,165 704 481 361 256 316 298 249 139 155 75 108 3 58 66
Canada 1,642 1,206 801 562 403 516 1,506 422 185 229 88 117 55 47 92
China 3,455 2,008 2,289 954 585 915 307 342 369 184 147 120 61 109 40
Denmark 1,182 874 600 314 171 384 303 236 136 149 66 88 31 42 76
Finland 925 1,156 766 234 320 374 251 156 195 58 32 101 18 22 11
France 6,017 5,189 3,058 2,761 1,512 1,429 1,528 695 906 496 327 357 162 281 165
Germany 12,766 11,621 7,483 4,982 3,055 3,372 2,284 1,432 1,960 1,106 515 723 22 462 328
India 801 373 202 154 104 216 136 149 52 76 51 103 33 58 54
Israel 1,525 802 428 283 190 308 254 173 87 79 56 54 418 1 31
Italy 2,232 1,774 961 524 296 538 386 247 325 215 59 90 15 47 56
Japan 25,938 12,052 16,591 15,897 8,992 3,727 1,565 1,255 1,471 649 865 291 214 766 186
Netherlands 2,688 2,927 2,307 1,883 946 1,472 630 545 937 409 117 155 48 156 101
Republic of Korea 4,304 2,082 2,850 1,972 363 621 313 290 266 162 71 37 32 151 31
Spain 760 682 337 198 112 178 200 148 127 164 34 57 19 23 41
Sweden 2,470 2,489 1,434 1,076 492 828 458 399 329 186 114 154 51 99 112
Switzerland 1,899 2,622 1,786 1,524 931 1,359 1,233 920 696 743 444 419 12 288 212
United Kingdom 5,303 3,146 1,694 1,336 707 1,084 1,192 1,048 369 368 279 506 211 263 274
United States of
16,120 23,903 17,324 14,627 10,526 9,120 12,129 7,950 3,040 4,883 2,651 1,905 2,345 1,375 1,550
America
Others / Unknown 3,782 3,235 2,108 1,320 748 1,131 1,155 1,020 469 525 572 503 1,696 312 268
Total 97,561 80,275 64,486 51,519 31,039 28,456 26,759 18,847 12,287 11,000 6,726 6,140 5,525 4,687 4,045
Note: Data include both resident and non-resident NPEs. US (United States of America), EP (European Patent Office), CN (China), JP (Japan), KR (Republic
of Korea), IN (India), CA (Canada), AU (Australia), RU (Russian Federation), MX (Mexico), SG (Singapore), ZA (South Africa), IL (Israel), MY (Malaysia) and NZ
(New Zealand)
66
Figure A.5.3.3 Share of PCT non-resident national phase entries in total non-resident applications
for selected offices, 2011
Non-Resident PCT national phase entries Non-Resident Direct applications

93.0 92.4 91.4 90.5 90.3 86.6 85.1 84.4 84.1 83.2 82.1 77.1 75.0 73.4 64.7 63.0 56.2 31.8 23.3 18.1
Share of non-resident PCT national phase entries in total non-resident applications (%): 2011
Distribution of applications
100
75
50
25
y
a
da
a
n
ea
ce
ina
re
m
l
a
ia
ico
nd
ia
ia
n
ae
an
ric
ric
tio
ali
pa
tio
es
Ind
ys
do
Na
po
ffi
or
na
ala
ex
Isr
Ch
rm
Af
me
str
Ja
iza
ala
on
ra
tO
fK
ing
ga
Ca
M
et
Ze
de
Au
Ge
h
Ind
A
an
Sin
co
en
Vi
dK
ut
Fe
w
of
rg
at
So
bli
Ne
ite
tO
an
tes
nP
pu
Un
ssi
en
ta
a
Re
pe
dS
Ru
at
ro
nP
ite
Eu
sia
Un
ra
Eu
Office
In 2011, the number of non-resident PCT NPEs totaled The USPTO was the most preferred office by destina-
424,800, representing a 3.2% increase on 2010 (Figure tion in 2011, with 97,561 NPEs. Residents of Germany
A.5.3.1).33 The USPTO received the largest number of and Japan accounted for around 40% of all NPEs at the
PCT NPEs in 2011 (19% of the total), followed by SIPO USPTO. The EPO, SIPO and JPO each received more
(14.6%) and the EPO (10.5%). Offices of middle-income than 50,000 NPEs in 2011. At the EPO and SIPO, the
countries, such as India, Mexico and South Africa, also largest number of NPEs originated in the US, while at the
received large numbers of NPEs. JPO, residents of Japan accounted for the largest share
of total NPEs. The US was the main source of NPEs at
The long-term trend shows strong year-on-year growth in all reported offices, except the JPO and the USPTO.
non-resident NPEs for all years, except 2003 and 2009.
Growth in NPEs partly reflects the increasing trend of Figure A.5.3.3 depicts the distribution of total non-
protecting inventions abroad, as well as increasing PCT resident applications by filing route (PCT NPEs and direct
membership which has made the PCT system more applications, also known as the Paris route) for selected
attractive to its users. offices. At the global level, the share of PCT NPEs in
total non-resident applications was around 54%, but it
Table A.5.3.2 presents PCT NPE data broken down by varied across individual offices. Use of the PCT system is
the top offices and top origins. It provides information popular for filing applications in offices of middle-income
on the “flow of patent applications” across countries, countries. For example, the PCT NPE shares at the
as facilitated by the PCT system. Note that this table patent offices of Indonesia, South Africa and Viet Nam
includes all PCT NPE data – that is, resident and non- were above 90%.
resident NPEs.
33 The total number of PCT NPEs – resident plus non-

resident – amounted to around 500,400 in 2011.
67
Among the five largest offices, KIPO had the highest share
of PCT NPEs in total non-resident applications.34 In con-
A.6
trast, PCT NPEs accounted for less than one-third of all
International collaboration
non-resident applications at the USPTO.35 However, there
was a considerable increase in the share of PCT NPEs Developing modern technology is an increasingly com-
at the USPTO – from 20% in 2007 to 31.8% in 2011. 36
plex undertaking. Very often, it requires collaboration
across countries. Such collaboration involves joint re-
search among institutions across countries, and em-
ploying scientists and engineers from foreign countries.
This subsection presents two indicators of cross-country
collaboration based on published PCT applications.
Figure A.6.1 illustrates the share of published PCT ap-

plications with foreign inventors (i.e., residency in a
foreign country) for the top 20 applicants’ countries of
origin. On average, 26% of PCT applications included
at least one foreign inventor in 2011. However, the level
of cross-border collaboration varied across countries.
In 2011, around four-fifths of applications filed by Swiss
companies included at least one foreign inventor. In
contrast, less than 10 percent of PCT applications origi-
nating in China, India, Japan and the Republic of Korea
included foreign inventors. Medium-sized European
countries (such as the Netherlands and Finland) and
North American countries had a high rate of collabora-
tion with foreign inventors, compared to larger European
countries. Between 2006 and 2011, all reported origins
except China saw increases in the share of PCT applica-
tions with at least one foreign inventor.
Another way to look at cross-border collaboration is to

ask how many inventors from around the world reside in
34 The EPO, the JPO, KIPO, SIPO and the USPTO
a country different from that of the PCT applicant. Figure
are the top five offices in terms of number of
non-resident PCT NPEs (Table A.5.3.2). A.6.2 also depicts the percentage of PCT applications
35 The low share of PCT NPEs at the USPTO does having at least one foreign inventor, but here the data are
not accurately reflect usage of the PCT system
broken down by the top 20 inventors’ origins. Around
at that office, as many PCT applicants took
advantage of a special legal provision in US patent two-thirds of Indian inventors named in PCT applica-
law allowing PCT applications to proceed directly tions were associated with foreign PCT applications.
to the USPTO (the so-called “by-pass route”).
The share of inventors associated with foreign PCT
In such cases, the PCT application is converted
into a continuation or continuation-in-part applications was also high for Belgium, Canada and the
application, which is counted as a direct filing. UK. In contrast, fewer than 10 percent of inventors from
36 National offices in European countries exhibited low
Japan, the Republic of Korea and the US contributed to
shares of PCT NPEs, as PCT applicants often enter the
national phase at the EPO instead of at national offices. foreign PCT applications.
68
Figure A.6.1 Share of PCT applications with at least one foreign inventor for the top 20, 2011
75.6 53.9 49.9 35.4 33.7 35.2 38.7 26.3 23.3 31.3 23.5 26.3 20.4 21.0 15.3 8.2 9.5 4.5 9.7 3.5 4.2
Filing with foreign inventors (%)
Share (%): 2006

79.3
57.2
53.9
46.3
43.2 42.4 42.1
37.6
33.1 32.4
29.2
26.3 26.1 24.6
18.1
10.3 10.1 8.6 6.8 6.5 4.1
y
ia
da
en
d
ain
ina
n
e
ea
um
l
rk
a
d
ly
ia
ds
ta
ae
an
nc
ric
an
ali
pa
lan
Ita
str
Ind
do
a
an
or
ed
na
To
Isr
Sp
Ch
lgi
nm
rm
Fra
me
str
erl
Ja
Au
Fin
fK
ing
erl
Sw
Ca
Be
Au
Ge
itz
De
A
co
th
dK
Sw
of
Ne
bli
ite
tes
pu
Un
ta
Re
dS
ite
Un
Country of companies
Note: Counts are based on corporate applicants only (thus excluding natural persons). Due to confidentiality requirements, PCT data are based on the
publication date.
Figure A.6.2 Inventors in foreign-owned PCT applications, 2011
66.9 45.9 43.5 47.8 48.7 30.6 30.2 21.1 31.4 27.1 21.2 59.5 20.6 27.3 25.2 19.5 15.7 8.4 7.5 9.4 3.2
Inventors in foreign companies (%)
66.2 Share (%): 2006
49.3 47.6 46.5

41.3
37.0
32.6
28.3 27.4 27.0 26.6 26.0 25.6 24.0 23.5
19.5 19.2
11.9
8.3
6.0
2.6
y
ia
da
ain
en
a
d
ina
n
m
ea
m
l
a
k
ia
ly
d
s
ae
ta
an
d
nc
ric
ar
an
ali
pa
lan
Ita
str
Ind
do
an
or
ed
na
To
Isr
Sp
Ch
lgi
nm
rm
Fra
e
str
erl
Ja
Au
Fin
fK
ing
Am
erl
Sw
Ca
Be
Au
Ge
itz
De
co
th
dK
Sw
of
Ne
bli
ite
tes
pu
Un
Sta
Re
d
ite
Un
Country of inventors
Note: See note for Figure A.6.1
69
A.7 ceuticals are considered a discrete technology.37 Figure

A.7.1.1 shows the application trends for these two catego-
ries for the world total and the top five origins. Data for
Patents by field of technology the latest available year, 2010, are partial and incomplete.
Patent applications span a wide range of technologies. This could partly explain the downward trend for some
Furthermore, the tendency to file patent applications dif- origins. Since 1995, growth in patent applications for
fers across technologies, as some technologies depend complex technologies has been consistently faster than
more heavily on the patent system than others. To under- that for discrete technologies (since 2003 for China).38 At
stand activity patterns and trends across technologies, the global level, the volume of applications for complex
this section presents data by field of technology. technologies increased by 2.4-fold between 1995 and
2010, compared to 1.9-fold for discrete technologies. All
Every patent application is assigned one or more reported origins showed similar trends.
International Patent Classification (IPC) symbols. WIPO
has developed a concordance table to link these IPC Table A.7.1.2 shows the number of patent applications
symbols to corresponding field(s) of technology (see worldwide by field of technology. In 2010, computer
www.wipo.int/ipstats/en). The data presented here are technology (126,897) and electrical machinery (112,896)
based on this concordance table. Where a patent ap- accounted for the largest numbers of applications.
plication relates to multiple fields of technology, it is Digital communication recorded the highest annual
divided into equal shares, each representing one field of growth rates between 2006 and 2010, while telecom-
technology (so-called “fractional counting”). Applications munications and audio-visual technology both experi-
with no IPC symbol are not considered. All the data enced declines during the same period, reflecting the
reported in this subsection relate to published patent shift towards widespread use of digital technologies.39
applications. There is a minimum delay of 18 months Pharmaceutical patent applications have continuously
between the application and publication dates. For this declined since 2007.
reason, 2010 is the latest available year for statistics on
patents by technology field.
A.7.1 Applications by field of technology
Patent data can be broadly categorized as complex or

discrete technologies. Complex technologies are usu-
ally defined as those for which the resulting products or
37 For a definition of complex and discrete
processes consist of numerous separately patentable technologies, refer to annex A of World
elements and for which patent ownership is typically Intellectual Property Indicators, 2011 edition,
available at: www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/wipi/
widespread. Discrete technologies, in turn, describe
38 The distribution of complex and discrete technologies
products or processes that consist of a single or relatively for the 1995-2009 period is: World (69% complex,
few patentable elements and for which patent ownership 31% discrete), China (59%, 41%), Germany
(65%, 35%), Japan (77%, 23%), the Republic of
is more concentrated. For example, smartphones fall into
Korea (84%, 16%) and the US (65%, 35%).
the category of complex technologies, whereas pharma- 39 The micro-structural and nano-technology field
saw the highest growth (11%) in 2011, but it
accounted for only a low number of applications. The
number of applications for digital communications
grew by 19,054 while that for micro-structural
and nano-technology grew by only 988.
70
Figure A.7.1.1 Trend in complex and discrete technology patent applications for the top five origins
World China
Complex applications Discrete applications Complex applications Discrete applications
2.5 30
2
Index: 1995 = 1
Index: 1995 = 1
20
1.5 10
1 0
1995 2000 2005 2010 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year Year
Germany Japan
2.5 1.6
2 1.4
Index: 1995 = 1
Index: 1995 = 1
1.5 1.2
1
1
1995 2000 2005 2010 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year Year
Republic of Korea United States of America

15 3
2.5
10
Index: 1995 = 1
Index: 1995 = 1
5
1.5
0 1
1995 2000 2005 2010 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year Year
Note: For a definition of complex and discrete technologies, refer to annex A of World Intellectual Property Indicators, 2011 edition, available at: www.wipo.int/
ipstats/en/wipi/. The data refer to published patent applications. Data for the latest available year, 2010, are partial and incomplete. This could partly explain the
downward trend for some origins.
71
Table A.7.1.2 Patent applications worldwide by field of technology

Publication Year
Field of Technology Growth Rate
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006-10 (%)
Electrical engineering
Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy 96,308 98,889 102,947 109,288 112,896 4.1
Audio-visual technology 94,227 90,504 88,905 83,071 78,637 -4.4
Telecommunications 69,290 67,506 68,419 59,161 54,416 -5.9
Digital communication 52,445 55,471 61,604 66,167 71,499 8.1
Basic communication processes 16,723 16,650 17,096 16,542 15,919 -1.2
Computer technology 117,471 120,999 131,533 129,952 126,897 1.9
IT methods for management 18,789 18,810 21,087 24,354 22,633 4.8
Semiconductors 73,709 74,893 78,978 76,273 75,213 0.5
Instruments
Optics 73,284 73,937 72,815 67,833 62,385 -3.9
Measurement 61,089 63,950 69,242 73,627 73,905 4.9
Analysis of biological materials 10,189 10,431 10,495 11,045 10,553 0.9
Control 26,069 26,696 27,977 28,422 27,986 1.8
Medical technology 65,841 70,779 72,560 73,353 72,630 2.5
Chemistry
Organic fine chemistry 50,499 49,271 50,178 49,480 49,055 -0.7
Biotechnology 32,311 32,242 33,564 35,802 36,362 3.0
Pharmaceuticals 68,289 69,207 68,649 66,981 63,992 -1.6
Macromolecular chemistry, polymers 25,516 26,323 26,820 27,284 27,309 1.7
Food chemistry 20,003 21,137 22,807 26,587 26,840 7.6
Basic materials chemistry 35,158 37,205 39,351 40,522 41,746 4.4
Materials, metallurgy 27,650 29,313 32,568 33,904 35,651 6.6
Surface technology, coating 27,972 28,437 29,777 31,871 32,222 3.6
Micro-structural and nano-technology 1,893 2,147 2,281 2,648 2,881 11.1
Chemical engineering 30,991 31,802 33,650 34,539 35,123 3.2
Environmental technology 20,286 21,186 22,030 23,706 24,810 5.2
Mechanical engineering
Handling 41,295 41,624 41,515 41,464 41,099 -0.1
Machine tools 35,472 35,653 37,264 39,662 42,165 4.4
Engines, pumps, turbines 38,912 40,910 42,315 46,979 47,033 4.9
Textile and paper machines 36,177 34,914 32,706 31,348 29,739 -4.8
Other special machines 43,182 42,720 44,511 46,320 47,320 2.3
Thermal processes and apparatus 24,298 24,797 25,213 26,829 28,875 4.4
Mechanical elements 41,126 42,989 46,316 46,032 45,143 2.4
Transport 62,678 63,876 66,049 68,948 65,305 1.0
Other fields
Furniture, games 43,192 43,670 44,085 43,020 41,722 -0.9
Other consumer goods 32,049 31,083 31,145 31,425 31,302 -0.6
Civil engineering 51,645 52,089 51,722 54,228 55,049 1.6
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. The data refer to published patent applications.
The aggregate data reported in Table A.7.1.2 provide an For a number of origins, applications are concentrated
overview of applications by field of technology. However, in the fields of computer technology, digital communica-
they do not provide any insight into the innovative strength tions, and telecommunications. For example, telecom-
of countries in relation to different technology fields. munications accounted for the largest share of all ap-
Table A.7.1.3 reports patent application data by field of plications originating in Canada and the US. For Finland
technology for the top origins. and Sweden, digital telecommunications constituted the
largest share. Switzerland and the UK tended to file large
numbers of applications for pharmaceuticals.
72
Table A.7.1.3 Patent applications by field of technology and for the top origins, 2006-10
Origin
Field of Technology
AU CA CH CN DE FI FR GB IT JP KR NL RU SE US Others
Electrical engineering
Electrical
machinery, 1,016 3,723 7,214 39,158 59,646 1,805 15,832 7,455 4,661 192,766 61,066 8,061 3,860 2,243 75,511 63,718
apparatus, energy
Audio-visual 888 2,612 2,506 25,838 20,975 2,467 12,310 4,751 929 183,468 70,297 14,966 851 2,630 54,372 48,144
technology
Telecommunications 905 4,967 1,249 29,921 14,447 6,530 9,152 4,431 1,163 91,761 57,046 3,779 1,413 8,353 68,690 26,082
Digital 657 8,228 1,554 60,273 16,598 11,655 15,300 5,609 1,755 50,637 31,782 5,460 430 13,933 81,701 20,539
communication
Basic
communication 122 817 654 4,116 6,276 726 2,463 1,206 396 26,357 7,644 2,544 894 1,088 20,743 10,278
processes
Computer 2,891 9,799 4,110 40,283 33,565 6,255 14,444 9,915 2,315 156,855 58,339 11,579 1,325 5,490 223,694 64,031
technology
IT methods for 1,185 1,886 1,135 4,545 4,077 595 1,630 2,060 358 17,880 18,568 703 275 646 40,160 13,109
management
Semiconductors 444 683 1,298 14,638 24,102 464 5,541 1,950 1,065 147,908 77,636 6,414 775 471 61,347 41,582
Instruments
Optics 708 1,178 1,721 14,793 15,173 586 5,271 2,823 1,049 191,867 46,079 7,475 879 973 38,123 29,349
Measurement 1,731 3,739 10,408 33,987 45,059 1,918 12,623 8,844 3,009 96,125 18,003 8,832 8,007 3,305 70,201 40,487
Analysis of 652 1,020 2,236 3,712 5,404 330 2,592 2,643 560 7,354 2,026 1,393 1,789 972 18,358 7,155
biological materials
Control 1,064 1,571 2,288 11,725 16,023 572 4,513 3,479 1,612 38,090 9,223 1,756 1,587 1,335 32,693 18,756
Medical technology 4,225 4,399 15,805 13,206 35,251 996 10,485 11,095 4,661 50,829 13,215 7,698 9,374 6,335 145,420 47,403
Chemistry
Organic fine 942 2,705 15,811 18,730 37,794 550 19,488 11,740 4,323 36,941 9,504 5,807 2,007 5,277 73,308 42,537
chemistry
Biotechnology 2,413 3,225 6,586 16,163 16,232 769 7,208 6,661 2,161 20,210 8,229 4,903 1,754 1,713 62,881 27,269
Pharmaceuticals 3,485 6,137 21,478 43,967 30,781 909 16,911 14,854 7,069 27,743 8,654 5,904 5,344 7,433 118,744 67,124
Macromolecular 368 759 3,199 10,733 18,848 2,281 3,952 1,597 2,375 44,887 7,394 4,284 886 296 28,988 14,639
chemistry, polymers
Food chemistry 906 1,056 4,243 20,180 5,144 393 2,459 2,283 1,074 13,267 11,028 6,058 13,484 332 19,211 23,926
Basic materials 985 1,888 6,385 24,854 33,583 786 5,568 6,450 1,494 41,648 10,433 6,738 3,234 643 45,944 26,595
chemistry
Materials, 1,764 1,562 1,928 29,455 15,966 1,601 5,995 2,227 1,461 43,091 11,047 1,703 7,430 1,421 18,639 25,735
metallurgy
Surface technology, 717 1,315 2,336 11,239 15,290 1,002 4,467 2,365 1,586 52,075 9,085 1,805 1,700 1,210 34,817 17,245
coating
Micro-structural
and nano- 100 92 132 1,375 1,291 105 550 129 89 2,401 2,168 198 367 110 2,066 1,296
technology
Chemical 1,392 2,138 4,064 16,148 24,386 1,792 6,816 5,207 2,810 32,561 11,855 4,630 4,220 2,165 37,869 25,297
engineering
Environmental 797 1,452 1,464 13,211 13,132 758 4,608 2,608 1,414 27,430 12,305 2,216 2,178 1,025 18,397 17,372
technology
Mechanical
engineering
Handling 1,745 2,316 9,830 9,219 27,487 2,751 8,695 6,043 7,299 58,572 11,481 4,534 1,639 2,267 40,821 31,484
Machine tools 1,136 1,980 3,401 17,622 32,113 1,022 5,262 2,747 3,706 48,140 13,147 1,490 4,280 3,550 31,695 32,449
Engines, pumps, 1,038 2,511 3,017 11,859 43,358 498 12,093 5,375 3,135 67,864 13,194 1,211 4,773 2,214 37,580 24,789
turbines
Textile and paper 2,794 567 4,435 10,827 22,597 2,772 3,083 1,995 2,763 73,057 8,878 2,362 632 990 20,834 16,504
machines
Other special 2,010 4,021 4,419 18,103 28,399 1,494 9,341 4,676 5,464 52,611 16,680 5,316 6,614 2,407 40,184 41,020
machines
Thermal processes 813 1,377 1,861 15,361 15,628 885 3,926 2,000 2,652 36,098 19,303 1,466 2,297 1,504 14,704 19,761
and apparatus
Mechanical 1,635 2,098 3,072 12,301 51,797 821 10,636 5,555 3,962 68,069 12,438 2,064 3,185 3,974 34,338 26,989
elements
Transport 1,491 3,705 2,665 12,965 70,171 746 25,817 6,331 5,736 102,613 31,383 2,950 4,557 6,051 45,770 32,981
Other fields
Furniture, games 2,440 3,032 3,733 10,512 15,602 409 5,923 6,729 4,204 52,539 20,112 2,996 1,037 1,783 46,017 50,137
Other consumer 1,301 1,833 4,158 11,340 18,393 407 6,810 5,284 3,892 30,176 24,954 2,128 1,572 1,135 29,254 27,089
goods
Civil engineering 3,883 6,476 3,542 22,845 29,187 1,792 11,513 9,448 5,538 42,090 31,358 7,880 7,755 3,902 46,797 57,872
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)
73
A.7.2 Applications in selected In 2011, the total number of patent applications for
energy-related technologies these four categories amounted to 34,873, representing
8 percent growth on 2009. Applications related to solar
The development of energy-related technologies, such energy accounted for the largest share (57%), followed
as those associated with renewable energy, plays an by fuel cell technology (26%) and wind energy (15%). The
important role in tackling climate change. This subsection number of applications for geothermal energy was low.
presents statistics on patent activity for selected energy-
related technologies – namely, fuel cells, geothermal, Figure A.7.2.2 shows the source of energy-related pat-
solar and wind energy. Annex A provides definitions of ent applications for the 2006-2010 period. Japan had
these technologies according to IPC symbols. 40
the highest share of applications related to solar energy
(29.2%), followed by the Republic of Korea (17.2%) and
The total number of patent applications in the four energy- the US (14.3%). Japan accounted for more than half of all
related fields grew continuously between 1995 and 2010, patent applications for fuel cell technology; the US also
except for a small drop in 2006. Solar, geothermal and filed a substantial number of applications in this field.
wind energy showed upward trends in applications, while Germany and the US were the two top origins for wind
fuel cell technology grew only until 2007; whereafter it and geothermal energy patent applications. Compared
has declined each year. to fuel cell technology, patent applications for wind and
geothermal technologies were more evenly distributed
among several origins.
Figure A.7.2.1 Patent applications in energy-related technologies
Solar energy Fuel cell technology Wind energy technology Geothermal energy
40,000
30,000
Applications
20,000
10,000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Publication Year
Note: For definitions of the technologies, refer to Annex A.
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
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% Others: 17.6% KR: 17.2% US: 14.3% JP: 52.9% US: 14.5% KR: 9.7% DE: 7.8%
CN: 10.2% DE: 6.5% FR: 1.6% NL: 1.2% Others: 5.8% CN: 3.4% FR: 2.1% GB: 1.4%
GB: 0.8% CA: 0.7% ES: 0.7% CA: 1.4% DK: 0.6% IT: 0.5%
Wind energy Geothermal energy
Others: 22.9% US: 17.1% DE: 14.9% CN: 11.0% Others: 24.3% DE: 14.3% US: 13.9% KR: 12.7%
JP: 9.4% DK: 7.2% KR: 6.5% ES: 3.8% JP: 10.5% CN: 9.5% CA: 4.4% FR: 3.4%
GB: 3.2% FR: 2.0% RU: 2.0% GB: 2.9% SE: 2.2% CH: 1.9%
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)
75
A.8 The global patent applications per GDP and per R&D
expenditure ratios (20.3 and 1.7, respectively) mask con-
siderable variation across origins. For the top 20 origins,
Patents per gdp and patents per GDP varied from around 100 for the Republic
r&d expenditure of Korea to 8 for Armenia (Figure A.8.3). The majority of
Differences in patent activity across economies reflect origins tended to file 20 or fewer resident patents per bil-
their size and level of development. For purposes of lion GDP. Switzerland (26.6) and Germany (26) were the
cross-country comparison, it is instructive to express two highest ranked European countries. China recorded
patent applications relative to GDP and business sector the largest increase in patent application-to-GDP ratio
research and development (R&D) expenditure. Both 41
between 2006 and 2011 – jumping from 20.2 to 41.6. In
indicators are frequently referred to as “patent activity contrast, Japan saw a considerable decline during the
intensity” indicators. same period – from 87.7 to 73.4.43
Figure A.8.1 shows the trend in resident patent applica- The Republic of Korea, with 3.7 resident patents per
tions, GDP and R&D expenditure (left-hand graph) and million R&D expenditure, had the highest patent-to-R&D
resident patents per GDP and per R&D (right-hand graph). expenditure ratio (Figure A.8.4). China filed more patents
Since the mid-2000s, business sector R&D expenditure per R&D expenditure than Japan, which was not the
has grown at a faster rate than have resident patents, with case for the patent-to-GDP ratio. For both indicators,
the result that the number of resident applications per China, Japan and the Republic of Korea ranked higher
R&D dollar (R&D productivity) has followed a downward than European countries and the US. R&D expenditure
trend since 2007. Both resident applications and GDP in the US was more than double that of China, but the
have increased at a similar rate; however, starting in patent-to-R&D ratio of the US was considerably lower
2009, resident patent growth has since outpaced GDP than for China. Between 2006 and 2011, the patent-to-
growth. As a result, the patent application per GDP ratio R&D expenditure ratio for reported European countries
has increased for the past two years. and the US remained more or less stable. The ratios
for China and Poland increased, while they declined for
Figure A.8.2 shows R&D productivity for the top five Japan and the Republic of Korea.
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
43 Between 2006 and 2011, the patent-to-GDP

41 Both GDP and business sector R&D expenditure ratio for China increased from 20.2 to 41.8 due
are in constant 2005 PPP dollars. to substantial growth in resident applications.
42 Of the top five origins, China is the only origin Japan saw a considerable drop in resident
for which R&D productivity continuously applications which caused the patent-to-
increased between 2003 and 2011. GDP ratio to fall from 87.7 to 73.4.
76
Figure A.8.1 Trend in resident patent applications worldwide per GDP and R&D expenditure
Resident patent applications GDP Resident patent applications per billion USD GDP (2005 PPP)
Business sector R&D expenditure Resident patent applications per million USD R&D expenditure (2005 PPP)
2.0 3
20
1.8
Resident patent per R&D

Resident patent per GDP
18
1.6
1995 = 1
16
2
1.4
14
1.2 12
1.0 10 1
1995 2000 2005 2010 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
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 China Japan Republic of Korea Germany
1.6
1.4
1.2
2000 = 1
1.0
0.8
0.6
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
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
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
100.7
per billion GDP (2005 PPP $)
Resident applications per billion GDP: 2006

Resident applications
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
ine
y
ia
a
en
ina
d
rea
rg
e
s
nia
rk
d
ld
ds
*
n
an
ru
nc
ric
pa
an
lan
tio
str
do
or
nia
ou
nd
an
ed
ra
la
Ch
me
Ko
nm
rm
Fra
me
Ja
erl
ra
Au
Fin
ing
mb
ala
Be
erl
Sw
Uk
ve
de
Ge
Ar
itz
De
of
Slo
th
dK
Ze
xe
Fe
Sw
of
c
Ne
Lu
bli
ite
an
tes
Ne
pu
Un
ssi
ta
Re
dS
Ru
ite
Un
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
5.3 2.5 2.4 3.5 4.3 1.7 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.6 0.8 .. 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7
per million R&D expenditure (2005 PPP $)
3.7 Resident applications per million R&D expenditure: 2006

3.5
Resident applications
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 0.7
y
a
*
ay
en
ea
ina
om
rk
ly
d
ld
ds
*
n
d
an
rke
nc
tri
pa
lan
tio
lan
Ita
or
ine
ma
nia
ca
nd
rw
an
or
ed
Ch
gd
s
rm
Fra
Ja
W
ra
Tu
eri
Au
Fin
fK
Po
ala
No
erl
Sw
ra
ve
n
Kin
de
Ge
De
Am
Uk
co
Slo
th
Ze
Fe
Ne
ed
bli
of
an
it
Ne
pu
Un
tes
ssi
Re
Sta
Ru
it ed
Un
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
A.9 Figure A.9.1.1 Patents in force by

office for the top 20 offices, 2011
Patents in force 4.8 8.3 23.4 5.9 2.7 5.0 -0.2 -7.3 16.4 3.0
2,113,628 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
Patent rights last for a limited period – generally 20 years
Patents in force
1,542,096
from the date of filing. Patents-in-force indicators provide
information on the volume of patents currently valid as
696,939 678,005
well as the historical “patent life cycle”. 527,917
445,380 435,915
168,558 143,253 137,368
The estimated number of patents in force worldwide
y
a
da
n
ina
rea
d
m
e*
n
an
ric
pa
an
tio
do
na
Ch
Ko
nc
increased from 6.88 million in 2008 to 7.88 million in
rm
e
Ja
erl
era
ing
Am
Ca
Fra
Ge
itz
of
ed
dK
Sw
of
F
bli
ite
an
tes
pu
2011.44 Figure A.9.1.1 depicts the number of patents in
Un
ssi
ta
Re
dS
Ru
ite
Un
force by office for the top 20 offices. The USPTO had Office
the largest number of patents in force – in excess of 2.1
million patents. The JPO also had a substantial number 9.5 9.7 11.4 -21.7 .. -5.3 -12.4 -7.1 3.7 ..
Growth rate (%): 2010-11
of patents in force (1.54 million). The number of patents 105,463
89,992 88,044
in force at SIPO has increased rapidly over the past few 80,132
Patents in force
years and, in 2011, it surpassed that of the Republic of

52,527 51,007
Korea.45 Residents owned the bulk of patents in force 41,361 40,022 38,900
36,003
at the JPO (87%). In contrast, patents in force at SIPO
and the USPTO were almost equally distributed among
resident and non-resident holders.
*
il *
o
ico
ly
d
ia
a
ac
ali
lan
lan
Ita
Ind
en
es
ex
az
on
str
pin
Fin
ed
Ire
M
Br
M
Au
Sw
ilip
Ph
Apart from China, Ireland and Switzerland were the only

.
two offices listed to see double-digit growth between Office
2010 and 2011. In contrast, India, Monaco and the Note: *2010 data; '..' not available; Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.
Russian Federation recorded declines in patents in force Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012
for the same period. 46
44 The global number of patents in force is a WIPO

estimate based on data from 81 offices. These
estimates, which cover data from the same offices,
are 7.18 million for 2009 and 7.37 million for 2010.
45 Between 2005 and 2011, patents in force
in China grew by around 25% a year, which
is far above the growth rates of Japan,
the Republic of Korea and the US.
46 The number of patents in force also fell in Brazil,
France and Sweden, but the data refer to 2009-2010.
79
Figure A.9.1.2 Patents in force in 2011 as a percentage of total applications

55.3
54.0 53.9
50.6
49.4
46.3 46.6
44.6
43.3
39.6 39.4
Percentage of applications
32.6
29.9 30.5
29.1
22.9
19.4
18.3
8.7
3.7
2.6
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7
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. The graph is based on data from 65 offices.
Patent holders must pay maintenance fees to keep their

patents valid. Depending on technological and com-
A.10
mercial considerations, patent holders may opt to let a
Opposition and invalidation of
patent lapse before the end of the full protection term.
patents granted
Figure A.9.1.2 depicts the distribution of patents in force
in 2011 as a percentage of total applications in the year The purpose of opposition procedures is to provide
of filing. Unfortunately, not all offices provide these data. third parties with the possibility to oppose the grant of
However, the data available show that more than half a patent. This also provides an alternative to potentially
of the applications for which patents were eventually lengthy and costly judicial proceedings. Requests for
granted remained in force at least eight years after the opposition provide an important avenue to ensure pat-
application date. Around 18% of these lasted the full ent quality. The exact legal mechanism for achieving this
20-year patent term. differs from office to office. For example, the USPTO
uses a re-examination system, whereby third parties
can present evidence of prior art and request that a
patent be re-examined by the office. 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.47
Differences in opposition procedures make it difficult
to directly compare opposition-related statistics across
patent offices, so data are comparable over time only
within a particular office.
47 According to Article 100 of the European Patent

Convention (EPC), grounds for opposition include:
the subject matter of the patent not being
patentable; the invention not being sufficiently
disclosed to allow a person skilled in the art to
carry it out; and the content of the patent extending
beyond the content of the application filed.
80
Figure A.10.1 Opposition and invalidation of patents granted

Australia China
Opposition Invalidation Grant Opposition Invalidation Grant
180 18,000 600 200,000
160
16,000
Opposition / Invalidation
150,000
400
140
Grant
Grant
14,000
100,000
120
200
12,000
100 50,000
80 10,000
0 0
2000 2005 2010 2000 2005 2010
Year Year
Germany European Patent Office

1,400 22,000 3,500 70,000
1,200 20,000
3,000 60,000
1,000 18,000
Grant
Grant
2,500 50,000
800 16,000
2,000 40,000
600 14,000
1,500 30,000
400 12,000
1995 2000 2005 2010 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year Year
Israel Japan
50 5,000 350 250,000
300
4,000
40 200,000
250
Grant
Grant
3,000
200
30 150,000
2,000
150
20 1,000 100 100,000

2000 2005 2010 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year Year
Republic of Korea United States of America

Opposition Invalidation Grant Re-examination Invalidation Grant
1,200 250,000
700 120,000
600 1,000
100,000
200,000
500 800
Grant
Grant
80,000
400 600
150,000
60,000
300
400
200 40,000
200 100,000
2000 2005 2010 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year Year
Note: Different procedures exist across patent offices for opposing or invalidating patent granting decisions. At the EPO and the patent offices of Germany and
India, the procedure is called “opposition”. At the USPTO, it is referred to as “re-examination”. At SIPO and the JPO, the procedures are called “invalidation
requests” and “trials for invalidation”, respectively.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 81

Figure A.10.1 presents data on opposition and invalidation

requests for selected offices and compares them to the
A.11
number of patents granted. The number of oppositions
Pending patent applications
or requests for re-examination (or invalidation) appears
small compared to total patents granted. For example, The processing of patents is time- and resource-intensive.
at the EPO, 4.7% of patents granted were opposed in Patent offices need to carefully assess whether the claims
2011. Similarly, at the USPTO, the re-examination ratio described in patent applications meet the standards of
– requests for re-examination divided by the number of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability as
patents granted – stood at 0.5% in 2011.48 This ratio was set out in national laws. For operational planning and
similar to that for SIPO, where the number of invalidation to assess the effectiveness of the patent system more
requests to patents granted stood at around 0.3%. broadly, it is important to know how many patent ap-
plications are pending.
The number of opposition and invalidation requests
usually correlates positively with the number of patents Unfortunately, differences in procedures across pat-
granted. However, there are a few exceptions. At the ent offices complicate the measurement of pending
USPTO, there has been an upward trend in the re-ex- applications (see Box 1). In some offices, such as the
aminations-to-patents granted ratio since 2002. Similarly, USPTO, patent applications automatically proceed to
the opposition-to-grant ratio at KIPO has increased since the examination stage unless applicants withdraw them.
2007.49 In other words, there has been an increase in the In contrast, patent applications filed at other offices do
tendency of third parties to challenge patents granted by not proceed to the examination stage unless applicants
KIPO and the USPTO. JPO is another exception in that, file a separate request for examination. For example, in
since 2004, it has witnessed a decline in patent invalida- the case of the JPO, applicants have up to three years
tion requests, while the number of patents granted has to file such a request.
been increasing. 50
For offices that automatically examine all patent ap-

plications, it seems appropriate to count as pending all
applications that await a final decision. However, where
offices require separate examination requests, it may
48 The opposition- and re-examination-to-grant ratios
be more fitting to consider pending applications to be
presented here are rough approximations, because
the numerator and denominator do not cover the those for which the applicant has requested examination.
same period. For example, the 4.7% opposition ratio
at the EPO was derived by dividing the number of
To take account of this procedural difference, pending
oppositions filed in 2011 by the number of patents
granted in 2011. Patents granted by the EPO can be application data for both definitions of pendency are
opposed within nine months of the publication of the presented below. In particular, statistics on potentially
grant of the European patent in the European Patent
pending applications include all patent applications, at
Bulletin. Therefore, the number of oppositions filed in
2011 could refer to patents granted in 2010 and 2011. any stage in the process, that await a final decision by
49 There was a change in the opposition procedure at the patent office, including those applications for which
KIPO in 2006. Since July 2007, post-grant opposition
applicants have not filed a request for examination (where
has been integrated into the invalidation procedure
and applies to all patents granted after June 2007. applicable). Statistics on pending patent applications
50 From 1994 to 2004, the JPO had a dual opposition/ undergoing examination include only those applications
invalidation system in which only certain parties
for which the applicant has requested examination (where
could file an appeal. Since 2004, the JPO has
maintained a single opposition procedure that allows such separate requests are necessary).
anyone to file an appeal for revocation of a patent.
82
Since the early 2000s, a number of offices have seen The total number of potentially pending applications
a rise in the number of pending applications. However, across the world declined from 5.1 million in 2010 to 4.8
growth in the number of pending applications has varied million in 2011. Japan accounted for almost the entire
across offices. Figure A.11.1 presents potentially pending drop in backlogs. The world total is based on data from
application data for the top five offices.51 The JPO saw a 76 patent offices, which include the top 20 offices except
dramatic increase until 2006, followed by a decline from those of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of
2008 onwards. The drop was due to decreases in the Korea and India.
number of new applications received and an increase
in the number of applications processed. The USPTO In absolute terms, the US had the largest number of
saw a substantial increase until 2008, and the number potentially pending applications in 2011 (Figure A.11.2).
of potentially pending applications has since remained Japan saw a 19% drop in 2011, but still had a backlog
more or less stable. The EPO, Germany and KIPO each of more than 1.1 million applications. The majority of top
witnessed upward trends. 20 offices had fewer potentially pending applications in
2011 than in 2010, notable exceptions being Viet Nam
(+13%) and Germany (+4.9%).
Figure A.11.1 Trend in potentially pending applications for the top five offices
United States of America Japan European Patent Office Germany Republic of Korea
2,000,000
600,000
500,000
1,500,000
400,000
1,000,000
300,000
500,000 200,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year Year
Note: Potential pending applications include all patent applications, at any stage in the process, awaiting a final decision by the patent office, including those
applications for which applicants have not filed a request for examination (where applicable).
51 SIPO, the largest office in terms of patent applications,

is not included due to data unavailability.
83
Figure A.11.2 Potentially pending applications, 2011

-0.1 -19.3 2.1 -2.8 4.9 -1.0 5.7 .. -5.6 1.7 4.3 -7.3 -3.8 -10.0 -0.2 13.0 -2.5 11.9 -12.9 -12.3
1,208,901 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 55,611 55,388 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
Potentially pending applications

Potentially pending applications
1,122,433 52,919
50,685
40,782 40,437
620,124 29,084 27,267

506,339
20,994
16,274
308,027
170,277 163,312
100,738 88,877 68,233
ay
R
el
d
m
ico
ly
e*
d
y
ica
a
n
ea
il *
lia
*
ion
an
an
SA
lan
fic
ad
pa
Ita
a
do
Na
rw
ia
or
tra
ex
Isr
er
nc
az
at
Of
rm
ail
n
Ja
ng
Po
ng
fK
No
Am
M
Ca
et
In
a
er
Br
Th
Ge
Au
Fr
nt
Ki
Ko
Vi
d
co
Fe
te
of
d
bli
g
Pa
ite
ian
es
n
pu
Ho
Un
at
an
ss
Re
St
pe
a,
Ru
ed
in
ro
Ch
Eu
it
Un
.
Office Office
Note: *2010 data; '..' not available; Growth rate refers to 2009-2010. Potentially pending applications include all patent applications, at any stage in the process,
that await a final decision by the patent office, including those applications for which applicants have not filed a request for examination (where applicable).
Figure A.11.3 Pending applications undergoing examination, 2011

-0.1 3.2 -38.9 -0.6 7.9 -1.6 -6.5 1.3 -10.6 .. 0.7 15.4 .. -5.2 4.5 -1.0 .. -14.2 174.1 -80.2
1,208,901 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 22,682 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
undergoing examination
undergoing examination
Pending applications
Pending applications
13,721
12,791
9,802
385,738 351,439
284,101 5,361
4,271 4,134 4,034
161,922 3,374
87,081 50,853 50,633 2,290
45,206 27,267 ine
t
ia
*
l
m
d
y
*
*
y
ica
da
e
ea
ico
ly
n
ae
yp
ar
an
an
fic
pa
ali
tio
str
Na
Ita
ile
ia
nd
or
na
ra
Isr
Eg
er
ng
ex
Of
rm
ail
Ind
str
Ja
Au
Ch
ra
ala
fK
Uk
Am
Ca
et
M
Hu
Th
de
Ge
Au
nt
Vi
co
Ze
Fe
te
of
bli
w
Pa
ian
es
Ne
pu
at
an
ss
Re
St
pe
Ru
d
ro
ite
Eu
Un
Office Office
Note: *2010 data; '..' not available; Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.
Figure A.11.4 Pending applications undergoing examination ratio, 2011

Potentially pending applications to patent applications ratio
Pending applications undergoing examination to patent application ratio
Pending-to-application ratio
11.8
8.8
6.3
5.2
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.0
3.6
3.5
3.3
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.2
ine
ny
ica
da
y
n
ce
ea
y
m
l
lia
am
ico
ly
nd
*
n
d
ae
wa
ke
pa
SA
tio
lan
Ita
do
d
fi
ma
or
a
na
ala
er
ex
ra
Isr
N
an
r
Of
str
Ja
ra
Tu
fK
ng
Po
Am
ng
No
Uk
Ca
M
r
et
Ze
ail
de
Ge
Au
nt
Ki
co
Ko
Vi
Th
Fe
te
w
of
d
bli
Pa
Ne
g
ite
ian
es
on
pu
Un
at
an
,H
ss
Re
St
pe
Ru
ina
d
ro
ite
Ch
Eu
Un
Office
Note: The 2011 ratio is calculated using applications pending in 2011 divided by the average number of applications received by the office during 2009-
2011. The average number of applications for Thailand refers to 2007-2009. This is due to its recent membership in the PCT, following which the number of
applications received declined temporarily as non-resident applicants switched from using the Paris route to the PCT system.
84
The number of pending applications undergoing exami- Box 1: Measuring patent backlogs: A new framework for
nation shows a trend similar to that of potentially pending cross-country comparison53
applications. The majority of reported offices had fewer
National offices tend to think about patent backlogs differently,
applications undergoing examination in 2011 than in owing to different rules and processes employed in making pat-
2010. For example, applications undergoing examination enting decisions. In the US, the backlog is typically defined as the
quantity of unexamined applications, while in the UK the backlog is
in Japan declined by around 224,000.
generally considered to be the number of applications that remain
unexamined after a certain time period. Each of these definitions
Figure A.11.4 depicts the number of pending applications has its own reasonable logic but, to date, the lack of standardization
in measurement has led to an inability to compare backlogs, as well
relative to incoming applications. The patent offices of
as misunderstanding of their causes and consequences. Similar
Thailand, Norway and Viet Nam showed small absolute problems arise in comparing examination pendency across offices.
numbers of potentially pending applications. However,
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the USPTO have
these offices had a high ratio of potentially pending appli-
jointly conducted a study on patent application backlogs. As part
cations to total patent applications.52 For example, at the of that study – and with input from WIPO’s Patent Economists
patent office of Viet Nam, the number of potentially pend- Group54 – the offices have developed a framework to facilitate
cross-country comparison of backlogs. The framework identifies
ing applications (40,437) was 11.8 times higher than the
four milestones in the examination process common to most patent
average number of patent applications (3,428) received systems. These milestones divide the overall patent application
between 2009 and 2011. The number of potentially pend- inventory into three distinct stocks, or inventories, of applications
(see Figure A). Within each of these stocks, it is possible to further
ing applications in Germany was far below that of Japan
distinguish those applications awaiting a patent office action and
and the US, but of all of these offices, Germany had the those awaiting an applicant response.
highest potential pending applications-to-patents ratio.
This taxonomy not only facilitates cross-country comparison, but also
aids in highlighting the relationship between application stocks and
examination pendency. By utilizing detailed information on measured
stocks, offices can more precisely estimate pendency at any phase
of the examination process. Further, the joint UKIPO-USPTO study
shows that changes in the different stocks have differential impacts
on patent pendency and on abandonment rates. Understanding these
relationships is critical for better evidence-based policymaking.
Results of the UKIPO-USPTO backlog study will be made available

in early 2013 at: www.uspto.gov/ip/officechiefecon/index.jsp and
www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-ipresearch.htm
Figure A: Stocks of patent backlogs
Stock 1 Stock 2 Stock 3
1. Receipt 2. Ripened 3. Decision 4. Disposal
52 The potentially pending applications to patent

applications ratio is high for Norway. Norway became a
member of the EPO in January 2008, which prompted
a sharp fall in applications received by the national
patent office as users switched to using the EPO route. 53 WIPO is grateful to the UKIPO and USPTO
The fall in application numbers resulted in a high ratio for providing the content in Box 1.
for Norway. The total numbers of patent applications 54 See www.wipo.int/econ_stat/en/
filed at the patent office of Norway were: 5,430 news/2010/news_0001.html.
(2008), 3,604 (2009), 1,813 (2010) and 1,776 (2011).
85
A.12 To avoid unnecessary duplication of work and improve

the efficiency of the examination process, patent of-
fices increasingly seek to make use of the search and
Patent prosecution highway examination results of other offices. So-called Patent
As described earlier, there has been an increase in the Prosecution Highways (PPH) have institutionalized such
number of cross-border applications – i.e., a patent ap- cooperation between offices. A PPH refers to a bilateral
plication for the same invention filed in multiple jurisdic- agreement between two offices that enables applicants
tions. In such situations, the same application is examined to request a fast-track examination procedure whereby
multiple times by different patent offices. Although there patent examiners can make use of the work of the other
are substantial differences among national patent laws, office. This includes positive search and examination
the criteria for granting patents are similar: novelty, inven- results from the office of first filing. It can also include the
tive step and industrial applicability. Therefore the same positive results of a written opinion by the International
set of questions – whether the invention is new, whether Searching Authority (ISA), the written opinion of the
it is obvious and whether one can make industrial use of International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) or
it – is asked multiple times. the international preliminary examination report issued
within the framework of the PCT – a practice referred to
With the increasing number of applications and limited as PCT-PPH. Since offices handling subsequent filings
resources, patent offices may find it difficult to process would use the work done earlier by other offices, they
applications in a timely manner. This is reflected by the can shorten processing time and contribute to better
large stock of pending applications across the world examination quality.
(See A.11).
This section presents statistics relating to the use of
the PPH system at several offices.55 Table A.12.1 shows
the number of PPH requests made up to the end of
December 2011 (cumulative total from the date on which
PPH became operational).
The largest number of PPH requests occurred between

the JPO and the USPTO. In particular, the JPO received
6,817 applications for which applicants subsequently filed
a PPH request; the USPTO received the largest number of
those requests (4,703 or 69%), followed by KIPO (1,025 or
15%). As for applications filed at the USPTO, the Canadian
patent office received the largest number of PPH requests
(44%), followed by the JPO (33%). The Canadian office,
the JPO, KIPO and the USPTO accounted for 88% of total
PPH requests (13,272). The majority of offices received
a low number of PPH requests (Table A.12.1). PCT-PPH
requests showed a similar trend. The JPO and the USPTO
received 95% of all PCT-PPH requests (Table A.12.2).
55 For further information and a definition of

PPH statistics refer to: www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/
cgi-bin/ppph-portal/statistics/statistics.cgi
86
Statistics on examination procedures can shed some second filing may only contain claims that correspond
light on how PPHs affect office performance. Table to those claims which have already been found to be
A.12.3 presents grant percentage and average pen- patentable by the office of first filing. For example, the
dency time figures. Due to significant differences in grant percentage when requesting the PPH procedure
examination procedures and legislation across of- is 87% (excluding PCT-PPH) at the USPTO, compared
fices, the data presented here do not allow for direct to 49% for all applications (PPH and non-PPH). For all
cross-office comparisons. The grant percentages for reported offices, the grant rate for PCT-PPH applications
applications having made use of PPH and PCT-PPH is higher than “regular” PPH applications. Similarly, and
procedures were higher than for those using the nor- for related reasons, the average pendency – both first
mal examination procedure. This may be at least partly office action and final decision – for applications using
due to the requirement that, in order to benefit from PPH and PCT-PPH procedures is significantly shorter
PPH acceleration, applications filed at the office of than average pendency for all applications.
Table A.12.1 Number of PPH requests, cumulative total up to the end of December 2011
Office of subsequent filing
United States of America

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
Australia n/a 109 109
Austria n/a 0 0 1 0 1
Canada n/a 0 1 0 2 1 0 107 111
China n/a 1 0 1
Denmark 1 n/a 7 4 90 102
European
Patent Office n/a 40 191 231
Finland 0 1 n/a 0 5 0 0 0 19 25
Germany 11 n/a 80 13 65 169
Hungary 0 0 n/a 2 3 5
Iceland n/a 0 0 0
Israel n/a 1 1
Office of first filing
Japan 0 73 53 2 394 1 495 0 0 n/a 1 0 1,025 42 8 0 20 4,703 6,817

Mexico 0 n/a 0 0 0
Norway 0 n/a 0 0
Others n/a 0 0
Portugal n/a 0 0
Republic of
Korea 5 0 0 1 160 n/a 0 1 4 851 1,022
Russian
Federation 0 3 0 n/a 0 8 11
Singapore 0 n/a 2 2
Spain 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 0
United
Kingdom 52 19 1 n/a 205 277
United States
of America 146 0 1,922 0 1 254 1 40 1 0 0 1,438 15 2 39 475 9 9 0 36 n/a 4,388
Total 146 0 2,013 53 3 648 3 536 1 0 0 1,791 16 2 39 0 1,537 52 17 1 60 6,354 13,272
Note: For a definition of PPH statistics refer to: www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/cgi-bin/ppph-portal/statistics/statistics.cgi
Source: WIPO, based on data from the JPO, October 2012
87
Table A.12.2 Number of PCT-PPH requests, cumulative total up to the end of December 2011
Office of filing

Nordic Patent Institution
European Patent Office
Russian Federation
Republic of Korea
Denmark
Australia
Sweden
Norway
Canada
Finland
Iceland
Austria
Mexico
Japan
China
Spain
Total
Australia 3 88 91
Austria 0 8 8
Canada 20 3 23
China 0 2 2
Denmark 0
European Patent
Office 338 814 1,152
Finland 0 0 0 0 35 35
Iceland 0
ISA or IPEA
Japan 7 0 188 0 0 765 0 0 0 537 1,498

Mexico 0
Nordic Patent
Institution 0 3 3
Norway 0
Republic of Korea 12 963 975
Russian Federation 0 0 7 7
Spain 0 0 0 4 4
Sweden 5 1 21 27
United States of
America 5 0 0 0 11 0 0 10 8 1 0 0 137 172
Total 8 0 20 7 0 199 0 0 1,118 0 0 0 20 2 0 1 2,622 3,997
Note: For a definition of PPH statistics refer to: www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/cgi-bin/ppph-portal/statistics/statistics.cgi
88
Table A.12.3 Grant rate and pendency time for patents filed using the PPH procedure,
July – December 2011
PPH procedure, excluding PCT-PPH PCT-PPH
Office of subsequent filing Office of subsequent filing

Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Republic of Korea
Republic of Korea
United Kingdom
Singapore
Australia
Australia
Germany
Hungary
Canada
Canada
Finland
Mexico
Others
Japan
Japan
Spain
Grant Rate {%} 100 91 100 76.6 81.8 100 90.3 95 100 97.6 87 100 100 95.4 91
(-) -64 (-) (-) -24.4 -58.9 (-) -57 -66.3 -80.2 (-) (-) (-) -49 (-) -64 -58.9 -66.3 -74 -49
First Action 44.4 42 66 0 22.9 81.8 87.5 27.1 50 100 100 4.8 26 33.3 75 58 19
Allowance Rate
{%} (-) -4.9 (-) (-) -9.7 -11.2 (-) -9.2 -10.1 -12.3 (-) -35 (-) -14 (-) -4.9 -11.2 -10.1 -8.5 -14
Average Pendency 0.5 1.6 1 5.6 1 1.8 0.83 1.1 1.8 1.7 3.5 1.8 6.1 0.5 1 1.9 2.2 1.3 4.3
from PPH Request
to First Office
Action {months} ( - ) -22.2 -8.5 (-) -76.1 -26.3 (-) -41.1 -16.8 -10.9 (-) -23 ( - ) -23.6 ( - ) -22.2 -26.3 -16.8 -11 -23.6
Average Pendency 1.5 5.5 6 7.1 0.83 1.2 4.9 6.8 4.8 11.6 1.7 2.5 3.5 7
from PPH Request
to Final Decision ( - ) -40.5 -60 (-) -71.7 -32.4 (-) -45.7 -22.8 -18 (-) -33 ( - ) -33.8 ( - ) -40.5 -32.4 -22.8 -25 -33.8
{months}
Average Number 0.55 0.7 1 1.06 0 0.13 0.6 0.17 1.14 2.3 0.66 0.3 0.46 1.6
of Office Actions ( - ) -1.6 (-) (-) -0.7 -1.1 (-) -0.94 (-) -1.65 ( - ) -2 ( - ) -2.6 ( - ) -1.6 -1.1 ( - ) -2.6 -2.6
Note: For a definition of PPH statistics refer to: www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/cgi-bin/ppph-portal/statistics/statistics.cgi. The numbers in brackets refer to all applications
(i.e., PPH and non-PPH data).
89
A.13 From 2008 to 2011, there was substantial growth in

applications worldwide. The latest year, 2011, saw an
estimated 670,700 UM applications filed worldwide,
Utility models corresponding to a 35% increase on 2010. Growth in
applications has been entirely due to an increase in ap-
A.13.1 Utility model applications
plications received by SIPO. Excluding Chinese office
Figure A.13.1.1 shows data on the total number of util- data, the world total actually showed a decrease of 1.7%
ity model (UM) applications filed across the world from in 2010 and 2% in 2011.
1985 to 2011. World totals are WIPO estimates covering
around 60 offices, which include direct national and Figure A.13.1.2 depicts the number of UM applications
regional applications and international applications filed for the top 20 offices. SIPO received 585,467 applica-
through the PCT that subsequently entered the national tions – or 87% of the world total – in 2011, corresponding
or regional phase. Between 1985 and 1998, UM ap- to 42.9% growth on 2010. Since 1997, it has been the
plications worldwide followed a downward path. This largest office in terms of applications. In 2011, the second
was due to considerable declines at the JPO, where largest office, Germany, received around 16,000 applica-
applications fell from around 204,800 in 1985 to 10,900 tions – only a fraction of the number received in China.
in 1998. Since 1998, UM applications have continu- Apart from the top five offices, each of the other offices
ously increased, mainly reflecting sustained growth in received fewer than 8,000 applications.
filings at SIPO. During this period, the IP offices of the
Russian Federation and Ukraine also saw growth, while
the number of applications fell in those of Germany and
the Republic of Korea.
Figure A.13.1.1 Trend in utility model applications worldwide

700,000
500,000
Applications
300,000
100,000
-5.6 -10.7 -8.4 -3.6 -6.0 -1.7 -2.5 -26.8 -12.9 -11.7
. 2.5 11.9 9.4 6.8 12.9 8.5 9.3 9.7 1.6 15.2 8.1 2.1 15.0 27.4 24.4 35.0
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). These estimates include direct applications and PCT national
phase entries.
90
Figure A.13.1.2 Utility model applications for the top 20 offices, 2011

42.9 -5.8 8.0 -13.2 -2.4 -8.0 8.1 -1.6 0.3 -36.3 15.4 2.4 1.1 0.1 6.1 -7.9 8.5 0.2 -4.8 4.5
585,467 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 1,690 1,646 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
1,342
Applications
Applications
1,090
1,003
812
674 615 581
16,024 506
13,241 11,854
10,431 7,984
3,280 2,598 2,470 1,988
ine
y
ain
n
ea
il *
ly
ina
ion
ia
AR
lic
e
us
es
a
ico
d
an
rke
pa
Ita
nc
ali
an
lan
or
str
ub
pin
ra
lar
Sp
az
Ch
t
rm
gS
ex
Ja
ra
Tu
Fra
str
fK
ail
Au
Uk
Po
Br
ep
Be
M
ilip
e
Ge
on
Au
Th
ed
co
hR
Ph
gK
F
bli
ec
an
pu
on
Cz
ssi
Re
,H
Ru
ina
Ch
.
Office Office
Note: *2010 data; Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.
Figure A.13.1.3 Utility model applications for offices of selected middle- and low-income countries, 2011
-54.5 -3.1 23.9 25.8 -13.7 7.5 -6.7 32.1 -43.4 24.6 -1.3 19.0 -29.7 -12.3 6.7 -20.8 -30.0 40.0 -13.3 -37.5
292 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 79 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
75
71
247 64
233 224
Applications
Applications
182 48
42
143 140
107 99
86 21
14 13
10
ria
sia
an
n
ia
ile
bia
an
nia
ay
gia
a
nia
n
ia
ru
ala
ov
sta
ta
ys
Na
Ric
sta
Ch
ist
rb
lga
e
Pe
gu
aij
lom
kis
old
me
or
em
ma
ala
on
kh
Se
jik
yz
et
erb
sta
Bu
Ge
be
Ind
za
fM
Ur
Ar
at
M
Ro
Co
rg
Ta
Vi
Uz
Co
Az
Gu
Ka
Ky
co
bli
pu
Re
Office Office
Unlike patents, UMs are primarily used by resident ap- SIPO is the only office with considerable growth in UM
plicants to protect inventions at their respective national applications in 2011. It received 175,631 more applica-
patent offices. In 2011, resident applicants accounted for tions than in 2010. This exceeds twice the amount of ap-
98% of the world total, a share that has remained relatively plications received by all other offices combined in 2011.
constant over the past 25 years. For the top 20 offices, Between 2010 and 2011, the IP offices of Australia, the
France is the only one where non-resident applicants ac- Russian Federation, the Philippines and Turkey recorded
counted for the majority of applications. The non-resident high growth, while Austria, the Republic of Korea and
share in total applications at SIPO was less than one Japan experienced considerable declines.
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 ap-
plications filed at SIPO originated in Japan and the US.
91
Figure A.13.1.3 shows the numbers of UM applications applications abroad, a large proportion of which were
received by offices of selected middle- and low- income destined for SIPO. Table A.13.1.5 shows the breakdown
countries. Similar to the trend observed for the top 20 of Japanese and US applications abroad at SIPO and
offices (Figure A.13.1.2), resident applications accounted at other IP offices. The use of UMs by Japanese and US
for the largest share of total applications. Resident shares applicants to seek protection in China has considerably
varied from 55% in Kazakhstan to 100% in Kyrgyzstan increased. In 2000, residents of the US filed 128 UM
and Tajikistan. The majority of these offices received applications (or 23.7% all applications abroad) at SIPO;
fewer applications in 2011 than in 2010. by 2011, this number stood at 1,076, constituting 63%
of all US applications abroad. Applications abroad data
Even though the UM system is mostly used by local for Japan exhibit a similar trend.
residents, some applicants seek UM protection abroad.
Figure A.13.1.4 presents the total number of applications China had the largest number of resident applications
filed abroad for selected origins. Residents of the US (582,140) by origin, of which 581,303 were filed at SIPO
(1,703) and Japan (1,646) filed the largest numbers of UM and only 837 were filed abroad.
Figure A.13.1.4 Utility model applications filed abroad for selected origins, 2011
25.7 133.8 11.9 33.1 9.9 -5.9 4.7 9.2 94.7 -0.4 30.8 22.2 -4.0 8.2 12.3 -4.3
1,703 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 255 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
1,646
238
208
Applications abroad
Applications abroad
193
145 145 137

837 134
643
511
432
310 286
y
ia
ca
ina
ea
ly
ine
ain
R
lic
us
d
e
an
pa
an
nc
Ita
lan
SA
str
eri
do
or
ub
lar
Ch
ra
Sp
rm
Ja
erl
Fra
Au
fK
Am
Fin
ing
ep
ng
Be
Uk
Ge
itz
co
hR
Ko
dK
Sw
of
bli
ec
ng
ite
tes
pu
Cz
Ho
Un
ta
Re
dS
,
ina
ite
Ch
Un
Origin 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.
Table A.13.1.5 Utility model applications filed abroad by residents of Japan and the US
Origin: Japan Origin: United States of America

UM applications UM applications (%) UM applications UM applications (%)
Office 2000 2005 2011 2000 2005 2011 2000 2005 2011 2000 2005 2011
China 87 566 1,465 46.8 95.4 89.0 128 360 1,076 23.7 49.0 63.2
Others 99 27 181 53.2 4.6 11.0 412 374 627 76.3 51.0 36.8
Total 186 593 1,646 100.0 100.0 100.0 540 734 1,703 100.0 100.0 100.0
92
Figure A.13.1.6 Resident utility model applications as a percentage of resident patent applications, 2011
400
300
200
(%)
100
0
ine
y
ia
ain
AR
ina
rea
n
y
lic
s
es
kia
ico
ly
d
n
d
an
ru
rke
ali
pa
an
lan
tio
lan
Ita
str
ub
pin
gS
ex
ra
va
la
Sp
Ch
Ko
rm
str
Ja
ail
ra
Tu
Au
Fin
Po
ep
Be
Uk
M
ilip
Slo
de
on
Au
Ge
Th
of
hR
Ph
Fe
gK
c
bli
ec
an
on
pu
Cz
ssi
,H
Re
Ru
ina
Ch
Office
To illustrate the use of the UM system, Figure A.13.1.6 A.13.2 Utility model grants
shows resident UM applications relative to resident patent
applications. Compared to the patent system, the UM Contrary to applications, UM grants worldwide showed a
system is used intensively by residents of Ukraine, the slight upward trend from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s,
Philippines, China Hong Kong (SAR), the Czech Republic, followed by a steep increase from 2006 onwards. UM
Slovakia, China and Thailand. For example, Ukrainian grants worldwide grew substantially in 1992 (44.6%) and
residents filed about four times more UM applications 2010 (55.1%). The 1992 growth was mainly due to the
than patent applications in 2011. Residents of middle- large number of grants issued by the JPO, while the high
income countries tend to use the UM system more growth in 2010 resulted from the many grants issued by
intensively than the patent system. In contrast, residents SIPO. Indeed, the fast growth in grants worldwide since
of high-income countries, such as Germany and Japan, 2006 was almost entirely due to SIPO. The total number of
use the patent system more frequently. 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
Figure A.13.2.1 Trend in utility model grants worldwide
500,000
400,000
300,000
Grants
200,000
100,000
-4.2 -3.3 -4.9 -7.9 -23.5 -0.2 -0.7 -0.9

. 6.3 10.8 16.2 44.6 10.5 7.6 22.4 2.0 15.6 0.0 6.2 7.6 18.5 7.3 13.6 10.9 55.1 16.3
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). These estimates include UM grants based on direct
applications and PCT national phase entries.
Figure A.13.2.2 Utility model grants by office for the top 20 offices, 2011

18.5 -8.1 4.7 9.4 -11.4 166.8 36.1 17.8 .. 29.4 -5.9 35.5 -7.6 8.3 -1.0 30.4 33.2 1.1 15.0 15.6
408,110 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 952 928 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
605
Grants
Grants
524 517
395 377 360
14,230 315
11,079 10,291 207
7,595 6,486 5,853
2,549 1,977 1,545
ia
R
us
es
kia
il *
d
lia
ico
d
ine
ny
in
ea
c
ly
n
ina
an
rke
bli
SA
lan
pa
tio
str
Ita
pin
lar
a
a
or
ex
va
az
ra
Sp
Ch
str
u
rm
ail
Ja
Au
ra
Tu
Po
ng
fK
Be
ep
M
Uk
ilip
Slo
Br
Au
Th
de
Ge
Ko
hR
co
Ph
Fe
bli
g
ec
an
on
pu
Cz
ssi
,H
Re
Ru
ina
Ch
.
Office Office
Note: '..' not available; *2010 data; Growth rate refers to 2009-2010.
94
A.14 Treaty became operational in 1981. The top five include

authorities from China, Germany, Japan and the US.
China’s two IDAs included in this list – the China General
Microorganisms Microbiological Culture Collection Center (CGMCC) and
In 2011, there were a total of 75 contracting parties to the China Center for Type Culture Collection (CCTCC) –
the Budapest Treaty, hosting 40 International Depository had the highest five-year average annual growth rates
Authorities (IDAs). Therefore, not all contracting parties from 2007 to 2011 with 32.8% and 25.6%, respectively.
have an IDA within their borders. In 2011, Chile and Germany’s DSMZ saw more or less stable deposit activity
Morocco signed the treaty, and the Microbial Culture over the same period. By contrast, deposits fell by 12%
Collection (MCC) of India became an IDA. at Japan’s International Patent Organism Depositary
(IPOD) and by 1.6% at the US-based American Type
Figure A.14.1 shows the long-term trend of total deposits Culture Collection (ATCC). Despite year-on-year growth
made with all IDAs that receive and store microorganisms. of 7 to 17% from 2008 to 2010, the ATCC experienced
As can be seen, deposits fell from about 3,300 in 2001 a sharp decline in deposits (-30.6%) from 2010 to 2011.
to around 2,700 in 2005. They then gradually increased
until 2010. The high growth of 19.5% in 2010 can be at- Figure A.14.1.3 presents the shares of the top 10 IDAs in
tributed to increases in the numbers of deposits made the total number of deposits received in 2001 and 2011.
in both IDAs located in China and in one located in the Many of the same IDAs are listed for both years, but
US. Together, these three IDAs accounted for 76% of Japan’s National Institute of Technology and Evaluation,
the increase from 2009 to 2010. The 3,866 deposits in Patent Microorganisms Depositary (NPMD) and the
2011 remained relatively unchanged from the previous UK-based National Collections of Industrial, Food and
year’s level of 3,857. Marine Bacteria (NCIMB) were new to the 2011 ranking,
replacing the Korean Culture Center of Microorganisms
Figure A.14.1.2 shows deposit activity from 2001 to (KCCM) and the European Collection of Cell Cultures
2011 for the top five IDAs, which were selected on the (ECACC) of the UK.
basis of total deposits made at IDAs since the Budapest
Figure A.14.1 Trend in microorganism deposits worldwide
Deposits Growth rate (%)
4,000
3,000
Deposits
2,000
-12.5 -7.7 -0.7 -2.3

. 1.4 5.7 13.2 3.5 19.5 0.2
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Deposit year
95
The two pie charts show that ATCC received 33.1% of Figure A.14.3 Share of IDAs in total deposits
all microorganism deposits worldwide in 2001; however, 2001
its share in 2011 decreased by roughly half to 16.2%.
The China-based CGMCC and CCTCC each increased
their shares from 4.5% and 2.1%, respectively, in 2001
to 29.5% and 16.4% in 2011, thus becoming the top
two IDAs in terms of deposits received for that year.
Combined, they received 45.9% of all deposits in 2011
in contrast with the 20% received by the two US-based
IDAs (ATCC and NRRL) and the 5.3% received by the
two IDAs of Japan (IPOD and NPMD).
ATCC: 33.1% IPOD: 12.8% DSMZ: 11.3% KCTC: 8.2%
CNCM: 4.9% CGMCC: 4.5% NRRL: 4.0% KCCM: 3.4%
Figure A.14.2 Deposits for the top five IDAs ECACC: 2.3% CCTCC: 2.1% Others: 13.4%
ATCC IPOD DSMZ CGMCC CCTCC 2011
1,500
1,000
Deposits
500
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Deposit year
CGMCC: 29.5% CCTCC: 16.4% ATCC: 16.2% KCTC: 7.1%
DSMZ: 6.1% CNCM: 4.4% NRRL: 3.9% IPOD: 3.0%
Note: ATCC (American Type Culture Collection, United States of America), NCIMB: 3.0% NPMD: 2.3% Others: 8.1%
CCTCC (China Center for Type Culture Collection), CGMCC (China General
Microbiological Culture Collection Center), DSMZ (Deutsche Sammlung von
Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, Germany), IPOD (International Note: ATCC (American Type Culture Collection, United States of America),
Patent Organism Depositary, Japan) CCTCC (China Center for Type Culture Collection), CGMCC (China General
Microbiological Culture Collection Center), CNCM (Collection nationale
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 de cultures de micro-organismes, France), DSMZ (Deutsche Sammlung
von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, Germany), ECACC
(European Collection of Cell Cultures, United Kingdom), IPOD (International
Patent Organism Depositary, Japan), KCCM (Korean Culture Center of
Microorganisms, Republic of Korea), KCTC (Korean Collection for Type
Cultures, Republic of Korea), NCIMB (National Collections of Industrial,
Food and Marine Bacteria, United Kingdom), NPMD (National Institute of
Technology and Evaluation, Patent Microorganisms Depositary, Japan)
and NRRL (Agricultural Research Service Culture Collection, United States
of America)
96
Section btrademarks
section b
trademarks
This section provides an overview of trademark activity The procedures for registering trademarks are governed
worldwide, for both goods and services, by using a range by the rules and regulations of national and regional
of indicators covering the following areas: a) trademark IP offices. Trademark rights are limited to the jurisdic-
applications, b) trademark registrations, c) trademark tion of the authority in which a trademark is registered.
applications by class and industry sector, d) international Trademark applicants can file an application with the
registrations and renewals through the WIPO-administered relevant national or regional IP office(s), or an international
Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks application through the Madrid system. However, even
(Madrid system), e) trademark filing intensity (trademark in the latter case, the decision of whether or not to issue
applications per gross domestic product (GDP) and million a trademark registration remains the prerogative of the
population) and f) trademarks in force. national or regional IP office concerned, and trademark
rights remain limited to the jurisdiction of the authority
Statistics contained in this section concern those re- issuing that registration.
ported by national and regional intellectual property
(IP) offices from around the world and those resulting The Madrid system, established in 1891, is legally gov-
from use of the Madrid system. For better international erned by the Madrid Agreement (1891) and the Madrid
comparison of trademark application activity across of- Protocol (1989), and is administered by WIPO. This
fices, this section takes differences in their filing systems system makes it possible for an applicant to apply for
into account. 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. It simplifies the process
Trademark System
of multinational trademark registration by reducing the
A trademark is a distinctive sign that identifies certain requirement to file an application at each IP office in
goods or services as those produced or provided by which protection is sought. The system also simplifies the
a specific person or enterprise. Trademarks can be subsequent management of the mark, since it is possible
registered for goods and services. In the latter case, the to record further changes or to renew the registration
term “service mark” is sometimes used. For the sake of through a single procedural step. A registration recorded
simplicity, the term trademark is used in this publication in the International Register produces the same effect as
regardless of whether or not the registration concerns a registration made directly with each designated con-
goods or services. The holder of a registered trademark tracting party (Madrid member) if no refusal was made
has the right to exclusively use the mark in relation to by the competent authority of that jurisdiction within a
the products or services for which it is registered. The specified time limit. For further details about the Madrid
owner can prevent unauthorized use of the trademark, or system, refer to: www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.
a confusingly similar mark, so as to prevent consumers
from being misled. Unlike patents, trademark registrations
can be maintained indefinitely as long as the trademark
holder pays the renewal fees.
97
Section Btrademarks
B.1 Between 1995 and 2011, total applications doubled from

around 2 to over 4 million. More precisely, there were an
estimated 4.2 million applications for trademarks filed at
Trademark applications and
offices worldwide in 2011.
registrations worldwide
All but three of the 17 years presented show positive
B.1.1 Applications worldwide
year-on-year growth. After stagnating in 2007 and expe-
Figure B.1.1.1 shows the total numbers of trademark riencing slight declines in 2008 and 2009 following the
applications filed worldwide between 1995 and 2011. onset of the financial crisis, applications for trademarks
Totals are WIPO estimates covering around 150 offices, rebounded to double-digit growth not seen since the
which include applications received directly by national peak of the so-called “dot-com boom” era in 2000 –
and regional IP offices combined with the numbers of which was followed by a sharp decline in 2001.
designations received by 87 of these offices via the
WIPO-administered Madrid system. Worldwide totals do With a 13.3% increase, 2011 demonstrated a continuation
not take into account differences between single-class of 2010’s equally high growth in trademark applications.
and multi-class filing systems across offices. These differ- This was largely due to a rise (14.4%) in the numbers
ences are later harmonized for international comparability of applications filed by residents with their national or
in Figure B.1.1.2 and in all indicators referring to trademark regional offices. The largest increases in resident ap-
applications thereafter. plications from 2010 to 2011 occurred at the IP offices
of China (+300,365), Turkey (+30,605) the United States
of America (US) (+19,949), Indonesia (+7,384) and the
Republic of Korea (+5,680).1
Figure B.1.1.1 Trend in trademark applications worldwide

4,000,000
3,000,000
Applications
2,000,000
1,000,000
-8.4 -0.1 -2.1

8.4 6.9 2.3 5.2 4.6 17.6 0.6 7.2 9.3 9.0 7.2 1.7 13.3 13.3
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 consisting of data from around 150 IP offices (see Data Description). These totals include applications filed directly with
national and regional offices (Paris route) and designations received by offices via the Madrid system (where applicable).

1 In this section, 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”.
For simplicity, country names rather than office
names are used to label graphs. For example, 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).
98
Section btrademarks
Within the international trademark system, many offices was nearly 13 times that received by the European
have adopted the Nice Classification (NCL), an inter- Union’s (EU) Office for Harmonization in the Internal
national classification of goods and services applied Market (OHIM). However, class count-based trademark
for the registration of trademarks and service marks. application data reduce this gap to about only 5 times that
Applications received by these offices are classified ac- amount. To capture the differences between numbers of
cording to one or more of the 45 Nice classes (see www. applications received, it is useful to compare application
wipo.int/classifications/en/). class counts across offices.
Some offices have a single-class filing system, which Distinct from B.1.1.1, Figure B.1.1.2 depicts the total
requires applicants to file a separate application for number of classes specified in applications – referred
each class in which the goods or services for which to as class counts throughout this section. Since 2004,
the mark is applied are classified. Other offices follow the first year for which complete class count data are
a multi-class filing system, which enables applicants to available, the totals have increased from 4.5 to over 6
file one application in which goods or services belong- million in 2011, despite declines in 2008 and 2009. With
ing to a number of classes can be specified. For better growth approaching 10%, there were an estimated 6.2
international comparison of trademark application activ- million classes specified in the 4.2 million applications
ity across offices, this difference in filing systems must received by offices worldwide.
be taken into consideration. For example, the offices of
Brazil, China and Colombia follow a single-class filing Following on with the concept of improving international
system. However, the offices of Japan, the Republic of comparability, application statistics for the remainder of
Korea and the US, as well as many European offices, this section are presented on the basis of class counts
operate multi-class filing systems. rather than the number of trademark applications.
Statistics on the numbers of trademark applications
A single-class filing system can result in offices receiving filed at offices are available for download at WIPO’s IP
much higher numbers of applications than those that Statistics Data Center at http://ipstatsdb.wipo.org/ipstats/
allow multi-class applications. For instance, the number trademarkSearch.
of applications received by the IP office of China in 2011
Figure B.1.1.2 Trend in trademark application class counts worldwide

Application class count Growth rate (%)
6,000,000
Application class count
4,000,000
2,000,000
-0.3 -5.0
. 10.4 7.3 4.2 9.0 9.6
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Application year
Note: World totals are WIPO estimates consisting of data from around 150 IP offices (see Data Description). 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).
99
Section Btrademarks
Figure B.1.1.3 Contribution of offices to growth in applications worldwide

2004-2011 2010-2011
China: 46.6% OHIM: 8.2% China: 61.8% United States of America: 6.2%
United States of America: 5.9% Russian Federation: 5.7% OHIM: 4.4% Russian Federation: 0.5%
In order to better understand the different components residing in the US is considered a non-resident applica-
of the growth in total applications, it is necessary to look tion from the perspective of the Turkish office. Trademark
at individual offices’ contribution to the increases (Figure applications filed by residents of EU countries at OHIM,
B.1.1.3). Application class count data between 2004 a regional office, are considered resident trademark ap-
and 2011 show that the IP office of China accounted plications for this office. This is also the case for residents
for nearly half (46.6%) of the overall growth over this of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands who file
eight-year period. Receiving rapidly increasing numbers their applications with the Benelux Office for Intellectual
of applications, this office contributed to 61.8% of the Property (BOIP). Conversely, an application received by a
growth in applications worldwide from 2010 to 2011. The regional office is considered a non-resident application if
contribution of the United States Patent and Trademark the applicant is not a resident of one of its member states.
Office (USPTO) to growth, however, remained relatively
unchanged at around six percent over both periods men- When totaled, an average of 31.1% of all trademark ap-
tioned. Although nearly doubling their application class plication class counts from 2004 to 2011 related to ap-
counts between 2004 and 2011, OHIM and the IP office plications filed by non-residents. Figure B.1.1.4 shows a
of the Russian Federation showed decreasing contribu- breakdown for each year over this period. From a peak
tions toward overall growth as did the remaining offices of 34.3% in 2008, the non-resident share has decreased
(shown in the figure as “Others”) when taken as a whole. to 27.1% in 2011 due to the increasingly large numbers
of resident trademark applications in China.
Resident applications refer to applications filed by ap-
plicants with the relevant national or regional IP office. There were approximately 4.5 million resident application
For example, an application filed by an applicant residing class counts in 2011, compared to nearly 1.7 million for
in the US at the USPTO is considered a resident ap- non-residents. Resident class counts in 2011 were about
plication from the perspective of the USPTO. Similarly, 80,000 more than the sum of both resident (3 million) and
non-resident applications refer to applications filed by non-resident (1.4 million) application class counts in 2004.
applicants at a foreign IP office. For example, an ap-
plication filed with the IP office of Turkey by an applicant
100
Section btrademarks
Figure B.1.1.4 Resident and non-resident trademark applications worldwide
32.8 33.1 32.8 33.4 34.3 29.7 26.9 27.1
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Application year
Note: See note for Figure B.1.1.2
B.1.2 Registrations worldwide Similar to B.1.1.2, Figure B.1.2.2 enables better inter-
national comparison of trademark registration activity
Figure B.1.2.1 shows combined totals of registrations is- across offices by taking into account the multi-class filing
sued by national and regional IP offices around the world. systems used by many national and regional offices.
Like the applications presented in B.1.1.1, registration
totals worldwide do not take into account differences The growth rates of registration class counts are like
between single-class and multi-class filing systems those of registrations between 2005 and 2011, with 2009
across offices. These differences are harmonized for and 2010 being the exceptions during which growth in
international comparability in Figure B.1.2.2. registrations was significantly higher than that for class
counts. For example, 2010 saw an increase of 22.4% in
In contrast to applications, total trademark registra- registrations issued, whereas the class counts increased
tions showed positive year-on-year growth for all years by only 13.7% for the same year. In 2011, there were an
between 2000 and 2010. This can be attributed to the estimated total of 4.5 million classes specified in the
high growth in registration activity at a number of IP 3.0 million registrations issued by offices worldwide.
offices, such as those of China and OHIM. However, Coincidentally, registration class counts fell in 2011 by
the estimated 3 million trademark registrations issued the same 7.1% that simple registration numbers declined.
worldwide in 2011 represents a decline of 7.1% from the
previous year. This is largely due to a decrease of around
24% (-325,981) in registrations issued by the IP office
of China. Since 2009, China’s office has accounted for
between 32 and 42 percent of all trademark registrations
issued worldwide. Therefore, a significant change in reg-
istrations issued by this office has a large impact on the
world growth rate. If China were excluded from the overall
totals, the number of registrations issued worldwide in
2011 would have actually increased by 5.0%.
101
Section Btrademarks
Figure B.1.2.1 Trend in trademark registrations worldwide

Registrations Growth rate (%)
4,000,000
3,000,000
Registrations
2,000,000
1,000,000
-11.5 -3.4 -7.1

3.5 18.5 23.0 6.3 2.6 3.7 2.8 0.1 15.5 3.2 6.6 9.7 10.0 22.4
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Registration year
Note: World totals are WIPO estimates consisting of data from around 150 IP offices (see Data Description). 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).
Figure B.1.2.2 Trend in trademark registration class counts worldwide

Registration class count Growth rate (%)
5,000,000
4,000,000
Registration class count
3,000,000
2,000,000
-7.1
. 13.6 4.0 6.6 9.9 3.8 13.7
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Registration year
Note: World totals are WIPO estimates consisting of data from around 150 IP offices (see Data Description). 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).
It is interesting to see the extent to which individual offices

have contributed to the overall growth in registration class
counts since 2004. Figure B.1.2.3 shows that registrations
issued by the IP office of China contributed to 49.3% of
the growth – from about 3 million registration class counts
worldwide in 2004 to 4.5 million in 2011. OHIM and the
USPTO contributed about 11.5% and 6.5%, respectively,
to overall growth over the same period. Registration
growth rate contributions for China, OHIM and the US
are in line with those for applications, albeit slightly higher.
102
Section btrademarks
Figure B.1.2.3 Contribution of offices to Similar to filing concentration by geographical region,

growth in registrations worldwide Figure B.1.3.2 shows the distribution of applications by
2004-2011 four income groups.3 In 2007, offices of high-income
economies accounted for the majority (54.3%) of all
trademark class counts specified in applications world-
wide. Since then, the percentage held by high-income
countries has fallen to less than half (45.1%), in 2011,
with upper middle-income countries accounting for a
nearly equal share (43.9%). Lower middle-income and
low-income countries accounted for small proportions
of applications worldwide.
China: 49.3% OHIM: 11.5%

United States of America: 6.5% Germany: 0.4% Many offices use the NCL to classify trademark applica-
Others: 32.3% tions into one or more of its 45 classes. The breakdown
of applications by class offers insights into the relative
importance of trademarks for different goods and ser-
vices. The first 34 of the 45 classes indicate goods and
the remaining 11 refer to services. At the 105 offices for
B.1.3 Applications by geographical
region, income group and Nice class which direct application and/or Madrid designation sta-
tistics broken down by class are available for 2011, the
The concentration of trademark filing varies across the top 10 classes accounted for just over half of all classes
world’s six main geographical regions. Over the five- 2
specified in trademark applications (Table B.1.3.3). The
year period 2007-2011, Asia showed the largest shift top five classes combined accounted for one-third of the
with its share of applications increasing by nearly nine total. Three of the top 10 classes related to services and
percentage points, whereas Europe’s share fell by an comprised 19% of all filings. Service class 35 (advertising,
almost equal amount of eight percentage points (Figure business management, business administration, and of-
B.1.3.1). Asia surpassed Europe as the largest receiver fice functions) has occupied or shared the number one
of trademark applications in 2009, and in 2011 received position since 2004, when complete class data became
44% of all applications filed worldwide. The regions of available. The highest ranked classes indicating goods
North America, Oceania and Africa experienced slight were Class 25 (Clothing, footwear, headgear) and Class
decreases from 2007 to 2011, and countries located in 9 (which includes, among other things, scientific, photo-
the region of Latin America and the Caribbean added graphic, measuring instruments, recording equipment,
nearly a percentage point to their overall share. computers and software). Class rankings differ across
individual offices.
3 The income groups correspond to those used by the

World Bank. Economies are divided according to 2011
gross national income (GNI) per capita, calculated
using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are:
low-income ($1,025 or less); lower middle-income
2 Regions are defined by the United Nations (UN); see ($1,026-$4,035); upper middle-income ($4036-
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm. $12,475); and high-income ($12,476 or more).
103
Section Btrademarks
Figure B.1.3.1 Trademark applications by geographical region

2007 2011
Asia: 35.1% Europe: 40.7% Asia: 44.0% Europe: 32.8%

Latin America & the Caribbean: 8.9% North America: 9.9% Latin America & the Caribbean: 9.8% North America: 8.8%
Oceania: 2.7% Africa: 2.6% Oceania: 2.4% Africa: 2.3%
Figure B.1.3.2 Trademark applications by income group

2007 2011
Table B.1.3.3 Distribution of trademark applications by top Nice classes, 2011

Class
Rank Class* share (%)
1 35 - Advertising and business management 9.3
2 25 - Clothing, footwear, headgear 6.9
3 9 - Scientific, photographic, measuring instruments; recording equipment; computers and software
4 41 - Education, entertainment, and sporting activities 5.2
5 5 - Pharmaceutical preparations, baby food, dietary supplements for humans and animals, disinfectants, fungicides and herbicides 4.7
6 30 - Coffee, tea, cocoa, rice, flour, bread, pastry and confectionery, sugar, honey, yeast, salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments) and spices 4.1
7 42 - Scientific and technological services, design and development of computer hardware and software 4.1
16 - Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials; printed matter, photographs, artists’ materials, typewriters, and plastic materials
8 for packaging 3.4
9 3 - Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning and abrasive preparations; soaps, perfumery and cosmetics 3.4
10 29 - Meat, fish, poultry and game; preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; eggs, milk and milk products 2.9
Thirty-five remaining classes 49.1
Note: These numbers are based on direct filing data from 70 offices - which include, for example, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) and
the offices of Australia, China, France and the US – and on Madrid designation data from 87 offices, resulting in an aggregate total of 105 offices.
*Some classes listed are abbreviated. See Annex B for full definitions.
104
Section btrademarks
As mentioned previously, the 45 classes of the NCL Table B.1.3.5 breaks down the 45 Nice classes into 10
consist of those relating to either goods or services. categories or groups based on their respective industry
Together, the 11 service-related classes accounted for sectors for around 100 IP offices worldwide. These cat-
one-third of all classes specified in applications filed in egories were developed by Edital®, a company special-
2011 (Figure B.1.3.4). This is up by 3.5 percentage points izing in trademark information. These class groups do not
from 2004, demonstrating the continued importance always contain the same number of classes. In addition,
applicants place on protecting their brands in service- some class numbers could have been associated with
oriented industries. several categories but, for the sake of simplicity, they
have been assigned to only one. The class groups may
Figure B.1.3.4 Trademark applications consist of both goods and services classes.
by goods and services classes, 2011
This table depicts the distribution of trademark applica-
tions across various sectors of the economy. No specific
category seems to largely dominate for trademark ap-
plications; however, there are a few, such as “chemicals”
and “transportation and logistics”, for which trademark
protection is sought less frequently. Six of the 10 groups
each comprise more than 10 percent of the total share
of classes specified in applications, with agricultural
products and services accounting for the highest share
at over 15 percent of the aggregated total. Compared
Goods classes: 66.7% to 2007 and all other years since 2004, it is worth noting
Services classes: 33.3%
that there has been very little change in the distribution
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 of trademark applications among the industries listed.
Like class rankings, the shares of class groups differ
across offices.
Table B.1.3.5 Trademark applications by industry sector
Share (%)
Industry sector 2007 2011 Change
Agricultural products and services 14.5 15.4 0.9
Textiles - Clothing and Accessories 12.9 14.2 1.3
Scientific research, Information technology, Communications 14.6 14.1 -0.5
Management, Communications, Real estate and Financial Services 11.4 11.7 0.3
Pharmaceuticals, Health, Cosmetics 11.4 11.1 -0.3
Leisure, Education, Training 12.3 10.9 -1.4
Construction, Infrastructure 7.6 7.0 -0.6
Household equipment 6.3 6.9 0.6
Transportation and Logistics 6.0 5.7 -0.3
Chemicals 3.1 3.0 -0.1
Note: 2007 figures are based on Nice class data for 94 offices, and those for 2011 are based on data for 105 offices. For definitions of the class groups, see
Annex B for a complete list of the Nice Classification.
Sources: WIPO Statistics Database and Edital®, October 2012
105
Section Btrademarks
B.2 exist even among these four. For example, class counts
at the USPTO were a multiple of between two and nearly
three times those for the Russian Federation over the
Trademark application and same period. In 2011, the IP office of China accounted
registration class counts
for 23% of all trademark filing activity worldwide. When
by office totaled, the top 10 offices received over half (58%) of
B.2.1 Applications by office the total share, and the top 20 offices received almost
three-quarters (74%) of all applications.
This subsection provides detailed data on trademark ap-
plications and registrations by national or regional offices. Figure B.2.1.2 shows five additional offices with high filing
Figure B.2.1.1 shows a selection of offices that received activity in 2011. These offices all exhibited growth until
the highest volumes of trademark applications, taking 2007, after which Germany, Japan and the Republic of
into account the number of classes specified in these ap- Korea followed a downward trend. In contrast, Brazil
plications, where applicable. Despite allowing for China’s and India showed year-on-year increases for the entire
single-class filing system – which reduces its gap with 2004-2011 period. India’s filing volume surpassed that
offices operating multi-class filing systems - China has of Brazil in 2006, Japan’s and the Republic of Korea’s
consistently occupied the top position for trademark filing in 2011. This graph shows a general trend toward con-
activity in recent years. The numbers for the other four of- vergence in filing activity over the period 2004-2011 for
fices – the US, OHIM, France and the Russian Federation the offices presented.
– for all years spanning the period 2004-2011 were lower
than those of China in 2004. However, large differences
Figure B.2.1.1 Trend in trademark application class counts for the top 5 offices
China United States of America OHIM France Russian Federation
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Application year
106
Section btrademarks
Figure B.2.1.2 Trend in trademark application class counts for selected offices
Germany India Japan Republic of Korea Brazil
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Application year
Figure B.2.1.3 compares IP office application volumes Figure B.2.1.3 Trademark application class
across the top 20 offices by using class counts while counts for the top 20 offices, 2011
showing the non-resident share of their totals. China’s Resident Non-Resident Total
1.4 million application class count is almost equal to the 10.2 22.5 22.9 6.8 29.3 12.1 11.2 24.9 17.7 23.8
1,418,251 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
sum of those for the offices of the US, France, the Russian
Federation, Germany and OHIM. About half of the top

20 offices are in Europe, and four are in Eastern Asia.
412,014
303,663 288,540
209,483 205,961 198,547 189,217 184,939 174,297
Large differences in non-resident shares exist between
offices shown in this figure. For example, the non-resident
y
ca
ina
IM
ea
n*
e*
ia
n
an
rke
tio
Ind
eri
or
OH
Ch
nc
pa
rm
ra
Tu
fK
Am
Fra
Ja
de
Ge
co
share was only 10.2% for China, compared to 59.7% for

Fe
of
bli
an
tes
pu
ssi
ta
Re
dS
Ru
Switzerland. Like the Swiss IP office, the office of China

ite
Un
Hong Kong (SAR) received over half of its filing volume Office
from non-resident applicants. Resident Non-Resident Total

.. 45.3 38.7 29.1 13.2 19.2 59.7 20.7 14.8 63.5
Non-Resident share (%): 2011
Low non-resident shares of application class counts for 152,735
133,921
Germany (12.1%), India (11.2%) and Italy (13.2%) were simi- 112,635
100,281 98,054
89,240 85,011
lar to that for China, whereas non-residents accounted 75,792 73,245
61,062
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
da
ain
nd
R
il
m
lia
ico
ly
lux
az
SA
Ita
do
a
na
rla
ex
ne
Sp
Br
str
ing
g
Ca
e
M
Russian Federation.
Be
on
Au
itz
dK
gK
Sw
ite
on
Un
,H
ina
Ch
.
Office
Note: *Resident applications are an estimate of direct application class count;

‘..’ = not available; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
107
Section Btrademarks
All but a few of the offices presented in Figure B.2.1.4 However, growth at eight of these offices was primarily
exhibited growth in 2011, with the offices of Brazil, China, driven by foreign applications, most notably at the offices
the UK and China Hong Kong (SAR) experiencing the of Canada, China Hong Kong (SAR) and Switzerland.
highest. However, the offices of Germany and Spain saw
decreases from the previous year, with the German office Seventy percent of the top 20 offices are located in
exhibiting the greatest drop of seven percent as a result high-income economies (Figure B.2.1.3), and 30 percent
of receiving 15,400 fewer class counts. In fact, many of- are located in middle-income economies, with China
fices of EU countries - including BOIP - have witnessed occupying the number one spot. In fact, 55 percent of
reductions in filing activity in recent years. This is partially trademark activity worldwide in 2011 occurred in offices of
due to residents opting to file with OHIM rather than with middle- and low-income economies, as shown in Figure
their respective national office in order to seek protection B.1.3.2. Figure B.2.1.5 shows the total number of classes
for trademarks not only within their own country but in specified in trademark applications received by offices
the EU as a whole. of selected middle- and low-income economies in 2011
as well as their non-resident shares.4
The driver of one-year growth – whether resident or
non-resident – differs for each of the top 20 offices. For The offices of Albania, Bahrain, Barbados, Cuba, Georgia,
example, applications received in China grew from nearly and Kyrgyzstan all had high non-resident shares (exceed-
1.1 million in 2010 to 1.4 million in 2011, which can be ing 85%) of total application class counts. In fact, about
largely attributed to the 1.27 million applications filed by three-quarters of these 20 offices received at least half
applicants domiciled in China that contributed 27.8 per- of their application class counts from non-residents.
centage points to this office’s total growth of 31.2%. Only
3.4 percentage points of China’s application growth was In Bangladesh, Colombia, South Africa, Thailand,
associated with filings from outside of China. Residents Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Viet Nam, the
of the UK also contributed significantly to the increase majority of trademark filing activity can be attributed
in application class count at their national IP office. 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
31.2 9.0 8.6 .. 1.2 -7.0 4.5 .. .. 1.3 21.6 8.4 4.4 6.2 2.9 16.4 5.8 1.4 -0.3 16.1
27.8
15.8
11.4
6.4 6.1 5.9 6.5
3.7 4.7
3.4 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.2 2.3 1.7 2.5 2.3 3.9 2.6
0.4 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.8
0
-1.7 -0.3 -0.7 -0.0 -0.3
-7.4
y
ica
da
ina
IM
il
n
ey
ea
ain
R
e
m
a
ico
ly
ia
x
ion
an
az
elu
nc
pa
ali
lan
SA
Ita
Ind
do
rk
na
OH
er
ex
Sp
Ch
Ko
at
Br
rm
Fra
str
Ja
Tu
n
er
ng
Am
ng
Ca
M
er
Be
Ge
Au
itz
of
Ki
d
Ko
Fe
Sw
of
d
bli
ng
ite
ian
es
pu
Ho
Un
at
ss
Re
St
Ru
a,
d
in
ite
Ch
Un
Office
Note: ‘..’ = not available; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

108
Section btrademarks
Figure B.2.1.5 Trademark application class counts for offices of selected middle- and low-income
countries, 2011
38.2 39.8 41.7 41.6 54.9 78.2 43.5 52.1 62.8 25.9
70.3 97.5 85.9 95.4 96.3 66.3 64.3 87.3 70.7 89.6

10,868
10,301
9,242
38,950
33,484 7,388
29,084 28,833 6,812
22,116 19,587 5,239 4,732
14,124 12,108 11,645
1,949
1,371
ca
d
)
m
tia
n
ia
h
bia
an
r
ain
os
nia
ria
gia
i
n
ba
of
it
ca
Ric
an
ta
es
sta
ys
Na
fri
Ha
ad
oa
rd
Cu
ge
lom
as
hr
ba
kis
or
lic
lad
ail
ala
hA
yz
Jo
rb
sta
Cr
Al
Ba
ag
Ge
et
ub
Al
be
Th
rg
ng
Ba
M
Co
Vi
ad
ut
Co
ep
Ky
Uz
Ba
So
M
nR
ria
va
oli
(B
ela
zu
ne
.
Ve
Office
Office
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
7.9 3.4 9.6 11.9 9.3 1.1 .. 11.8 10.9 13.8 .. .. 11.5 18.5 .. 14.1 7.7 .. 9.9 14.6
14.0
9.7 9.0 9.6 10.1 9.2
7.0 7.3 6.8 7.6 6.5 7.5
6.2
4.8 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.1 4.1
3.0 2.8 1.9
0.7 0.6
0
-0.4
-3.5 -3.1 -2.3
ca
an
ria
r
ain
os
nia
d
)
m
tia
iti
a
gia
n
ba
ia
h
bia
ca
of
Ric
an
ta
sta
es
ys
Na
Ha
fri
ad
rd
ge
Cu
oa
as
hr
ba
or
lom
kis
lic
lad
ail
ala
hA
yz
Jo
rb
sta
Al
Ba
Cr
ag
Ge
et
ub
Al
be
Th
rg
ng
Ba
M
Co
Vi
ad
ut
Co
ep
Ky
Uz
Ba
So
M
nR
ria
va
oli
(B
la
ue
n ez
Ve
Office
Note: ‘..’ = not available
About half of these offices of middle- and low-income B.2.2 Registrations by office
countries had a growth rate of 10% or higher from 2010
to 2011 (Figure B.2.1.6). For a number of offices, growth This subsection compares IP office registration volumes
in non-resident applications was the main contributor across the top offices by using class counts compared
to overall growth. For example, all growth at the offices in the same manner as were application volumes in
of Croatia, Madagascar, Malaysia and Thailand can be subsection B.2.1. Figure B.2.2.1 shows that, in 2011, the
attributed to increases in non-resident filings. 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 influ-
ence these differences.
109
Section Btrademarks
OHIM and the USPTO issued registrations with similar class counts (see B.2.1.3). The exceptions include the
numbers of registration class counts in 2011 (about Russian Federation, which had a non-resident registration
270,000 and 250,000, respectively). The offices of class count share of 47.5% compared to a much lower
Germany, India and Italy also had similar numbers, with share for application class counts of only 29.3%. The
around 140,000 to 165,000 each. same holds true for the office of Turkey, with 31.5% for
registrations versus 17.7% for applications.
Similar to its share of total applications, China’s office
accounted for about 23% of all trademark registration The IP office of China issued, by far, the most registra-
activity worldwide. When totaled, the top 10 offices re- tions in 2011, although it witnessed a 23.7% decrease
ceived over half (52%) of the total share, with the top 20 from the previous year (Figure B.2.2.2). This drop was
issuing 66% of all registrations worldwide. largely due to a 21.1% decline in registrations issued to
Chinese resident applicants. BOIP’s growth of 2.1% over
At the global level, 31.1% of total trademark registrations 2010 can be attributed to an increase in registrations is-
in 2011 were issued to non-residents. However, half of sued to applicants from Belgium, Luxembourg and the
the top 20 offices issued a higher percentage of between Netherlands that was almost entirely offset by a drop in
31.5% and 64.6% to non-residents. registrations for non-resident applications.
The shares of class counts in registrations attributed to Of the offices listed, India’s had the highest annual growth
non-residents varied greatly among these offices – from of 110.8%, followed by the Republic of Korea and Viet
9.7% in Germany to over 60% at the Swiss and China Nam with 36% and 26.6% each, whereas registration
Hong Kong (SAR) offices. However, these were similar to activity fell the most in Italy, by 40.2%.
their corresponding non-resident shares for application
Figure B.2.2.1 Trademark registration class counts for the top 20 offices, 2011
10.4 23.0 27.9 9.7 14.3 10.1 36.5 47.5 31.5 60.6 45.6 21.0 47.2 32.6 14.9 18.0 56.9 64.6 44.8 26.5
1,033,571 Non-Resident share (%): 2011 78,183 75,804 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
71,027 68,234
66,659
62,860
52,041
43,575 43,236
31,519
270,438 249,034
164,821 142,943 137,987
102,147 97,100 90,166 79,651
y
ca
ina
IM
nd
rea
y
ly
ia
ine
n
da
in
AR
om
m
ico
x
a
d
an
rke
elu
tio
ali
lan
Ita
Ind
Na
eri
rla
na
OH
Ch
gS
ex
ra
Ko
Sp
gd
rm
str
era
Tu
Po
Am
Uk
e
Ca
Be
et
Kin
Ge
on
itz
Au
of
ed
Vi
Sw
gK
of
lic
nF
d
ite
ub
tes
on
a
Un
p
ssi
Sta
,H
Re
Ru
ina
ed
Ch
it
Un
Office Office
Note: France and Japan are not included in the list of top 20 offices, as registration class count data are not available for these offices.
110
Section btrademarks
Figure B.2.2.2 Contribution of resident and non-resident registration class counts to total growth
Contribution by resident registrations Contribution by non-resident registrations
-23.7 -7.5 9.7 3.2 110.8 -40.2 36.0 -12.8 .. 6.6 6.0 -0.3 -4.2 8.3 2.5 2.1 -1.4 5.3 26.6 -14.7
94.9
83.7
15.9 22.0 15.011.5

7.2 2.5 13.9
3.1 0.1 0.4 6.3 1.3 4.7 1.8 6.5 2.8 3.5 1.0 4.3
0
-2.6 -6.3 -1.2 -2.2 -0.9 -0.1-0.2 -3.8 -0.4 -0.3 -4.9 -0.4
-11.9 -14.3
-21.1
-37.9
-81.6
e
ny
ica
da
ina
IM
ain
ea
R
m
a
m
ly
ico
ia
lux
n
d
e
in
lan
ali
SA
tio
lan
Ita
Ind
do
Na
rk
a
or
na
OH
er
ex
ra
ne
Sp
Ch
rm
str
ra
Tu
er
fK
ng
Po
Am
ng
Uk
Ca
Be
et
de
Ge
Au
itz
Ki
co
Ko
Vi
Fe
Sw
of
d
bli
g
ite
ian
es
on
pu
Un
at
,H
ss
Re
St
Ru
ina
d
ite
Ch
Un
Office
Figure B.2.2.3 Trademark registration class counts for offices of selected middle- and low-income
countries, 2011
57.2 34.6 40.9 37.7 90.1 97.4 46.2 81.2 80.5 83.1
64.2 56.0 97.1 95.0 78.7 77.0 69.0 23.7 89.8 ..
23,819 22,985 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
22,138 9,349 Non-Resident share (%): 2011

18,707 8,215
16,989 6,886 6,468
13,773 5,435
12,006 11,386 5,001
9,717 9,475 4,455
2,729
216 91
ria
d
nia
a
ina
ia
nia
ia
bia
an
os
ma
an
s
n
as
of
ca
ov
an
lle
ua
me
sta
ys
rb
ge
ad
ur
rd
ist
me
ov
ma
lom
as
c
na
old
he
ail
ala
Se
ug
bli
yz
nd
Ye
Jo
Al
rb
jik
ag
eg
Pa
yc
Th
Ar
Ro
Ur
rg
fM
pu
M
Co
Ba
Ho
Ta
ad
erz
Se
Ky
e
co
M
nR
dH
bli
ria
an
pu
va
ia
Re
oli
sn
(B
Bo
la
ue
ez
n
.
Ve
Office
Office
Figure B.2.2.3 presents registration class counts for Consistent with their application class counts, most of
selected offices of middle- and low-income countries. 5
these offices’ registration class counts were largely at-
The registration class counts for these offices were gen- tributed to non-residents, with many having even higher
erally smaller than their application class counts (Figure non-resident shares. The offices of Colombia, Malaysia
B.2.1.5). Like for the IP office of China, this partially reflects and Romania and issued similar numbers of registra-
the fact that not every application received by an office tions; however, Malaysia issued the majority (57.2%) of
results in a registration. However, other factors, such as its registrations to non-residents.
examination pendency, also influence these differences.

111
Section Btrademarks
The offices of Panama (3,351) and Uruguay (3,611) is- Canada and the US exhibited a similar distribution of
sued almost the same number of registrations to their trademark filings across sectors, each having a higher
respective residents, but there were nearly 1,400 more proportion of filings in the areas of Research & Technology
registrations issued to non-residents in Panama than and Leisure & Education, although Canada’s shares of
in Uruguay. filings attributed to non-resident applicants were higher.
B.3 Consistent with Table B.1.3.5, most of these offices had

lower shares of applications filed in the fields of chemicals
and transportation. In Colombia and Mexico, there were
Nice classes specified in even fewer trademarks filed for household equipment
trademark applications by office than in the transportation sector. Finally, the sectoral
breakdowns of the French and German offices show
B.3.1 Industry sectors by office
marked similarities.
As in subsection B.1.3, it is useful to analyze class data by
grouping the NCL classes into different industry sectors.
In particular, the 45 NCL classes can be grouped into 10
categories or groups (see Annex B for full definitions). The
resulting indicators by class group for selected offices
show the share of filings attributed to non-residents for
each group, and how the concentration of filing within
these categories differs across offices.
For instance, the IP office of China received the highest

share of its applications in the clothing industry, followed
by agriculture (Figure B.3.1). These two industries also
accounted for the highest shares of applications in the
Republic of Korea. Focusing on the clothing industry,
the Republic of Korea received a considerable share of
nonresident applications in this sector, the largest portion
of which came from Japan and the US in similar amounts.
For the Research & Technology class group, applicants

from Japan and the US also accounted for the largest
shares of non-resident applications in the Republic of
Korea; however, the US share was twice the Japanese
share in this case. Conversely, the USPTO received most
of its non-resident applications in this field in equal shares
from the UK, Canada and Germany, with non-resident fil-
ings from the Republic of Korea in the number 10 position.
112
Section btrademarks
Figure B.3.1 Nice classes grouped in industry sectors for selected offices, 2011
China - Office Republic of Korea - Office
Resident Non-resident Resident Non-resident
20 20
Percentage of total Class Count

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

Section Btrademarks
B.3.2 Goods and services classes by office was focused on the service sectors in these countries.
The offices of France and Germany received over 45%
In Figure B.1.3.4, the shares of goods and services of their applications for service classes; in the case of
classes specified in trademark applications worldwide BOIP and the office of Spain, services accounted for the
for 2011 were 66.7% and 33.3%, respectively. However, majority all filing activity.
these shares differed considerably across offices (Figure
B.3.2). The services classes shares of 40% and higher at Conversely, China (77.4%) had the highest percentage of
almost half of the offices listed reflect applicants’ demand applications falling into the goods classes, with the Asian
for protecting marks in the service industry in different offices of China Hong Kong (SAR), India and Viet Nam
markets. Between 40 and 44 percent of trademark filing also displaying higher goods class shares.
activity in Australia, Mexico, Turkey, the UK and the US
Figure B.3.2 Goods and services classes for selected offices, 2011
Goods classes Services classes

Distribution of goods and services classes
22.6 28.1 29.6 33.7 34.3 34.4 34.7 35.2 36.1 37.0 37.9 40.0 41.2 41.9 42.3 44.4 46.9 47.7 50.4 54.6
Share of services classes (%): 2011
100
75
50
25
0
ine
y
ca
da
ain
ina
AR
ea
IM
e
m
m
ico
ia
lux
n
ile
an
rke
nc
an
ali
tio
Ind
do
Na
eri
or
Ch
na
OH
gS
ex
ra
ne
Sp
Ch
rm
Fra
str
erl
ra
Tu
fK
ing
Am
Uk
Ca
Be
et
de
on
Au
Ge
itz
co
Vi
dK
Fe
gK
Sw
of
bli
ite
an
tes
on
pu
Un
ssi
ta
,H
Re
dS
Ru
ina
ite
Ch
Un
Office
114
Section btrademarks
B.4 Using equivalent application class counts, German ap-

plicants had the most filings worldwide.7 This was due
not only to their high filing activity at the German office
Trademark application class
and at many offices abroad, but also to their frequent
counts by origin use of OHIM – with its multiplying effect - in order to seek
trademark protection within the entire EU. These factors
B.4.1 Applications by origin
together yielded over 2.1 million equivalent class counts
Trademark application counts based on the applicant’s for applications of German origin filed around the world
origin complement the picture of global trademark ac- in 2011. For the same reasons that apply to the high filing
tivity worldwide. Trademark activity by origin includes volume of German origin, application class counts are
resident applications and applications abroad.6 The origin also high for other EU origins, as are their filings abroad.
of a trademark application is determined based on the
residency of the applicant. The numbers of applications German applicants were followed by applicants residing
abroad presented are likely to be lower than the actual in China and the US. In 2011, application class counts of
numbers, as some offices do not report detailed statistics Chinese origin (1.4 million) exceeded those from the US
pertaining to the origin of the applicant. (1.3 million), whereas the opposite was true in 2010. Figure
B.4.1.1 demonstrates that, for the majority of origins, a
Applications at regional offices are equivalent to multiple large share of application class counts can be attributed
applications in the states that are members of the organi- to filings abroad. However, residents of China, India, the
zations establishing these offices. This subsection reports Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and Turkey
figures based on an equivalent applications concept. For were relatively more active in seeking protection for their
example, to calculate the number of equivalent applica- trademarks in domestic markets.
tions for OHIM or BOIP, each application is multiplied
by the corresponding number of member states. Thus, Filing activity by applicants from China and Poland saw
an application filed with OHIM by an applicant residing the highest year-on-year increases with 30.1% and
outside of the EU is counted as 27 applications abroad. 20.6%, respectively. In the case of China, this growth
An application filed with OHIM by an applicant residing in was both in resident applications (31%) and those filed
an EU country is counted as 1 resident application and abroad (25%). For Poland, the increase in applications
26 applications abroad. filed abroad (24%) was the main contributor to growth.
Switzerland and Belgium, in turn, were the only origins
This subsection compares application volumes accord- listed that saw declines in filing in 2011.
ing to the top origins by using the equivalent number of
classes specified in applications. Using simple application
counts, Chinese applicants are often ranked number
one by origin due to high resident filing activity at their
national office. However, taking into account the number
of classes specified in applications and the existence of
regional offices, Figure B.4.1.1 shows a much different
ranking of the top origins.
6 See Glossary for definitions of resident

applications and applications abroad.
7 The sum of resident applications
and applications abroad
115
Section Btrademarks
Figure B.4.1.1 Equivalent trademark application class counts for the top 20 origins, 2011
Resident Abroad Resident Abroad

7.8 30.1 11.5 .. 10.6 2.1 3.3 -4.4 3.1 .. 2.8 20.6 10.1 3.7 .. 2.3 4.1 -1.0 7.5 4.9

214,538 208,796 208,100

201,885 194,697
1,441,246 187,540
172,663
1,315,727 155,666
1,032,782 141,215
976,971
776,789 735,238
407,529 396,361 345,722
en
da
y
rea
um
a
ia
ia
n
d
y
ain
ina
d
m
n*
e*
ly
ds
rke
ali
an
tio
lan
ric
an
str
Ind
Ita
do
ed
na
an
Ko
lgi
Sp
Ch
nc
str
pa
rm
ra
erl
Tu
Au
Po
ing
Sw
Ca
Am
erl
Be
Fra
de
Ja
Au
Ge
of
itz
th
dK
Fe
Sw
of
c
Ne
bli
ite
an
tes
pu
Un
ssi
ta
Re
Ru
dS
ite
Un
.
Origin Origin
Note: ‘..’ = not available; *Resident data are an estimate of direct application class counts.
To give an idea of the varying filing volumes by appli- members of the EU showed high proportions of filings
cants residing in middle- and low-income countries, the abroad, similar to their counterparts shown in Figure
selected origins in Figure B.4.1.2 show, for example, that B.4.1.1, which again can be attributed to their use of
applications filed in Mexico by its residents were of the OHIM and this office’s multiplying effect.
same magnitude as the total filing activity by Bulgarian
and Romanian applicants worldwide. Another example Most of these origins showed annual growth, with the
shows that total applications filed in 2011 by residents exception of Chile, Latvia, Malaysia and Panama. Their
of Lithuania and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) were declines from 2010 to 2011 can be explained by de-
almost the same; however, residents of Lithuania filed creases of 20% and higher in the numbers of applications
a much higher proportion of their applications abroad. their residents filed abroad.
Origins of the middle-income countries listed that are
Figure B.4.1.2 Equivalent trademark application class counts for selected middle- and low-income
country origins, 2011
Resident Abroad
Resident Abroad
.. -10.5 21.1 .. 19.1 .. -20.4 6.8 -27.9 3.0
8.6 4.2 29.0 21.2 -5.7 8.5 10.8 7.6 5.4 3.7
Growth rate (%): 2010-11 19,911 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
120,886 18,304
88,777 13,468
77,356 12,362 12,263 12,079
70,067
10,051 9,742 9,354
54,914 9,013
40,777 36,996
31,811 29,661
22,050
ine
a
ria
d
m
ico
nia
il *
ile
bia
r*
*
ia
ma
a
*
ia
ia
*
ric
an
of
Na
tvi
Ch
lga
an
ys
rb
ay
ex
ra
es
ru
ma
az
lom
Af
do
ail
na
lic
La
ala
Uk
Se
Pe
M
pin
gu
hu
Br
et
Bu
Th
Ro
ua
h
ub
Pa
Co
Vi
ut
ra
Lit
M
ilip
Ec
ep
So
Pa
Ph
nR
ria
a
o liv
(B
la
ue
ez
.
n
Ve
Origin
Origin
Note: *2010 data; Growth rate refers to 2009-2010; ‘..’ = not available
116
Section btrademarks
To establish a detailed picture of trademark flows across filed the smallest shares of their applications at their
countries, this subsection presents a breakdown of ap- respective domestic offices, suggesting that they file
plication count data by origin (source) and office (destina- abroad proportionally more often than applicants resid-
tion). Data are reported for a selection of offices based ing in larger countries with larger markets. Ten of the 15
on their application volumes, geographical location and offices listed received over 70% of all application class
data availability. Like for patents, when deciding where counts from domestic applicants.
to seek trademark protection, applicants consider such
factors as market size and geographical proximity. Application class counts of US origin accounted for the
largest proportion received by the offices of neighboring
Table B.4.1.3 shows class counts by selected origins Canada (22.6%) and Mexico (12.4%), percentages that
and offices, whereas Table B.4.1.4 presents the same varied only slightly from 2010. They also accounted for
flows expressed in percentage shares. The highest 8
over 10% of total class counts at the offices of Australia,
percentage in each column represents the share of all Singapore and South Africa. At the office of China,
application class counts received by a particular office Japanese and US residents accounted for the highest
from residents of the country it represents (if presented). percentages of non-resident filings, albeit their shares are
This figure varies from 17.8% for the Singaporean office quite low (1.6% and 2.1%, respectively). In about one-third
to approximately 88-90% for the offices of China and of the offices listed, German applicants accounted for the
Germany. Applicants from Singapore and Switzerland highest percentages of non-resident filings, with 3.2% in
the case of Poland and 16.7% in Switzerland.
Table B.4.1.3 Trademark application class counts by selected offices and origins, 2011
Office
Origin
CN US RU DE TR KR CA AU MX GB CH ES PL SG ZA
Australia 3,181 3,364 343 113 132 676 1,213 69,058 124 881 198 64 33 1,010 436
Brazil 494 581 42 15 40 62 123 62 344 32 27 21 2 52 49
Canada 1,630 9,776 338 37 136 323 73,192 780 445 319 180 4 4 127 143
China 1,273,827 3,732 2,464 1,652 1,192 2,385 1,790 1,838 620 1,204 1,002 1,016 730 1,702 607
France 8,461 6,539 4,340 1,694 2,362 2,859 3,574 2,191 1,338 1,391 5,960 1,897 882 1,994 870
Germany 11,312 9,487 8,070 181,118 6,001 3,586 4,011 3,469 1,837 1,458 14,237 1,159 1,564 2,344 1,369
India 581 749 174 17 46 27 256 130 182 129 35 - 1 211 146
Italy 6,930 4,462 3,720 519 2,274 1,944 1,560 1,623 792 380 3,037 472 314 1,252 316
Japan 22,962 5,278 1,923 457 868 7,246 2,168 2,247 1,093 458 1,250 230 105 3,464 668
Mexico 279 1,839 27 11 13 35 342 26 71,091 14 18 59 2 15 9
Poland 302 216 772 221 221 48 53 64 6 105 147 110 39,805 28 9
Republic of Korea 6,931 2,170 735 234 264 132,864 693 591 470 225 164 112 87 669 197
Russian
1,464 776 148,192 1,048 672 291 200 259 85 684 507 707 716 196 32
Federation
Singapore 2,305 602 341 51 249 543 231 711 92 149 276 10 10 6,504 87
South Africa 371 245 13 26 11 16 116 130 21 88 7 2 - 20 19,522
Spain 2,125 1,829 796 194 568 481 602 452 1,345 173 483 62,410 82 305 189
Switzerland 5,859 5,185 3,898 3,506 2,512 2,291 2,029 2,297 1,801 1,195 34,264 975 684 1,932 885
Turkey 734 665 1,513 767 152,261 201 99 229 37 608 358 467 424 127 61
United Kingdom 7,441 9,311 2,175 647 1,281 1,578 3,294 3,347 1,150 72,109 1,466 243 117 1,328 1,430
United States of
30,217 319,311 6,695 1,358 3,809 9,139 30,291 11,737 12,473 2,687 5,371 798 452 5,645 3,854
America
Others / Unknown 30,845 25,897 22,912 12,276 10,027 7,702 8,084 11,394 4,935 4,951 16,024 2,489 2,821 7,654 2,605
Total 1,418,251 412,014 209,483 205,961 184,939 174,297 133,921 112,635 100,281 89,240 85,011 73,245 48,835 36,579 33,484
Note: CN (China), US (United States of America), RU (Russian Federation), DE (Germany), TR (Turkey), KR (Republic of Korea), CA (Canada), AU (Australia),
MX (Mexico), GB (United Kingdom), CH (Switzerland), ES (Spain), PL (Poland), SG (Singapore), ZA (South Africa)
8 “Origin data” refers to simple application

count rather than equivalent application
count as presented in Figure B.4.1.1.
117
Section Btrademarks
Table B.4.1.4 Distribution of trademark application class counts by selected offices and origins, 2011 (%)
Office
Origin
CN US RU DE TR KR CA AU MX GB CH ES PL SG ZA
Australia 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.9 61.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.8 1.3
Brazil 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Canada 0.1 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 54.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4
China 89.8 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.6 1.4 1.3 1.6 0.6 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 4.7 1.8
France 0.6 1.6 2.1 0.8 1.3 1.6 2.7 1.9 1.3 1.6 7.0 2.6 1.8 5.5 2.6
Germany 0.8 2.3 3.9 87.9 3.2 2.1 3.0 3.1 1.8 1.6 16.7 1.6 3.2 6.4 4.1
India 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.6 0.4
Italy 0.5 1.1 1.8 0.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.4 3.6 0.6 0.6 3.4 0.9
Japan 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.5 4.2 1.6 2.0 1.1 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.2 9.5 2.0
Mexico 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 70.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Poland 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 81.5 0.1 0.0
Republic of Korea 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 76.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.8 0.6
Russian Federation 0.1 0.2 70.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.1
Singapore 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 17.8 0.3
South Africa 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 58.3
Spain 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.2 0.6 85.2 0.2 0.8 0.6
Switzerland 0.4 1.3 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.3 40.3 1.3 1.4 5.3 2.6
Turkey 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.4 82.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2
United Kingdom 0.5 2.3 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.9 2.5 3.0 1.1 80.8 1.7 0.3 0.2 3.6 4.3
United States of
2.1 77.5 3.2 0.7 2.1 5.2 22.6 10.4 12.4 3.0 6.3 1.1 0.9 15.4 11.5
America
Others / Unknown 2.2 6.3 10.9 6.0 5.4 4.4 6.0 10.1 4.9 5.5 18.8 3.4 5.8 20.9 7.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note: See note for Table B.4.1.3.
B.5 Germany, the UK, the US and, in particular, Switzerland

showed significant proportions of class counts abroad
across all sectors, indicating relatively stronger demand
Nice classes specified in for protection outside of their countries. This differed from
trademark applications by origin the origins of China, Poland, the Republic of Korea, the
Russian Federation and Ukraine, for which class counts
B.5.1 Industry sectors by origin
were largely domestic.
Like B.3.1, this subsection analyzes class data by group-
ing the classes into different industry sectors or class For filings abroad, the Clothing and Research &
groups (see Annex B for full definitions). However, it breaks Technology groups accounted for the largest shares
the application data down by origin rather than office. of class counts for applicants in China. For applicants
The resulting indicators show trademark filing activity in in Switzerland, the clothing sector also dominated, but
various sectors by origin, including shares for resident the largest share of applications filed abroad was in the
applications and for filings abroad. health sector. In contrast, the agricultural sector was the
largest for Russian and Ukrainian applicants.
Applications of UK and US origin exhibited similar distribu-
tions across sectors, with a particular emphasis on trade-
mark applications in the fields of Research & Technology
and Leisure & Education (Figure B.5.1). Applications of
Czech and German origin also had significant proportions
of their application class counts in these two sectors.
118
Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
Ag Ag Ag Ag
ric ric ric ric
ult ult ult u ltu
ur ur ur
e e e re
Bu Bu Bu Bu
sin sin sin s ine
es es es
s s s ss
Ch Ch Ch Ch
em em em em
ica ica ica ica
ls ls ls ls
Cl Cl Cl Cl
ot ot ot ot
hin hin hin hin
Co g Co g Co g Co g
ns ns ns ns
tru tru tru tru
c
Resident
cti
Resident
Resident
Resident
cti cti tio
on on on n
Ho Ho Ho Ho
us us us us
e He e He
a eh He eh He
ho a lth
ho
ld lth alt alt
ld old h old h
Class group
Class group
Class group
Class group
eq eq eq eq
China - Origin
Le uip Le uip Le uip Le uip
Germany - Origin
isu m isu
re m isu m isu m
re en en re en re en
Re & t Re & t Re & t Re & t
Russian Federation - Origin

se Ed se
ar
Ed
uc se Ed s ea Ed
ar uc ar uc uc
United States of America - Origin
ch at ch at ch at rch at
& & i o & &
Non-resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Te
ion
Te n Te
ion
Te
ion
ch ch ch ch
no no no no
Tr log Tr log Tr log Tr log
an y an y an y an y
s po sp sp sp
r or or or
ta ta ta ta
tio tio tio tio
n n n n
Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count Percentage of total Class Count
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
Ag Ag Ag Ag
ric ric ric ric
ult ult ult u
u re ure ur ltu
e re
Bu Bu Bu Bu
sin sin sin sin
e ss e ss es es
s s
Ch Ch Ch Ch
e m em em em
ica ica ica ica
ls ls ls ls
Cl Cl Cl Cl
ot ot ot ot
hin hin hin hin
Co g Co g Co g Co g
ns ns ns ns
tr uc tru tru tru
Resident
cti
Resident
Resident
Resident
ti on on
cti
on
cti
on
Ho Ho Ho Ho
u se He u se He us He us He
h alt h alt eh alt eh alt
old h
old h old h old h
Figure B.5.1 Nice classes grouped in industry sectors for selected origins, 2011
Class group
Class group
Class group
Class group
eq eq eq eq
Le Le uip Le Le
Ukraine - Origin
uip uip uip
isu m isu m isu m is m
Switzerland - Origin
re en re en re en ur en
& t & t & t e& t
United Kingdom - Origin
Re Re Re Re
Republic of Korea - Origin
se Ed se Ed se Ed se Ed
ar uc a rch uc ar uc ar uc
ch at at ch at ch at
& & & &
Non-resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
Non-resident
ion ion ion ion

Te Te Te Te
ch ch ch ch
no no no nolo
Tr log Tr log Tr log Tr
an y an y an y an gy
sp sp sp sp
or or or or
ta ta ta ta
tio tio tio tio
n n n n
119
Section btrademarks
Section Btrademarks
Poland - Origin
Czech Republic - Origin
Resident Non-resident
Resident Non-resident
20

15
15
10
10
5 5
0 0
on
g
ls
s
ion
h
y
t
n
e
en
on
ng
ls
ss
n
h
gy
es
n
log
re
hin
ur
alt
tio
ica
en
tio
alt
tio
ica
c ti
e
ltu
sin
lo
ipm
ult
cti
hi
He
ca
ta
sin
pm
no
em
ot
He
ca
ta
tru
no
em
ot
u
tru
ric
Bu
or
du
Cl
ch
ric
Bu
or
u
u
Cl
ui
Ch
ch
ns
sp
Ch
Ed
eq
Ag
ns
E
sp
eq
Ag
Te
Te
Co
an
Co
&
an
&
ld
&
&
Tr
re
o
ol
Tr
re
ch
eh
isu
ch
eh
isu
ar
us
ar
us
Le
Le
se
se
Ho
Ho
Re
Re
Note: Class groups are those defined by Edital® 2011. For a definition of the class groups, see Annex B for a complete list of the Nice Classification.
Agriculture = Agricultural products and services; Business = Management, Communications, Real estate and Financial services; Chemicals = Chemicals;
Clothing = Textiles - Clothing and Accessories; Construction = Construction, Infrastructure; Health = Pharmaceuticals, Health, Cosmetics; Household
equipment = Household equipment; Leisure & Education = Leisure, Education, Training; Research & Technology = Scientific research, Information and
Communication technology; Transportation = Transportation and Logistics
Figure B.5.2 Nice goods and services classes for selected origins, 2011
Goods classes Services classes
Distribution of goods and services classes
19.8 20.6 22.2 28.9 29.6 31.7 35.9 36.6 38.1 38.5 39.3 39.3 39.4 40.4 41.3 43.7 44.1 49.2 49.7 50.1
Share of services classes (%): 2011
100
75
50
25
0
y
ica
da
ain
n
ina
IM
ea
ey
m
a
ly
ico
ia
ds
n
ile
d
an
nc
pa
lan
ali
tio
lan
Ita
Ind
do
rk
lan
or
Ch
na
OH
er
ex
Ch
Sp
rm
Fra
str
Ja
ra
Tu
er
fK
ng
Po
Am
Ca
M
er
de
Ge
Au
itz
Ki
co
th
Fe
Sw
of
Ne
d
bli
ite
ian
es
pu
Un
at
ss
Re
St
Ru
d
ite
Un
Origin
B.5.2 Goods and services classes by origin

B.6
As discussed earlier, two-thirds of all trademark ap-
International trademark
plications worldwide were goods-related, and one-third
registrations and renewals
services-related. Like for offices, these shares differed
through the Madrid System
considerably across origins (Figure B.5.2). Of the origins
listed, about four-fifths of the applications from China, Italy In order to obtain trademark protection in multiple offices,
and Japan fell within the 34 goods classes of the NCL. an applicant can either file directly at each individual of-
Most of the origins listed had a service class share of over fice or file an application for an international registration
30%, with applicants from the Netherlands, Mexico and through the Madrid system. In 2011, this system made
Spain having shares of around 50%. it possible to seek trademark protection in up to 87
countries by filing a single application.
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.
An international registration under this system produces
the same effects as an application for registration of the
120
Section btrademarks
mark in each of the Madrid members designated by the The number of international registrations issued through
applicant. If the office of a designated member does not the Madrid system grew each year from 2004 to 2008.
refuse protection, the status of the mark is the same as The exceptionally high growth in 2005, when international
if it had been registered by that office. Thereafter, the registrations increased by 41.9%, reflects the entry of the
international registration can be maintained and renewed US and the EU into the Madrid system. For the EU, this
through a single procedure. made it possible for applicants of its member states to
apply for international registrations via the regional office
B.6.1 Madrid registrations and renewals OHIM. Figure B.6.1.1 also illustrates the fact that interna-
tional trademark registrations are sensitive to business
Figures B.6.1.1 and B.6.1.2 depict the trend in international cycles, with registrations dropping during or immediately
trademark registrations and renewals from 2001 to 2011. following economic downturns.
For registrations, 2011 saw a continuation of the growth in
2010 after a decline in 2009, which followed the onset of After falling in 2002, renewals of Madrid international
the economic downturn. Madrid registrations increased registrations followed an upward trend until 2008, and
by 8.5% in 2011 with a total of 40,711, almost returning decreased slightly in both 2009 and 2011. The high
to the pre-crisis high reached in 2008. growth in renewals seen in 2006 was due to the renewal
period being changed from 20 years to 10 years in 1996.
Figure B.6.1.1 Trend in Madrid registrations

50,000
40,000
Registrations
30,000
20,000
-7.3 -1.7 -12.3

4.4 7.0 41.9 12.2 3.3 6.5 4.5 8.5
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Registration year
Figure B.6.1.2 Trend in Madrid renewals

Renewals Growth rate (%)
30,000
20,000
10,000
Renewals
-7.4 -1.2 -0.9

. 10.2 10.7 2.1 102.8 14.9 11.4 14.1
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Renewal year
121
Section Btrademarks
Following the small drop in 2009, trademark renewals fewer classes were specified in 95 percent of the over
grew by 14% to about 22,000 in 2010, but fell by about 40,000 international registrations, and 13 or more classes
200 or 0.9% in 2011. were specified in only one percent of total registrations.
When an international registration is issued, the applicant
B.6.2 Number of classes and can choose to designate any of the Madrid member
designations per Madrid registration countries or jurisdictions in which to seek trademark pro-
tection. Figure B.6.2.2 depicts the number of designations
The Madrid system is a multi-class filing system that made per international registration. In 2011, an average
enables applicants to specify one or more classes in of almost seven Madrid members were designated per
each international trademark application. An average of international registration. The majority (56%) of holders
2.6 classes were specified in all international registrations of these registrations chose to designate between one
in 2011. Figure B.6.2.1 shows that, although it is a multi- and four Madrid members, and 90% designated up to 15
class system, a high percentage (43.6%) of all international Madrid members in each registration. Only one percent
registrations specified only one class; 16.9% specified of international registrations filed in 2011 designated more
two classes; and 21.4% a total of three classes. Six or than 50 of the over 80 Madrid members.
Figure B.6.2.1 Distribution of the number of classes per Madrid registration, 2011
100 43.6 16.9 21.4 6.8 3.9 5.8 1.6
17,746 Share of total registrations (%)

90
Share of total registrations (%)
80
Registrations
70
8,706
60
6,887
50
2,764 2,349
1,594
40 665
1 3 5 7 10 20 30 40 45
Number of classes per registration 1 2 3 4 5 6 to 10 11 to 45

Number of classes per registration
Figure B.6.2.2 Distribution of the number of designations per Madrid registration, 2011
100 63.6 19.8 10.3 3.0 2.1 1.1
90 25,902 Share of total registrations (%)
Share of total registrations (%)
80
70
Registrations
60
50
40
8,071
30
4,191
20
1,239 861 447
1 3 5 7 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Number of designations per registration 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 50 51 to 85

Number of designations per registration
122
Section btrademarks
B.6.3 Registrations and renewals 10 designated Madrid members in terms of renewals

by designated Madrid member mostly comprised European countries that have had
historically higher registration levels, such as Austria,
Figure B.6.3.1 shows the number of international registra- France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland (Figure B.6.3.2).
tions by designated Madrid member – that is, the office OHIM and the US are not included in this list, since they
at which the owner of the international registration seeks are recent members of the Madrid system, and many
trademark protection. China received the largest number international registrations in effect at their offices do not
of designations (20,169), followed by OHIM, the US and yet require renewal after the initial registration period of
the Russian Federation, with between 16,800 and 18,000 10 years. Most of the designated Madrid members listed
designations each. Over half of the top 20 designated saw declines in renewals in 2011 compared to 2010,
Madrid members saw annual growth of over 20 percent, China and Poland being the notable exceptions with
with only Germany showing a slight decrease. The top growth rates of 9% and 17.3%, respectively.
Figure B.6.3.1 Registrations for the top 20 designated Madrid members, 2011
24.9 20.6 20.3 18.2 17.9 18.2 22.0 26.6 21.2 15.1 22.4 27.2 17.3 5.3 26.7 51.7 10.2 -0.5 21.6 3.8
17,618 17,152 8,197
16,843
Madrid designations
Madrid designations
14,705
13,152 6,252
5,822
5,507 5,472 5,328 5,232
11,254 10,557
9,950 4,793
9,536 4,470
ine
t
ca
ina
IM
ea
re
e
us
a
n
tia
ia
n
ay
yp
an
rke
nc
an
pa
ali
sta
tio
rb
po
Na
eri
lar
rw
or
oa
OH
ra
Eg
Ch
rm
Fra
str
erl
Ja
Se
ra
Tu
kh
fK
ga
Am
Be
No
Uk
Cr
et
de
Au
Ge
itz
za
Sin
co
Vi
Fe
Sw
of
Ka
bli
an
tes
pu
ssi
ta
Re
dS
Ru
ite
Un
Madrid member Madrid member
Figure B.6.3.2 Renewals for the top 20 designated Madrid members, 2011
-3.6 -6.5 -5.7 -5.9 -5.2 -12.5 -4.8 -7.1 -8.2 3.1 0.8 -3.7 -2.1 -1.6 17.3 -3.5 9.0 -4.6 -1.4 -0.6
11,125 10,817
10,406 6,152
9,849 5,817 5,744 5,719
9,244 8,976 5,385 5,259 5,106
Madrid renewals
Madrid renewals
4,977 4,973
7,713 7,379 7,254
ina
ia
kia
o
in
ia
ny
ia
ia
ain
ia
nd
d
l
ly
x
n
ga
bli
ar
elu
ac
nc
lan
tio
rb
Ita
t
an
str
ste
en
a
oa
rla
va
Ch
Sp
rtu
ng
on
rm
Fra
Se
era
n
v
m
Au
Po
ep
ten
Cr
e
Slo
Slo
Be
Hu
Po
M
Ge
Ro
itz
hR
ed
ch
Sw
nF
Lie
ec
Cz
a
ssi
Ru
Madrid member Madrid member
123
Section Btrademarks
B.6.4 Registrations and renewals by origin International registrations originating in the Republic of
Korea and Ukraine showed high year-on-year increases
The top 10 origins of international registrations in 2011, of over 40%, but their numbers of Madrid registrations
shown in Figure B.6.4.1, remained the same as in the pre- remained relatively small (350 to 450).
vious year; however, with a somewhat different ranking.
OHIM’s 27.5% growth with over 5,500 registrations led The rankings of origins in terms of international trademark
it to overtake Germany (approximately 5,000 registra- renewals through the Madrid system differed from those
tions) to become the highest ranking origin, and China for registrations. As Figure B.6.4.2 demonstrates, Germany
surpassed BOIP to take seventh position. The US con- and France had the largest numbers of renewals with 5,643
tinued to be the third largest user of the Madrid system and 4,336, respectively. The low number of renewals for
with 19.4% growth in 2011. the US reflects its recent entry into the Madrid system.
Figure B.6.4.1 Registrations for the top 20 origins, 2011

27.5 8.7 19.4 1.4 -5.3 0.3 12.8 -0.7 11.3 14.5 2.9 -0.3 15.9 -11.6 -3.5 42.0 -5.9 42.4 10.9 -0.3
4,943
4,652 958
912
Madrid registrations
Madrid registrations
3,785 799
2,928
558
2,333
2,053 1,902 433
1,582 364 356 355
1,328 310
y
ca
IM
ina
n
e
ly
lux
ine
ia
ay
an
ain
m
ea
a
d
nc
an
pa
tio
Ita
rke
ar
eri
ali
lan
OH
str
do
ne
Ch
rw
or
rm
Fra
erl
Ja
ra
ra
Sp
nm
str
Am
Tu
Au
ing
fK
Be
Po
No
Uk
de
Ge
itz
Au
De
co
Fe
dK
Sw
of
bli
an
tes
ite
pu
ssi
ta
Un
Re
dS
Ru
ite
Un
Origin Origin
Figure B.6.4.2 Renewals for the top 20 origins, 2011
-10.1 -3.3 9.0 0.2 4.1 2.8 1.2 -20.6 126.0 55.8 -17.1 46.8 -18.3 27.5 27.4 31.8 0.0 -0.9 -17.3 14.4
204
196 195
4,336
Madrid renewals
Madrid renewals
144 141
118
110 105 103
2,543 2,476
2,117
816 790
308 217 215
ia
nd
ain
ina
y
m
ly
lux
en
a
n
lic
y
l
k
n
d
an
ar
nc
ga
Ita
str
rke
do
ric
ar
pa
lan
tio
lan
rla
ub
ne
Sp
Ch
ng
ed
Fra
rm
rtu
nm
Au
me
ing
Ja
ra
Tu
e
Fin
Po
Be
p
Hu
Sw
Ge
itz
Po
Re
de
De
A
dK
Sw
Fe
of
h
ite
ec
an
tes
Un
Cz
ssi
Sta
Ru
d
ite
Un
.
Origin Origin
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 9 Normally, the US should not show any renewals until
2013 – 10 years after it became a Madrid member.
However, renewals are recorded by the contracting
party of the holder, not by the office of origin of the
international registration. Thus if a holder of an existing
registration transfers it to a holder with US entitlement,
it will appear in renewal statistics for the US.
124
Section btrademarks
B.6.5 Madrid applicants Pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim was

the top German filer with 98 applications, placing third
Table B.6.5 presents the top 50 Madrid system appli- overall. Hungary’s Richeter Gedeon Nyrt., another phar-
cants – ranked 1 to 30, as some filed identical numbers maceutical company, occupied the fourth spot with its
of applications. Pharmaceutical company Novartis AG, 89 international applications.
in Switzerland, was the largest applicant in 2011 with 125
applications, followed by tobacco company Phillip Morris, Nineteen of these top applicants were from Germany,
also in Switzerland, with 110 applications. whereas Switzerland and the US had seven applicants
each, and five were domiciled in France.
Table B.6.5 Top Madrid applicants
Madrid International Applications

2011 Rank Applicant’s Name Origin
2009 2010 2011
1 NOVARTIS AG Switzerland 136 118 125
2 PHILIP MORRIS BRANDS S.A.R.L. Switzerland 47 137 110
3 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO. Germany 52 112 98
4 RICHTER GEDEON NYRT. Hungary 70 8 89
5 SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ S.A. Switzerland 51 68 80
6 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. Netherlands 38 76 92
7 BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG (BMW) Germany - 42 75
8 BSH BOSCH UND SIEMENS HAUSGERÄTE GMBH Germany 64 65 74
9 JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA NV Belgium 61 66 68
10 L’OREAL France 67 43 67
11 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH EUROPE SA Switzerland .. 22 59
12 EGIS GYÓGYSZERGYÁR Hungary 64 53 57
13 SIEMENS AG Germany 44 36 52
14 GLAXO GROUP LIMITED United Kingdom 53 60 51
15 APPLE INC. United States of America 13 49 50
16 TEMASEK HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED Singapore - 5 48
16 KABUSHIKI KAISHA HBG Japan - - 48
16 BAYER AG Germany 54 23 48
17 SANOFI France 69 18 47
18 HENKEL AG & CO. KGAA Germany 98 78 46
19 AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. United States of America - - 44
20 BAKOMA SP. Z O.O. Poland - - 40
21 GTRC SERVICES, INC. United States of America - - 38
22 ROYAL WINE CORP. United States of America - - 34
22 RENAULT S.A.S. France 17 11 34
22 OSRAM GMBH Germany 19 31 34
22 DAIMLER AG Germany 21 31 34
23 U.O. MERCHANDISE, INC. United States of America - - 33
24 COTY GERMANY GMBH Germany 11 19 32
24 DERMAPHARM AG Germany 19 11 32
24 INTENSO GMBH Germany - 21 32
25 INTERSNACK GROUP GMBH & CO. KG Germany - 20 31
25 MIBE GMBH ARZNEIMITTEL Germany 26 39 31
25 HÄFELE GMBH & CO KG Germany 8 18 31
26 VELINOR AG Switzerland - 20 30
27 ZENTIVA, K.S. Czech Republic 23 36 29
28 BARILLA G. E R. FRATELLI SPA Italy 7 - 28
28 LIDL STIFTUNG & CO. KG Germany 109 31 28
28 BASF SE Germany 30 39 28
28 SYNGENTA PARTICIPATIONS AG Switzerland 39 62 28
29 SAINT-GOBAIN ISOVER “LES MIROIRS” France 22 7 27
29 VOLKSWAGEN AG Germany 10 14 27
30 MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. United States of America - - 26
30 CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC. United States of America - 12 26
30 KRKA, TOVARNA ZDRAVIL, D.D., NOVO MESTO Slovenia - 80 26
30 LG INNOTEK CO., LTD. Republic of Korea - - 26
30 ITM ENTREPRISES SOCIÉTÉ PAR ACTIONS SIMPLIFIÉE France 38 32 26
30 MERCK KGAA Germany - - 26
30 SCHNEIDER VERSAND GMBH Germany - - 26
30 ABBOTT PRODUCTS OPERATIONS AG Switzerland - - 26

125
Section Btrademarks
B.6.6 Non-resident applications by filing route resulted in about a one percentage point increase (from
46.6% to 47.5%) in their share of total non-resident
As pointed out before, non-resident trademark applica- applications received by IP offices worldwide (Figure
tions can be filed directly at national and regional IP offices B.6.6.1). For all years listed, applications received in the
(Paris route) or through the Madrid system. An application form of Madrid designations represented around half
received by an office in the form of a designation via the off all non-resident applications filed globally. As not all
Madrid system has the same effect as one received by an offices are members of the Madrid system, this figure
office directly from an applicant. Total non-resident filing is higher when comparing only Madrid members. In
activity in terms of application class counts increased by 2011, 64% of all non-resident applications received by
10.5% from 2010 to 2011. When broken down by direct Madrid system member offices arrived in the form of a
and Madrid system routes, growth was 8.8% and 12.6%, Madrid designation.
respectively. The larger growth in Madrid designations
Figure B.6.6.1 Non-resident applications by direct and Madrid system routes

Madrid designations Direct applications
51.0 53.1 51.4 53.9 54.8 52.2 46.6 47.5

Madrid share (%)
100
direct applications/Madrid designations
Distribution of Non-Resident
75
50
25
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Figure B.6.6.2 Non-resident applications by filing route for selected Madrid members, 2011
Direct Non-Resident Madrid Non-Resident Direct Non-Resident Madrid Non-Resident

33.6 43.8 23.7 64.9 78.0 60.8 55.0 56.3 76.6 73.0 59.3 46.4 59.7 48.1 90.5 53.5 90.0 56.8 67.7 76.7
144,424 Madrid share (%): 2011 30,075 Madrid share (%): 2011
24,843
21,420
92,703 19,643
17,294 17,131
16,026 15,711
69,576
61,291 13,442 13,433
50,747 47,060
43,573 41,433
32,678 31,726
ine
a
ina
IM
rea
y
a
n
y
e
l
m
ia
lux
ia
*
*
ae
rke
ric
ali
an
tio
n*
or
e*
rb
do
Na
co
rla
OH
oa
ra
Ch
Ko
ne
Isr
ap
me
str
rm
era
Tu
Se
pa
oc
g
nc
Uk
e
Cr
Be
et
g
Kin
Au
itz
Ge
of
A
or
ed
Ja
Fra
Sin
Vi
Sw
of
M
lic
nF
ed
ub
tes
it
a
Un
p
ssi
Sta
Re
Ru
d
ite
Un
Office Office
Note: *2010 data; Growth rate refers to 2009-2010. **Non-Resident applications are an estimate of direct application class count.
126
Section btrademarks
Figure B.6.6.2 presents the share of Madrid designations class count relative to domestic GDP or population level.
in total non-resident application class counts for selected Figures B.7.1 and B.7.2 present the resulting trademark
Madrid members. The share of non-resident application activity intensity indicators for selected countries.
class counts resulting from designations via the Madrid
system varies across offices. In 2011, 15 of the top 20 When resident trademark applications are corrected
offices shown received more than half of their trademark for by equivalent class counts and adjusted by GDP,
filing activity from abroad through designations via the countries with lower numbers of resident applications
Madrid system, with some offices receiving upwards of (e.g., Madagascar and Uruguay) can rank higher than
70 to 90 percent. some countries that otherwise show higher numbers
of resident applications (e.g., Germany and the US).
The top four offices in terms of non-resident application Of these selected origins, Turkey, with 154, followed
class counts – China, the US, OHIM and the Russian by Viet Nam, China and Switzerland (between 114 and
Federation – received between 24% and 65% of their 154), exhibited among the highest resident application
non-resident applications via Madrid designations. class count-to-GDP ratios in 2011. For all other reported
origins, the resident application class count-to-GDP ratio
varied from 23 in Singapore to 103 in Madagascar, with
B.7 the world average at 69 - up from 58 in 2006. In fact,

the majority of the selected origins for which resident
application class count data exist for 2006 and 2011, had
Trademark application class higher ratios in 2011 than in 2006, the Russian Federation
count per GDP and population exhibiting the largest increase of 20. A notable exception
Differences in trademark activity across economies re- is the Republic of Korea, with a ratio that decreased by
flect, to a large extent, their size and level of development. 21 between 2006 and 2011.
For purposes of cross-country comparison, it is instruc-
tive to measure resident trademark activity by application
Figure B.7.1 Resident trademark application class count per GDP for selected origins, 2011
.. .. 111 101 107 118 .. 93 83 .. 51 58 67 67 .. 33 40 47 23 ..

Resident application class count
154
Resident application class count per GDP: 2006
per GDP (2005 PPP $)
131 128
114
103
97
91 88 88
80
71 69 69 66
59
48
41 40
24 23
y
r
a
da
ca
ina
ain
y
ea
re
y
m
ico
ld
ion
bia
ca
an
rke
ua
c
an
ali
lan
lan
Na
or
po
fri
eri
or
na
ex
as
Ch
Sp
lom
t
rm
ug
str
erl
W
ra
Tu
hA
Fin
fK
Po
ga
Am
Ca
ag
M
et
de
Ur
Au
Ge
itz
Co
Sin
co
Vi
ad
ut
Fe
Sw
of
So
bli
M
an
tes
pu
ssi
Sta
Re
Ru
ed
it
Un
Origin
Note: ‘..’ = not available; GDP data are in constant 2005 purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars. This graph does not provide an overall ranking of all origins, but
a selection across geographical regions and income groups.
127
Section Btrademarks
Turning to the resident trademark applications per popu- In 2011, the world average was 800 application class
lation indicator, a somewhat different picture emerges. counts per million population compared to just 523 in
With a population of 7.9 million, in 2011 the IP office 2006. Similar to the resident application class count-to-
of Switzerland reported 34,364 resident application GDP ratio, the class count per million population ratios
class counts. Increasing by 630 over 2006 levels, the for two-thirds of the origins - for which 2006 and 2011
resulting 4,333 resident application class counts per data are available - showed increases over this period.
million population made Switzerland one of the most For instance, China’s ratio increased from 511 applica-
intensive trademark filers according to this alternative tions filed per one million residents in 2006 to 948 in 2011
indicator. New Zealand and Germany ranked high in (an increase of 437). This was followed by increases for
terms of resident application class counts per million the Russian Federation (+390) and Germany (+344). In
population with 3,329 and 3,020, respectively. Among contrast, the ratios for the Republic of Korea and Ukraine
these 20 selected origins, Canada and Turkey had fell by 155 and 308, respectively.
nearly equal numbers of application class counts per
million population, as was also the case for Singapore,
Uruguay and Poland.
Figure B.7.2 Resident trademark application class counts per million population for
selected origins, 2011
3,703 3,678 2,676 2,824 .. .. .. .. .. 987 654 973 511 523 932 419 419 315 95 33
Resident application class count
4,333
Resident application class count per million population: 2006
per million population
3,329
3,020
2,669
2,123 2,068
1,430
1,255 1,217 1,202
1,044 1,025 948
800
624 619
386 337
88 53
ine
y
r
a
ica
nd
ina
a
ey
re
ay
d
ico
nd
ca
ld
ba
ion
nd
ca
an
ric
d
e
an
or
po
rk
u
Ri
or
na
rla
Cu
ala
la
er
ra
ex
as
Ch
at
m
Af
ug
ail
W
Tu
fK
ga
Po
Am
sta
Uk
Ca
e
ag
M
r
r
Ze
de
Ge
Ur
Th
itz
h
Sin
o
ad
ut
Co
Fe
Sw
of
lic
So
M
Ne
es
pu
sia
at
Re
St
Ru
d
ite
Un
Origin
Note: ‘..’ = not available; This graph does not provide an overall ranking of all origins, but a selection across geographical regions and income groups.
128
Section btrademarks
B.8 Figure B.8.2 depicts, for a total of 54 offices, the distribu-

tion of the approximately 12.4 million trademarks that were
in force in 2011 according to the year in which they were
Trademarks in force
originally registered. Data for several larger offices, such
This section presents statistics on trademarks in force, as Brazil, China, France and Japan, are not included in
focusing on their breakdown by office, one-year growth this graph, as their trademarks in force statistics are not
(where available) and distribution by year of registration. broken down by year of registration.
Due to data limitations and different reporting practices, it This sample of offices shows that about 24% of trademarks
is not possible to estimate the total number of trademarks registered in 1980 were still in force in 2011. These registra-
in force worldwide. However, there were a combined total tions, which have been valid for over 30 years, reflect the
of 22.9 million trademarks in force in 2011 for a sample enduring value of certain marks. For trademarks registered
of 70 IP offices for which these statistics are available. in the 1990s, the percentage jumps to over 40%.
Figure B.8.1 presents the breakdown by offices that issue Of these 12.4 million registrations in force, about a quarter
trademark registrations. Of the reported offices, China of them have a recent registration year of between 2009
accounted for the largest number of trademarks in force and 2011.
(5.5 million) in 2011 – a nearly 20% increase on 2010 –
followed by almost equivalent numbers at the JPO (1.76
million) and the USPTO (1.74 million). Most of the offices
shown in this figure saw growth in 2011, with trademarks
in force at OHIM growing the most (24.2%). The exceptions
were India, Italy and Spain, each of which saw declines.
Figure B.8.1 Trademarks in force for selected offices, 2011
19.7 0.5 12.4 -0.2 -0.3 .. 6.6 24.2 4.1 15.7 0.0 6.7 3.7 .. 8.1 -6.8 4.1 3.8 9.5 ..
476,726 476,687 461,713

423,940
Marks in force
Marks in force
361,305
322,954 309,445
287,052 276,186
1,761,363
1,735,204
885,057 881,211 780,950 768,019 757,021 721,928

688,356
y
ca
ina
ain
IM
n
ea
ico
ia
us
an
pa
ica
da
AR
y
re
l
a
lux
ly
n
Ind
ga
eri
pr
or
rke
OH
ali
ex
tio
Ch
Sp
Ita
rm
po
Ja
na
Cy
r
fK
gS
ne
Am
rtu
M
f
str
era
Tu
hA
Ge
ga
Ca
Be
co
Po
on
Au
Sin
of
ed
ut
bli
gK
nF
tes
So
pu
on
Sta
a
Re
ssi
,H
ed
Ru
ina
it
Un
Ch
.
Office
Office
Note: ‘..’ = not available; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market; Data refer to the number of registrations in force and are not equivalent to the
number of classes specified in these registrations.
129
Section Btrademarks
Figure B.8.2 Trademarks in force in 2011 as a percentage of total registrations
95.1 93.5
90.2
88.4
84.8
81.3
78.7
76.3 75.6
74.5
Percentage of registrations
56.6
50.0
47.4
41.6 40.7 41.3 42.0
39.5 38.8 40.1 40.6 39.0
34.9
30.7 31.4
28.0 29.1 29.6
26.8 26.0
23.8 24.5
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, China, France and Japan) that provide a breakdown
of trademarks in force by year of registration.
130
Section c industrial designs
section c
industrial designs
This section provides an overview of industrial design The procedures for registering industrial designs are
activity using a range of indicators and covering the fol- governed by national or regional laws. An industrial de-
lowing areas: a) industrial design applications, b) industrial sign can be protected if it is new or original, and rights
design registrations, c) industrial design applications by are limited to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority.
class, d) international registrations of industrial designs Industrial design registrations can be obtained by filing
through the WIPO-administered Hague System for the an application with a relevant national or regional IP
International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague office, or by filing an international application through the
system) and e) industrial designs in force. It first gives Hague system. Once a design is registered, the term of
statistics for applications and registrations, followed by protection is generally five years, and may be renewed
statistics on design counts taking into consideration for additional periods of five years up to, in most cases,
institutional differences across intellectual property (IP) 15 years. In a significant number of countries, industrial
offices. In particular, some offices allow applications to designs are protected through the delivery of a design
contain more than one design for the same product or patent rather than a design registration. For the sake of
within the same class, while other offices allow only one simplicity, this section refers to design applications and
design per application. registrations, with "registration" covering, where appli-
cable, design patents.
Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of industrial
products and handicrafts.1 They refer to the ornamental or The Hague system consists of several international trea-
aesthetic aspects of a useful article, including composi- ties – the London Act, the Hague Act and the Geneva
tions of lines or colors or three-dimensional forms that Act.2 The Hague system makes it possible for an applicant
give a special appearance to a product or handicraft. The to register industrial designs in multiple countries by filing
holder of a registered industrial design has exclusive rights a single application with the International Bureau of WIPO.
over the design and can prevent unauthorized copying By allowing the filing of up to 100 different designs per
or imitation of the design by third parties. application, the system offers significant opportunities
for efficiency gains. Moreover, it simplifies the process
of multinational registration by reducing the requirement
to file separate applications with each IP office at which
protection is sought. The system also streamlines the
subsequent management of the industrial design regis-
tration, since it is possible to record changes or to renew
the registration through a single procedural step. For
further details about the Hague system, refer to: www.
wipo.int/hague/en/.
1 From technical and medical instruments to watches,
jewelry and other luxury items; house wares and
electrical appliances to vehicles and construction
elements; textile designs to leisure goods
2 The London Act has been frozen since January 2010.
131
C.1 Figure C.1.1.2 provides a breakdown of industrial design

applications worldwide by residency of the applicant.
A resident application is defined as an application filed
Industrial design applications and at an IP office by an applicant residing in the country
registrations worldwide in which that office has jurisdiction.6 For example, an
Data reported in this subsection refer to numbers of application filed at the office of Switzerland by a resident
applications and registrations (i.e., application/registra- of Switzerland is considered a resident application for
tion counts), but they do not take into consideration that office. Similarly, a resident registration is an indus-
the number of designs contained in an application or trial design registration based on a resident application.
registration (design counts). Subsections C.2 and C.3 A non-resident application is defined as an application
report design count data. filed at an office of a given country or jurisdiction by an
applicant residing in another country. For example, an
C.1.1 Applications worldwide application filed with the office of Australia by an applicant
residing in Canada is considered a non-resident applica-
Figure C.1.1.1 depicts the total number of industrial design tion for the Australian IP office. Similarly, a non-resident
applications filed worldwide from 2001 to 2011. World 3
registration is an industrial design registration based on
totals are WIPO estimates covering around 133 offices, a non-resident application. An application at a regional
and include both direct national and regional applications office is considered a resident application if the applicant
and designations received via international registrations is a resident of one of that office’s member states, and a
through the Hague system. 4
non-resident application if the applicant does not reside
in one of its member states.7
The long-term trend shows continuous growth in in-
dustrial design applications over the past decade. The The 775,700 applications filed in 2011 consisted of
number of applications increased from around 290,800 691,200 resident and 84,500 non-resident applications.
in 2000 to 775,700 in 2011. After a slowdown in growth Compared to 2010, the number of resident applications
in 2008 and 2009, applications rebounded strongly in grew by almost 100,000 in 2011 (+16%), while non-
2010 (+13.9%) and 2011 (+16%). This was mostly due to resident applications grew by a more modest 7,900
strong growth in applications in China – accounting for (+10.3%). Residents of China accounted for nearly all the
90% of all growth from 2009 to 2011. The contribution growth in resident applications worldwide.
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 2.8% in 2011. Unlike other forms of IP, the
recent economic downturn did not lead to a decline in
applications worldwide.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.
4 All indicators covered by this section include 6 In this section, the generic term “IP office” is
both direct national and regional applications used to refer to an office that receives industrial
and designations received via international design applications and issues registrations.
registrations through the Hague system. 7 Resident and non-resident applications
5 In 2009, patent and trademark applications worldwide (registrations) are also known as domestic
declined by 3.6% and 2.1%, respectively. and foreign applications (registrations).
132
Figure C.1.1.1 Industrial design applications worldwide
800,000
600,000
Applications
400,000
200,000
3.4 7.1 2.3 4.7 17.7 10.3 16.4 7.0 5.3 13.9 16.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Application year
Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 133 offices (see Data Description). These estimates include direct national and regional applications
and designations received via the Hague system.
Figure C.1.1.2 Resident and non-resident industrial design applications worldwide

31.7 30.2 25.1 22.3 20.0 18.5 16.7 15.1 11.7 11.5 10.9
600,000
Applications
400,000
200,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Application year
Note: See note for Figure C.1.1.1.
At the global level, non-resident applications accounted Statistics concerning “Class” refer to the 32 classes
for 10.9% of applications worldwide in 2011 (Figure of the International Classification for Industrial Designs
C.1.1.2). Compared to other types of IP rights, industrial
8
under the Locarno Agreement (see www.wipo.int/clas-
design applications exhibit a low non-resident share. The sifications/en/), henceforth referred to as the Locarno
graph shows a downward trend in the non-resident share Classification. Table C.1.1.3 shows the distribution of
since 2001, which can be explained by the substantial industrial design applications by class covering data for
growth in Chinese resident applications. 85 offices.9 Unfortunately, application data broken down
by class are not available for a number of larger offices
8 The non-resident share in total applications, (e.g., China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United
excluding SIPO data, was around 28% in 2011.
SIPO accounted for 67% of applications worldwide, 9 These numbers are based on direct filing data from
hence it significantly affects the worldwide 30 offices, Hague designation data from 32 offices,
resident and non-resident distribution. and both direct and Hague data from 23 offices.
133
States of America (US)); therefore the table provides (textiles, etc., 8%) and 9 (packages, etc., 7.7%).10 Class 6
only a partial picture of industrial design filing activity has been the largest class since 2008 with its share in total
by class. For the offices for which data are available, applications comprising around 10%.11 The top 10
class 6 (furnishing) was the largest class, accounting for classes accounted for three-fifths of total applications
10.8% of total applications in 2011, followed by classes 5 in 2011.
Table C.1.1.3 Industrial design applications worldwide by class, 2011

Class Number of Total
number Class name Applications share
6 Furnishing 16,503 10.8%
5 Textile piecegoods, artificial and natural sheet material 12,099 8.0%
9 Packages and containers for the transport or handling of goods 11,697 7.7%
2 Articles of clothing and haberdashery 10,366 6.8%
12 Means of transport or hoisting 7,900 5.2%
11 Articles of adornment 7,722 5.1%
7 Household goods, not elsewhere specified 6,812 4.5%
32 Graphic symbols and logos, surface patterns, ornamentation 6,719 4.4%
26 Lighting apparatus 6,608 4.3%
14 Recording, communication or information retrieval equipment 6,555 4.3%
25 Building units and construction elements 6,196 4.1%
23 Fluid distribution equipment, sanitary, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment, solid fuel 5,640 3.7%
10 Clocks and watches and other measuring instruments, checking and signalling instruments 5,319 3.5%
8 Tools and hardware 5,224 3.4%
19 Stationery and office equipment, artists’ and teaching materials 4,821 3.2%
21 Games, toys, tents and sports goods 3,908 2.6%
3 Travel goods, cases, parasols and personal belongings, not elsewhere specified 3,780 2.5%
13 Equipment for production, distribution or transformation of electricity 3,294 2.2%
15 Machines, not elsewhere specified 2,905 1.9%
24 Medical and laboratory equipment 2,250 1.5%
20 Sales and advertising equipment, signs 1,969 1.3%
28 Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products, toilet articles and apparatus 1,762 1.2%
1 Foodstuffs 1,258 0.8%
4 Brushware 1,079 0.7%
16 Photographic, cinematographic and optical apparatus 788 0.5%
30 Articles for the care and handling of animals 724 0.5%
22 Arms, pyrotechnic articles, articles for hunting, fishing and pest killing 501 0.3%
31 Machines and appliances for preparing food or drink, not elsewhere specified 496 0.3%
18 Printing and office machinery 437 0.3%
27 Tobacco and smokers’ supplies 368 0.2%
29 Devices and equipment against fire hazards, for accident prevention and for rescue 230 0.2%
17 Musical instruments 213 0.1%
-- Unknown 5,984 3.9%
Note: These numbers are based on data from 85 IP offices; however, for a number of larger offices (e.g., China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the US)
industrial design data broken down by class count are not available. Numbers consist of direct filing data from 30 offices, Hague designation data from 32
offices, and both direct and Hague data from 23 offices.
10 Considerable variations exist across

offices (see Table C.2.1.5).
11 2008 is the first year for which complete
industrial design application data broken
down by class are available.
134
C.1.2 Registrations worldwide Resident applicants accounted for the bulk of regis-
trations worldwide. This reflects the fact that resident
Similar to applications, the number of registrations issued applicants file the majority of applications worldwide.
each year has markedly increased since 2001. The past The non-resident share in all registrations declined from
three years saw considerable growth in registrations 32.8% in 2001 to 11.5% in 2011 – a similar trend to the
worldwide – from 416,500 in 2008 to 651,700 in 2011. one for applications.12 The decline in the non-resident
The large increase is mostly due to strong growth at share was due to considerable growth in Chinese resident
SIPO, which issued 238,689 more industrial designs in registrations and a decline in non-resident registrations
2011 than in 2008. worldwide. The estimated numbers of resident and non-
resident registrations in 2011 stood at around 576,500
and 75,200, respectively (Figure C.1.2.2).
Figure C.1.2.1 Industrial design registrations worldwide

800,000
600,000
Registrations
400,000
200,000
-3.5
0.8 9.0 4.8 4.4 7.8 11.6 2.7 21.6 17.6 9.5
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Registration year
Note: World totals are WIPO estimates covering around 108 offices (see Data Description). These estimates include registrations issued for direct applications
and designations received via the Hague system.
Figure C.1.2.2 Resident and non-resident industrial design registrations worldwide
32.8 30.3 24.0 21.0 20.2 20.2 19.8 19.1 15.1 12.6 11.5
600,000
Registrations
400,000
200,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Registration year
12 SIPO accounted for 58% of registrations

Note: See note for Figure C.1.2.1.
worldwide; therefore, it greatly affects the
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 worldwide resident and non-resident distribution.
Excluding SIPO data, the non-resident share in
total registrations was around 22% in 2011.
135
C.2 cross-country comparability, this subsection reports data

– where available – on the number of designs contained
in applications and registrations (i.e., design counts).
Industrial design applications
and registrations by office For simplicity, country names are used rather than office
This subsection offers a detailed breakdown of indus- names to label graphs. As an example, industrial design
trial design applications and registrations by IP office. data for China are labeled as “China” rather than “State
Comparing application and registration data provides Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic
some useful insights into the level of activity at offices. In of China”.
principle, institutional differences limit the extent to which
one can directly compare the data across countries. C.2.1 Applications by office
As mentioned earlier, some offices permit applications
to contain more than one design for the same product Figure C.2.1.1 presents the long-term trend of applica-
or within the same class, while other offices allow only tions received by the top five offices between 1883 and
one design per application. Therefore, to enable better 2011. The data refer to application counts rather than
Figure C.2.1.1 Trend in industrial design applications for the top five offices
China Republic of Korea Japan United States of America OHIM
500,000
400,000
Applications
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1883 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
year
Application year
Republic of Korea Japan United States of America OHIM
60,000
40,000
Applications
20,000
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
136
design counts due to the unavailability of historical design Figure C.2.1.2 Application design counts
count data. The Japan Patent Office (JPO) received the for the top 20 offices, 2011
largest number of applications from the 1950s to the late Resident Non-Resident
2.7 26.2 7.3 23.3 13.9 13.5 42.7 3.3 2.4 8.7
1990s, when it was surpassed by SIPO. Industrial design 521,468 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
Application design count

applications were first received at SIPO in 1985, and
numbers grew at a modest pace until the early 2000s,
after which they experienced exponential growth. Since
the early 1980s, the number of applications received by 87,225
58,571 54,041 41,218
30,805 30,467 29,274 18,994 16,206
the JPO has followed a downward trend. In contrast, the
Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and the United
a
ina
IM
ain
ea
n
y
e
ly
an
rke
nc
ric
pa
Ita
or
OH
Ch
Sp
rm
Fra
e
Ja
Tu
fK
Am
Ge
co
of
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) exhibit an
bli
tes
pu
Sta
Re
ed
upward trend. In 2004, KIPO surpassed the JPO and
it
Un
Office
has maintained second position ever since. The Office
for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) began Resident Non-Resident
issuing the Registered Community Design (RCD) in 2003. 37.2 48.9 52.5 55.3 29.8 35.9 62.4 54.0 83.4 77.2
Its application numbers increased from around 10,400
6,735
in 2003 to around 23,100 in 2011.13 6,077 5,966
5,501 5,394
4,839
4,149 3,985
Figure C.2.1.2 depicts the number of designs contained in 2,723
applications filed for the top 20 offices. China – with more

than 521,000 designs – is the largest office by far. OHIM,
ine
AR
re
il *
a
ia
ico
tia
co
n
ali
tio
Ind
po
oc
oa
gS
ex
ra
az
str
ra
ga
or
Uk
Cr
M
KIPO and the IP office of Germany each received applica-

Br
de
on
Au
Sin
Fe
gK
an
on
ssi
,H
tions containing more than 54,000 designs. Among the

Ru
ina
Ch
.
top 20 offices, 9 are located in middle-income countries. Office
Note: *2010 data; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market
For the majority of the reported offices, the non-resident
share was considerably higher than the global average
(10.9%). Non-resident applicants accounted for the The majority of the offices presented in Figure C.2.1.3
majority of design counts at the IP offices of Australia, saw growth in design counts in 2011 compared to 2010.
China Hong Kong (SAR), Croatia, Mexico, the Russian Seven of them experienced double-digit growth. The IP
Federation and Singapore. In contrast, the non-resident offices of Croatia, France, Italy and Morocco saw con-
share stood below 5% at the IP offices of China, Italy and siderable declines in design counts, reflecting declines
Spain. For most offices, the 2011 non-resident share was in resident applications. The contribution of resident and
higher than in 2010. non-resident applications to total growth varied widely
across offices. Almost all the growth at the IP offices of
China, Spain and Turkey reflected growth in resident ap-
plications. In contrast, 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.
13 See footnote 3.
137
Figure C.2.1.3 Contribution of resident and non-resident application design counts to total growth
Contribution by resident application design count Contribution by non-resident application design count
23.8 5.4 -1.1 6.2 17.6 -3.0 4.8 -9.8 24.3 -11.1 16.7 17.5 8.2 1.8 3.9 -10.4 14.0 17.2 3.9 -8.3
23.4 25.0
16.8
15.0
10.5 11.0
8.6 8.9 8.1
6.2 4.6 6.2
0.4 1.8 3.5 0.7
2.8 3.4
0.7 1.5 2.5 2.3
0.1
2.1 1.9 2.9
1.0
0
-1.4 -0.8 -0.0 -1.0
-1.8 -2.4 -2.8
-4.5 -3.8 -4.6
-8.4 -8.7 -10.4
ine
y
a
ina
IM
ain
ea
n
y
AR
e
re
*
a
ly
ico
ia
ia
o
n
an
rke
nc
ric
pa
ali
c
tio
Ita
t
Ind
po
zil
or
oc
oa
OH
gS
ex
ra
Ch
Sp
rm
Fra
me
str
Ja
ra
Tu
a
fK
ga
or
Uk
Cr
M
Br
de
on
Ge
Au
A
Sin
co
Fe
gK
of
bli
an
tes
on
pu
ssi
ta
,H
Re
dS
Ru
ina
ite
Ch
Un
Office
Note: *Growth rate refers to 2009-2010; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market
Figure C.2.1.4 Application design counts for selected middle- and low-income countries, 2011
Resident Non-Resident Hague data only Figure C.2.1.4 shows design count data for offices of
35.0 49.5 .. 82.1 96.7 13.0 76.2 95.7 .. 58.8
selected middle- and low-income countries.14 For several
2,104
offices, this figure includes only Hague designation data,
1,854
1,445 as statistics from the national IP office are unavailable.

1,149
Among the reported offices, Viet Nam saw the largest
818 803 765
632 595 573 number of design counts (2,104 designs), followed by
the Republic of Moldova, Egypt and Georgia. These four
offices received more than 1,100 designs each.
t
ria
us
an
nia
m
lia
gia
PI
yp
ov
Na
OA
lar
go
ge
aij
Eg
me
or
old
Be
erb
on
Al
Ge
et
Ar
fM
Vi
Az
co
bli
The non-resident share in total design counts for the

pu
Re
Office
reported offices was substantially higher than the non-
Resident Non-Resident Hague data only resident share observed for the top 10 offices (see Figure
.. .. 61.7 74.3 .. 85.4 .. .. .. 88.3
C.2.1.2). The majority of design counts at these offices
561
were of foreign origin. Algeria was the only exception,
450
384 with local applicants accounting for the bulk of total
334
311
240 design counts.
168 166
139
77
e
an
n
ea
ru
bia
a
la
bia
liz
an
ta
an
a
Pe
or
rd
em
mi
lom
zs
Be
Gh
tsw
fK
Jo
y
Na
at
rg
Co
.o
Bo
Gu
Ky
P.R
D.
.
Office
Note: '..' = not available; OAPI = African Intellectual Property Organization

138
Table C.2.1.5 Industrial design applications by class for selected office, 2011
Office
Class
number Class name AU CA DE EM FR HK IN RU TH TR
1 Foodstuffs 69 62 279 195 18 23 36 60 39 57
2 Articles of clothing and haberdashery 472 357 5,285 1,383 339 118 216 91 117 560
Travel goods, cases, parasols and personal belongings, not
3 elsewhere specified 118 52 1,199 855 206 173 82 37 52 162
4 Brushware 80 156 153 158 6 41 49 36 28 61
5 Textile piecegoods, artificial and natural sheet material 24 40 10,599 163 17 89 422 136 60 18
6 Furnishing 362 247 8,056 2,541 524 88 684 120 606 1,679
7 Household goods, not elsewhere specified 467 404 1,203 1,605 171 278 428 176 155 763
8 Tools and hardware 457 326 664 1,315 117 69 647 116 272 424
9 Packages and containers for the transport or handling of goods 681 662 993 2,198 243 368 1,034 502 338 719
Clocks and watches and other measuring instruments, checking
10 and signalling instruments 76 69 1,009 775 69 418 142 102 91 231
11 Articles of adornment 97 55 4,151 656 284 292 299 162 129 233
12 Means of transport or hoisting 506 391 1,176 1,599 203 79 751 441 472 354
Equipment for production, distribution or transformation of
13 electricity 136 127 349 693 38 110 526 150 93 97
14 Recording, communication or information retrieval equipment 349 564 894 1,766 113 1,055 347 262 107 129
15 Machines, not elsewhere specified 196 85 184 717 24 49 292 153 141 292
16 Photographic, cinematographic and optical apparatus 42 58 90 315 31 28 34 32 28 23
17 Musical instruments 7 4 60 54 19 4 3 1 7 9
18 Printing and office machinery 8 8 106 58 5 38 30 21 11 7
19 Stationery and office equipment, artists’ and teaching materials 51 55 1,821 571 136 131 155 339 107 183
20 Sales and advertising equipment, signs 85 159 581 356 105 40 19 45 27 162
21 Games, toys, tents and sports goods 271 150 901 883 174 473 101 83 69 120
Arms, pyrotechnic articles, articles for hunting, fishing and pest
22 killing 37 36 50 131 18 5 14 11 9 40
Fluid distribution equipment, sanitary, heating, ventilation and
23 air-conditioning equipment, solid fuel 407 313 515 1,365 83 259 550 200 368 358
24 Medical and laboratory equipment 192 175 200 749 22 27 247 82 47 86
25 Building units and construction elements 322 157 2,263 897 283 44 137 167 216 424
26 Lighting apparatus 189 277 2,571 1,424 186 363 359 109 68 245
27 Tobacco and smokers’ supplies 5 19 88 60 15 15 31 5 5 26
Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products, toilet articles and
28 apparatus 133 161 144 379 21 120 153 96 34 81
Devices and equipment against fire hazards, for accident
29 prevention and for rescue 10 40 8 77 2 - 23 12 7 5
30 Articles for the care and handling of animals 44 18 338 162 39 5 14 4 8 20
Machines and appliances for preparing food or drink, not
31 elsewhere specified 35 - 23 137 12 20 84 43 - 34
32 Graphic symbols and logos, surface patterns, ornamentation - - 2,555 1,064 944 3 - 189 - 1,272
-- Unknown 38 - 4,629 - - 14 278 632 38 -
Note: AU (Australia), CA (Canada), DE (Germany), EM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market), FR (France), HK (China, Hong Kong (SAR)), IN (India), RU
(Russian Federation), TH (Thailand) and TR (Turkey). Class data for the IP offices of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the US are unavailable. Data refer
to application counts rather than design counts.
Table C.2.1.5 reports industrial design applications by offices, class 6 had the largest share in total applications
class for selected offices. Data refer to application counts. at only three offices, namely OHIM and the IP offices of
Class data for the JPO, KIPO, SIPO and the USPTO – four Thailand and Turkey. The offices of Australia, Canada,
larger offices – are unavailable. The class distribution
15
India and the Russian Federation received the largest
varied considerably among offices. Worldwide, class
15 For the USPTO, class data are available for
6 (furnishing) accounted for the largest share in total
registrations, but not applications. Class 14 (recording,
applications (Table C.1.1.3); however, for the reported communications, etc.) accounted for the largest share
(10.7%) of all registrations at the USPTO in 2011.
139
numbers of applications for class 9 (packages, etc.). Figure C.2.2.1 Registration design counts
Class 5 (textiles, piecegoods, etc.) – the second largest for the top 20 offices, 2011
class at the worldwide level – accounted for the largest Resident Non-Resident
3.6 26.9 21.2 7.0 15.0 12.3 4.4 45.0 2.3 36.3
share for the IP office of Germany. The combined share 380,290 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
Registration design count

of the top three classes ranged from 45.1% in Germany
to 25.7% at OHIM.
C.2.2 Registrations by office 86,326

49,905 43,634 37,607
26,274 22,371 21,356 19,534
6,237
a
ina
IM
ain
rea
n
y
ly
ia
Figure C.2.2.1 depicts the number of designs contained
an
rke
ric
pa
Ita
Ind
OH
Ch
Sp
Ko
rm
e
Ja
Tu
Am
Ge
of
of
c
bli
in registrations for the top 20 offices. There are strong
tes
pu
ta
Re
dS
ite
similarities between application and registration data for
Un
Office
most offices.16 However, a few exceptions exist, notably
for the IP offices of Mexico and the Republic of Korea,
47.8 55.5 58.4 63.4 84.6 83.7 64.6 20.7 97.2 97.7
where the difference between application and registration 5,747 5,647 Non-Resident share (%): 2011
5,351
design counts is considerable. The number of designs 4,478

3,972
registered at SIPO (380,290) was 4.4 times more than
2,530 2,443
the number registered at OHIM – the second largest 2,023
1,617 1,599
office. The gap between these two offices was smaller
for registrations than for applications (6 times). Residents
ine
AR
*
re
o
a
tia
ico
n
*
ali
ac
tio
accounted for the bulk of registrations at SIPO. Along with

po
ce
co
oa
gS
ra
ex
on
str
ra
ee
oc
ga
Uk
Cr
M
de
on
M
Au
Gr
or
Sin
Fe
gK
M
Spain (2.3%), China (3.6%) saw the lowest non-resident
an
on
ssi
,H
Ru
ina
Ch
share of registrations. This is in contrast to the IP offices

.
Office
of Monaco and Morocco, where their non-resident shares
Note: *2010 data; Registration data for Brazil and France - two larger offices
stood at around 97%. in terms of application data (see Figure C.2.1.2) – are not available;
OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market
Figure C.2.2.2 shows the contribution of resident and

non-resident growth to overall growth for the top 20
offices. Like for applications, this varied considerably
across offices. Growth in resident registrations accounted
for almost all the growth at SIPO and the IP offices of
the Republic of Korea and Spain. Growth at the offices
of Australia, China Hong Kong (SAR) and Ukraine re-
flected growth in non-resident registrations. Italy, Mexico,
Monaco and the US saw declines in both resident and
non-resident registrations.
16 This may reflect the fact that, for many

offices, the registration process involves
only a formality examination.
140
Figure C.2.2.2 Contribution of resident and non-resident registration design counts to total growth
Contribution by resident registration design count Contribution by non-resident registration design count
13.4 13.4 -0.6 24.0 .. -4.2 -30.9 -6.3 31.4 12.0 -1.6 6.0 3.8 14.9 7.9 -2.7 -7.6 9.9 .. -9.1
32.3 Total growth rate (%): 2010 - 11
22.0
18.9
14.3
8.2 7.3 4.7 9.5 7.2
5.2 6.1 5.8
2.0 1.4 3.4 4.5 1.4 2.7
0.9 0.2
0
-0.8 -2.6 -0.8 -0.3
-5.2 -3.8 -2.6 -3.0
-5.7 -4.0 -4.1 -3.7-4.0
-6.7 -8.8
-28.3
ine
y
a
ina
IM
ea
ain
y
AR
*
re
o
a
ly
ia
ia
ico
n
o*
an
rke
ric
pa
ali
ac
tio
Ita
Ind
t
po
ce
or
oa
OH
gS
ra
ex
Ch
Sp
c
rm
me
on
str
Ja
ra
Tu
ee
oc
fK
ga
Uk
Cr
M
de
on
Ge
Au
M
Gr
A
or
Sin
co
Fe
gK
M
of
bli
an
tes
on
pu
ssi
ta
,H
Re
dS
Ru
ina
ite
Ch
Un
Office
Note: ‘..’ = not available; *Growth rate refers to 2009-2010; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market
C.3 In this subsection, the terms “designs”, “applications” and

“registrations” refer to equivalent design counts, unless
Industrial design applications and otherwise stated.
registrations by origin
C.3.1 Equivalent applications and
Applications at regional offices are equivalent to multiple registrations by origin
applications in each of their member states. This sub-
section reports figures based on equivalent applications Figure C.3.1.1 depicts the number of equivalent design
or registrations. To calculate equivalent applications or counts for the top 20 origins in 2011. The number of
registrations, a filing at the African Intellectual Property equivalent design counts from residents of China and
Organization (OAPI), the Benelux Office for Intellectual Germany were of similar magnitude and their combined
Property (BOIP) or OHIM is counted multiple times ac- total stood at around 1.1 million. Equivalent design counts
cording to the number of each office’s member states. filed by residents of China grew rapidly over the past few
By contrast, an application filed at the African Regional years, with China surpassing Germany to become the
Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) is counted top origin in 2011. Residents of China filed the bulk of
as one application abroad if the applicant does not their applications with SIPO (90%), while their applica-
reside in a member state and as one resident and one tions abroad constituted the remaining small fraction. In
application abroad if the applicant resides in one of its contrast, applications abroad (89%) constituted the bulk
member states. This method may underestimate filings of total design counts for German residents. The top 20
at ARIPO, as filings there may lead to protection in more list mostly consists of European countries, partly reflect-
than one jurisdiction. However, there is insufficient ing the OHIM multiplier. Eight of the top 20 origins saw
information on designations or validations in ARIPO double-digit growth in equivalent design counts between
member states, which has led to the adoption of the 2010 and 2011. France is the only origin to have seen a
above counting method. considerable decline.17
17 Brazil saw a 28% decrease, but its

data refer to 2009-2010.
141
Figure C.3.1.1 Equivalent application design For all origins, except China, India, the Republic of Korea
counts for the top 20 origins, 2011 and Turkey, more than four-fifths of all designs were
Resident Abroad registered abroad. This is similar to the pattern observed
25.7 1.2 -1.0 -10.5 4.4 22.9 0.9 0.7 14.5 -0.2 for equivalent application design counts (Figure C.3.1.1).
563,161 561,921 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
The high share of registrations abroad once again reflects
the OHIM multiplier.

308,896
211,495
184,305
125,230 123,849 All origins, except Italy, Spain and Sweden, saw a higher
86,169
47,699 40,715
number of designs registered in 2011 than in 2010. Italy
and Sweden saw declines in both applications and
y
en
a
ain
an
ea
e
y
ly
an
rke
nc
ric
in
Ita
ed
p
Ch
Sp
Ko
rm
Fra
Ja
Tu
Am
Sw
Ge
of
registrations over the same period.

of
lic
ub
tes
p
ta
Re
dS
ite
Un
Origin Figure C.3.1.2 Equivalent registration design

counts for the top 20 origins, 2011
Resident Abroad
Resident Abroad
29.0 6.6 25.9 5.8 -5.3 27.4 21.4 .. 42.8 -28.3
39,544 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 4.1 17.9 -3.7 16.0 25.9 -7.6 19.7 21.7 .. -2.0
552,285 Growth rate (%): 2010-11

26,703 419,395
21,424 20,472
19,671
302,910
15,826
8,158 7,475 184,101

6,751 6,693
118,143 116,513
76,915 71,969
43,837 39,286
AR
lic
l
il *
a
ria
d*
k
ia
ga
ar
ali
lan
Ind
ub
lga
gS
rtu
az
nm
lan
str
Fin
ep
ca
en
ina
ain
n
ea
y
ly
d
Br
Bu
Po
an
rke
on
Au
pa
Ire
De
lan
Ita
hR
eri
or
ed
Ch
Sp
rm
gK
Ja
Tu
fK
Po
Am
Sw
ec
Ge
on
co
Cz
of
,H
bli
tes
ina
pu
ta
Re
Ch
dS
.
ite
Un
Origin
Origin
Note: ‘..’ = not available; *2010 data; and growth rate refers to 2009-2010.
Resident Abroad
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 25.9 1.6 7.5 3.0 5.6 21.5 .. 21.0 87.4 37.9
35,779 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
Figure C.3.1.2 depicts the number of designs contained 25,272

21,038 20,514
in equivalent registrations for the top 20 origins. With 18,339
15,235
552,285 designs, German applicants accounted for 8,814

6,970 6,307 5,890
the highest number of designs registered worldwide in
2011, followed by applicants from China (with 419,395
AR
lic
e
l
ria
d*
k
ia
ga
or
ar
ali
lan
Ind
ub
lga
S
rtu
nm
p
lan
str
Fin
ga
ep
ng
Bu
Po
Au
Ire
De
Sin
hR
Ko
designs) and Italy (with 302,910 designs). The top 20 list

ec
g
on
Cz
,H
ina
mostly consists of European countries, again reflecting

Ch
.
the OHIM multiplier. For all origins reported, the numbers Origin
of design counts in applications and registrations were Note: ‘..’ = not available; *2010 data
of similar magnitude, except for China. Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012
142
C.3.2 Industrial design applications Excluding residents of the country concerned, residents
by office and origin of the US accounted for the largest share of total ap-
plications in Australia, India, Japan and the Russian
Table C.3.2 presents a breakdown of the number of Federation. In China, the Republic of Korea and the US,
designs contained in applications by origin (source) and residents of Japan accounted for the largest share. The
office (destination) for the top offices and origins. The largest non-resident share at the IP offices of France,
table provides a detailed picture of industrial design ap- Morocco, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine belonged to resi-
plication flows across countries. dents of Switzerland.
In all reported offices, except Australia, the Russian

Federation and OHIM, residents accounted for the largest
share of applications.
Table C.3.2 Application design counts by office and origin: top offices and origins, 2011
Office
Origin
CN EM KR DE TR JP US IT ES FR IN UA RU AU MA
Australia 201 459 17 - - 44 387 - - - 41 - 6 2,664 -
Austria 84 2,314 9 5,315 22 25 185 - - - 10 - 34 29 -
China 507,538 1,985 125 137 8 144 932 - - 10 45 4 38 88 2
China, Hong - 643 9 20 1 51 294 - - 28 11 - 5 28 -
Kong SAR
France 454 7,078 86 54 516 179 545 44 17 14,795 80 149 125 81 363
Germany 1,286 18,983 258 41,441 431 361 1,297 22 2 73 319 137 452 186 50
India 22 107 2 5 3 1 64 - - - 5,156 1 1 1 1
Italy 524 10,157 93 4,463 162 144 506 28,306 - 24 80 6 97 51 -
Japan 4,532 3,199 1,757 138 121 26,658 2,490 3 3 5 625 38 393 352 1
Morocco - 1 - 30 1 - - 35 - 39 - - - - 3,457
Netherlands 444 2,362 102 96 52 111 169 - - 1 179 19 167 117 -
Poland 34 2,991 - 49 17 - 51 - - 27 7 63 47 - -
Republic of 1,521 1,040 54,300 29 18 545 1,246 6 4 6 3 - 185 49 -
Korea
Russian 33 86 - 2 27 2 18 2 - - 5 270 2,887 4 1
Federation
Spain 124 3,857 27 183 109 26 104 - 18,540 28 27 57 18 11 10
Switzerland 472 6,374 122 558 1,732 335 252 58 45 108 234 1,164 254 157 1,056
Turkey 36 421 - 61 35,488 - 13 - 10 27 17 52 34 1 -
Ukraine 1 20 - 14 13 - 1 14 1 13 - 3,444 90 - -
United Kingdom 318 5,307 99 5 57 192 878 3 1 8 241 72 115 258 40
United States of 2,490 5,770 1,211 203 155 1,311 17,443 19 3 86 791 59 643 1,330 3
America
Other / 1,354 14,071 354 1,238 2,285 676 3,592 762 368 928 345 1,200 486 559 410
Unknown
Total 521,468 87,225 58,571 54,041 41,218 30,805 30,467 29,274 18,994 16,206 8,216 6,735 6,077 5,966 5,394
Note: CN (China), EM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market), KR (Republic of Korea), DE (Germany), TR (Turkey), JP (Japan), US (United States of
America), IT (Italy), ES (Spain), FR (France), IN (India), UA (Ukraine), RU (Russian Federation), AU (Australia) and MA (Morocco)
143
C.4 last four years saw considerable growth in registrations,

although growth rates varied considerably.
Industrial design registrations The large decline witnessed after 2002 can be explained
through the hague system by the availability of the RCD issued by OHIM. This
An applicant seeking protection for an industrial design in enables applicants to file a single application for protec-
a number of countries or jurisdictions can choose to file tion across all European Union (EU) member states.
an application directly with each national or regional IP Applicants seeking protection in EU markets began to
office or a single application via the Hague system. The use the RCD rather than the Hague system. However,
Hague system makes it possible for an applicant to reg- international registrations rebounded strongly in 2008,
ister industrial designs in multiple Contracting Parties by which corresponds to the year the EU became a member
filing a single application with the International Bureau of of the Hague system. As a result, a single Hague registra-
WIPO. Moreover, each application filed under the Hague tion can lead to design protection across all EU member
system may contain up to 100 different designs. An appli- states, as well as in other members of the Hague system,
cation for international registration of an industrial design for example, Switzerland and Turkey.
leads to its recording in the International Register and the
publication of the registration in the International Designs As mentioned earlier, the Hague system permits a single
Bulletin. A registration recorded in the International international registration to include up to 100 different
Register has the same effect as one made directly with designs, provided they relate to products of the same
each designated contracting party, unless the IP office class listed in the Locarno Classification. After four years
of a specific contracting party issues a refusal. In 2011, of growth, the total number of designs contained in in-
the Hague system comprised 60 members. ternational registrations declined by 1.4% in 2011 (Figure
C.4.1.2). The total number of designs in registrations fell
C.4.1 International registrations from 11,238 in 2010 to 11,077 in 2011. This decrease in the
of industrial designs total number of designs, despite growth in international
registrations, reflected a drop in the average number of
The International Bureau of WIPO recorded 2,363 in- designs per registration from 5.1 in 2010 to 4.7 in 2011.
ternational registrations for industrial designs in 2011, The average number of designs per registration varied
corresponding to an increase of 6.6% on 2010. The between 4.4 and 5.7 over the period 2001-2011.
Figure C.4.1.1 International registrations of industrial designs

5,000
4,000
3,000
Registrations
2,000
1,000
-3.4 -0.2 -40.8 -42.8 -19.7

0.5 0.3 32.9 10.3 31.8 6.6
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Registration year
144
Figure C.4.1.2 Designs contained in international registrations
Designs Growth rate (%)
4.4 4.6 4.7 5.7 5.3 4.9 5.7 5.2 5.3 5.1 4.7
25,000
Average number of designs per registration
20,000
15,000
Designs
10,000
5,000
-3.5 -38.9 -30.6 -25.6 -7.2 -1.4
4.0 16.7 21.6 11.7 26.7
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Registration year
Figure C.4.1.3 depicts the number of designs contained Figure C.4.1.3 Designs contained in international
in international registrations by country of origin for the registrations for the top 15 origins, 2011
top 20 origins. A registration is allocated to the applicant’s 2.5 2.5 39.8 -16.3 -30.9 4.5 -31.9 29.0 -34.8 -38.5
Growth rate (%): 2010-11
“true” origin rather than to the Hague member in respect 3,082
2,736
of which the applicant fulfilled the condition for filing
Designs
the application.18 For this reason, countries that are not

members of the Hague system, such as the US, appear 1,254
861
in the origin list. Holders residing in Germany owned the 737
599
203
largest number of designs contained in international reg- 169 150 134
istrations, followed by Switzerland and the US. Together,

y
ia
ca
d
ain
e
y
ly
ds
ce
an
rke
nc
an
Ita
str
eri
ee
an
Sp
rm
Fra
erl
Tu
Au
Gr
Am
erl
Ge
itz
th
Germany and Switzerland accounted for more than half

Sw
of
Ne
tes
ta
dS
of all designs contained in Hague registrations in 2011.

ite
Un
Origin
The US – a non-member – accounted for around one-
tenth of the 2011 total. The top three origins saw growth
-37.7 206.5 21.8 88.0 49.1 -12.2 -62.4 1.5 55.6 477.8
in designs registered in 2011. As a result, their combined 129 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
share of the total increased from 58.5% in 2010 to 63.8%

95 95 94
in 2011. Several origins saw fewer designs registered in 82
Designs
79 77
2011 than in 2010. 68
56 52
ay
rg
m
k
ium
in
tia
d
ar
de
an
lan
do
ste
ou
rw
oa
nm
e
lg
l
Fin
ing
Po
mb
No
ten
Sw
Cr
Be
De
dK
xe
ch
Lu
Lie
ite
Un
.
Origin
18 Applicants domiciled in a non-member country
can file applications for international registrations Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012
if they have a real and effective industrial or
commercial establishment in the jurisdiction
of a Hague member country/region.
145
Table C.4.2 Top Hague applicants
2011 Hague International Applications

Applicant's Name Origin
Rank 2009 2010 2011
1 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY United States of America 110 129 167
2 THE SWATCH GROUP MANAGEMENT SERVICES AG Switzerland 81 75 70
3 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. Netherlands 33 87 64
4 THE GILLETTE COMPANY United States of America 37 44 56
5 DAIMLER AG Germany 20 36 55
6 SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ S.A. Switzerland 12 24 47
7 VESTEL BEYAZ ESYA SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI Turkey - 52 40
8 VOLKSWAGEN AG Germany 32 46 38
9 LIDL STIFTUNG & CO. KG Germany 36 20 28
10 BRAUN GMBH Germany 25 30 25
11 PI-DESIGN AG Switzerland 42 33 20
12 ALFRED KÄRCHER GMBH & CO. KG Germany 20 18 15
12 HERMES SELLIER France 21 14 15
14 FONKEL MEUBELMARKETING B.V. Netherlands 18 20 14
14 MAPED France 15 12 14
14 UNILEVER N.V. Netherlands 14 21 14
17 ETA SA MANUFACTURE HORLOGÈRE SUISSE Switzerland 4 2 12
17 LEIFHEIT AG Germany - 14 12
19 CARTIER CRÉATION STUDIO SA Switzerland 15 18 11
19 GEBERIT INTERNATIONAL AG Switzerland - 10 11
19 NEOPERL GMBH Germany - - 11
Note: Includes applicants with more than 10 applications in 2011
C.4.2 Top Hague applicants C.4.3 Non-resident industrial design applications

by filing route for selected Hague members
Table C.4.2 provides a list of top Hague applicants for
the past three years. For the third consecutive year, the Applicants seeking design protection in foreign jurisdic-
US-based company Procter & Gamble filed the high- tions can either file applications directly at national or
est number of international applications. Despite filing regional IP offices or make use of the Hague system.
fewer applications in 2011 than in 2010, The Swatch Figure C.4.3 shows the breakdown of non-resident
Group Management Services AG and Koninklijke Philips applications filed directly at offices and those filed via
Electronics N.V. were the second and third largest ap- the Hague system. Worldwide, about 12.1% of all non-
plicants. Among the 21 applicants shown, seven are resident applications were filed via the Hague system
located in Germany and six in Switzerland. Two of the in 2011. However, not all offices – notably China, the
top five applicants in 2011 were from the US, which is largest office in the world – are members of the Hague
not a member of the Hague system (see footnote 18 for system. Data for Hague members show that 31.5%
further explanation). of all non-resident applications were filed through the
Hague system.
The Hague share in total non-resident applications varied

across IP offices. For a large number of offices, the Hague
system accounted for the great majority of non-resident
applications. In contrast, direct filings accounted for most
non-resident applications received by OHIM and the IP
office of Germany.
146
Figure C.4.3 Non-resident industrial

design applications by filing route C.5
for selected Hague members
Direct Non-Resident Hague Non-Resident

Industrial design registrations
13.0 68.4 40.1 74.1 62.2 66.7 15.0 92.4 89.3 95.5 in force
7,188 Hague share (%): 2011
Industrial design registrations are valid for a limited period.
Applications
The term of protection is usually 15 years; however, some

offices provide protection for only 10 years.
1,475 1,468 1,411
852 772 678 490 413 355
In 2011, over 2.5 million industrial design registrations
were in force worldwide.19 SIPO had the largest number
ine
y
ay
d
y
re
o
IM
ia
co
an
rke
an
ac
at
po
rw
oc
OH
ra
rm
on
erl
o
Tu
ga
or
No
Uk
Cr
M
Ge
itz
M
Sin
Sw
of registrations in force, accounting for around 37% of

the world total (Figure C.5.1). SIPO had a larger number of
.
Office
registrations than the combined total of the USPTO, the
Direct Non-Resident Hague Non-Resident JPO, KIPO and OHIM – the four largest offices after SIPO.
95.4 91.4 92.4 97.2 43.9 96.7 96.6 97.3 88.4 54.1 Malaysia and Mexico saw the fastest growth on 2010,
348 Hague share (%): 2011
while Austria and the Russian Federation experienced
278
250 248 considerable declines over the same period.
Applications
237
211 207
185 172 170
Figure C.5.1 Industrial design registrations

in force by office, 2011
.. 3.9 -2.4 6.5 .. .. .. 6.5 -2.7 4.1
ia
nia
an
a
ro
ina
gia
lux
ia
nc
ov
on
rb
eg
aij
ne
ba
ov
or
Fra
old
Se
ed
ten
erb
Ge
Be
eg
Al
922,371 Growth rate (%): 2010-11

fM
ac
on
erz
Az
M
co
M
dH
of
bli
an
R
pu
Y
Registrations in force
ia
Re
TF
sn
Bo
Office
Note: Data refer to the number of industrial design applications and

not the number of designs contained in applications; OHIM = Office for 262,316 246,115 242,262
Harmonization in the Internet Market 158,315
65,089 57,245 45,612 45,489 44,926
y
a
ina
ain
ea
IM
ey
m
a
an
ric
pa
ali
do
rk
r
OH
Ch
Sp
Ko
rm
me
str
Ja
Tu
ng
Ge
Au
of
fA
Ki
lic
so
d
ite
ub
e
Un
at
p
Re
St
d
ite
Un
Office
6.7 6.2 -1.0 11.4 -7.2 5.9 12.1 .. -11.6 8.5

44,600 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
Registrations in force
34,810 33,840
21,643 21,295
18,945
15,206 13,968 13,706
12,915
a
a
a
lia
ico
sia
dia
ion
d
ric
tri
d
SA
lan
go
na
y
ex
In
at
s
Af
ala
Au
Po
ng
on
Ca
r
de
h
M
Ko
ut
Fe
So
g
ian
on
,H
ss
Ru
ina
Ch
.
Office
19 Data are available for 77 offices including all Note: “..” = not available; Data refer to the number of industrial design
registrations in force and not the number of designs contained in
major offices except Brazil, France and Italy.
registrations; OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internet Market
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012 147

Figure C.5.2 Industrial design registrations in force in 2011 as a percentage of total registrations
98.0
84.7
67.8
Percentage of registrations
65.2
59.0
52.8
47.7
45.9
36.9
33.2
28.5 29.0
16.0 15.6
5.5 6.7
3.6 3.2 3.2 4.2 4.3
0.8 1.4 2.0 2.3
0.4
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. The graph is based on data from 62 offices (includes all large offices, except France and Japan) for which a breakdown of industrial design
registrations in force by year of registrations are available.
Figure C.5.2 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;
it thus portrays the age distribution of industrial designs
in force. Data for most large offices are included in this
graph, with France and Japan as the most notable ex-
ceptions. 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
also shows that 15% of the 2010 registrations expired
within a year. This reflects the fact in some offices (e.g.
KIPO and SIPO), holders are required to pay annual fees
to maintain registrations.
148
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
D.1
the International Convention for the Protection of New
Plant variety applications
Varieties of Plants (the “UPOV Convention”). UPOV pro-
and grants
vides and promotes an effective system of plant variety
protection, with the aim of encouraging the development D.1.1 Applications worldwide
of new varieties of plants, for the benefit of society.
Figure D.1.1 depicts the total number of plant variety
In order to obtain protection, a breeder must file an applications worldwide between 1995 and 2011. World
individual application with each authority entrusted with totals are WIPO estimates covering data for 66 offices.
the granting of breeders’ rights. A breeder’s right is only Between 1995 and 2011, the total number of applications
granted where the variety is new, distinct, uniform, stable increased from 10,000 to over 14,000. This growth oc-
and has a suitable denomination. curred in the face of substantial year-on-year fluctuation
in application numbers; for example, since 2003, growth
In the United States of America (US), there are two legal in applications in a given year was followed by a drop
frameworks for protecting new plant varieties: the Plant the next year. However, after a modest decline in 2010,
Patent Act (PPA) and the Plant Variety Protection Act plant variety applications worldwide grew by 7.8% in
(PVPA). According to the PPA, whoever invents or dis- 2011 – the fastest growth since 2007. Together, growth
covers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new in applications at the office of Israel and the Community
variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of the European Union (EU)
hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber accounted for three-fifths of total growth in 2011.1
propagated plant (in practice, Irish potato and Jerusalem
artichoke) or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may
obtain a patent therefor. Under the PVPA, the US pro-
tects all sexually reproduced plant varieties and tuber
propagated plant varieties excluding fungi and bacteria.
This section covers plant variety protection statistics

relating to applications, grants and grants in force, based
on data collected from 66 offices.
1 In relation to plant varieties, this publication uses

the term “office” to refer to reporting authorities
and “origin” to indicate the origin of applicants.
149
Figure D.1.1 Trend in plant variety applications worldwide

15,000
10,000
Applications
5,000
-11.7 -6.2 -7.8 -5.1 -0.1

. 1.0 10.7 2.0 16.2 3.7 5.4 0.4 5.5 14.3 2.8 7.8
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 data for 66 offices.
D.1.2 Grants worldwide in 2010. In 2011, the number of grants worldwide was es-
timated at around 10,200, representing a 7.8% decrease
As was the case for applications, the long-term trend on 2010. This decrease in grants followed five years of
of plant variety grants is upwards. Grants worldwide 2
continuous growth, and was mainly due to substantial
increased from around 6,200 in 1995 to a peak of 11,100 declines in grants at the offices of China and Ukraine.
Figure D.1.2 Trend in plant variety grants worldwide

15,000
10,000
Grants
5,000
-1.5 -12.9 -1.4 -8.1 -7.8

. 9.9 10.6 12.2 5.7 11.3 9.1 11.0 9.9 1.0 2.5 3.7
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Grant year
2 For simplicity, this publication uses the term “grant”

rather than the formal term “titles issued”.
150
D.2 Figure D.2.1 Plant variety applications for the

top 20 offices, 2011
Plant variety applications and Resident Non-Resident
grants by office 24.5

3,184
4.9 60.1 29.6 63.3 16.5 11.9 21.1 17.3 49.8
This subsection provides detailed data on plant variety
Applications
applications and grants by national and regional offices.
1,255 1,139 1,126
1,095
In relation to plant varieties, this publication uses the term 783
587 474 452 402
“office” to refer to reporting authorities and “origin” to
indicate the origin of applicants.
ine
A)
ina
rea
l
ce
B)
ds
ae
pa
tio
a(
a(
fi
an
ra
Isr
Ch
Ko
Of
Ja
era
ric
ric
erl
Uk
of
ty
ed
th
Am
Am
ie
c
Ne
F
ar
bli
an
V
of
of
pu
ssi
nt
tes
tes
Re
Pla
Ru
ta
ta
D.2.1 Applications for the top 20 offices
y
dS
dS
nit
ite
ite
mu
Un
Un
m
Co
Office
Figure D.2.1 shows the number of plant variety applica-
tions broken down by resident and non-resident filings Resident Non-Resident
for the top 20 offices. The CPVO received the most 45.8 48.8 83.9 74.7 58.6 53.7 87.7 64.0 11.9 9.5
applications in 2011, followed by the offices of China, 305
285
Applications
the US (B, PPA data) and Japan. Apart from the CPVO,
3
four other offices received more than 1,000 applications 145

121 114 111 109 105
each in 2011.
ca
y
il
da
e
ico
a
nd
bia
an
rke
az
nc
ali
fri
na
ala
ex
lom
Br
rm
Fra
str
The non-resident share in total applications varied from

Tu
hA
Ca
Ze
Ge
Au
Co
ut
w
So
Ne
4.9% in China to 87.7% in Colombia. For 10 of the top 20

offices, non-resident applications accounted for about
.
50% or more of total applications received. In contrast, Office
non-resident applicants accounted for around one-tenth

Note: United States of America (A) refers to PVPA data, and United States of
of all applications filed at the offices of France, Germany America (B) refers to PPA data.
and the Republic of Korea. Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012
The majority of offices saw growth in applications be-

tween 2010 and 2011. Israel saw the largest increase
with 313 additional applications. In contrast, the US (A,
PVPA data) saw the largest decrease with 180 fewer ap-
plications.
3 The US ranks second if PVPA and

PPA data are combined.
151
D.2.2 Grants for the top 20 offices

D.3
Similar to applications, the CPVO (2,585) issued the larg-
Plant variety applications and
est number of plant variety grants in 2011, followed by
grants by origin
Japan (1,139), the US (B) (823) and the Netherlands (717).
The statistics presented in this subsection offer insight
The non-resident share in total grants varied from 2% in into the origin of demands for plant variety protection.
China to around 87% in Chile and Colombia. This is of Plant variety activity by origin includes resident applica-
similar magnitude for their application data. tions and applications abroad. Origin is determined based
on the residency of the applicant.
Half of the top 20 offices issued fewer grants in 2010
than in 2011, with the most notable decreases recorded This subsection presents application and grant data by
for China (-64%), Ukraine (-55.5%) and the US (A) (-30%). origin based on two different counting methods. First,
The fastest growth during the same period occurred at data based on absolute number count are presented,
the offices of Chile, Israel and the Netherlands. followed by data based on the equivalent count concept.
The difference between the two methods lies in the treat-
Figure D.2.2 Plant variety grants for the ment of regional office (CPVO) data. An application at
top 20 offices, 2011 the CPVO is counted only once with the absolute count
Resident Non-Resident method, whereas, with the equivalent count method, a
21.4 31.3 62.6 17.0 15.2 46.7 13.6 67.4 60.9 8.7
single application at the CPVO is treated as equivalent
to multiple applications. For instance, to calculate the
number of equivalent applications at the CPVO, each
Grants
1,139
823 717
application is multiplied by the corresponding number
571 465 448 365 297 276 of member states. If the applicant resides in one of the
27 EU member states, the application is counted as
ine
A)
ca
n
ea
l
ce
ds
ae
(B
pa
tio
a(
fri
ffi
an
or
ra
Isr
ca
Ja
ra
hA
yO
fK
ric
erl
Uk
one resident filing and 26 filings abroad. However, if the

ri
de
me
me
co
th
t
ut
rie
Fe
Ne
So
bli
A
A
Va
an
of
of
pu
ssi
nt
tes
tes
Re
applicant does not reside in an EU member state, the

Pla
Ru
Sta
Sta
ity
d
un
ite
ite
mm
application is counted as 27 applications abroad.

Un
Un
Co
Office
79.3 2.1 55.7 40.1 87.0 7.0 71.4 63.3 87.1 53.8
183 172
Grants
115 114 112 109 101 91

ny
il
ina
y
a
da
nd
ile
bia
rke
az
ali
ic
a
Ch
na
ala
ex
Ch
lom
Br
rm
str
Tu
Ca
Ze
Au
Ge
Co
w
Ne
.
Office
Note: United States of America (A) refers to PVPA data, and United States of
America (B) refers to PPA data.
152
D.3.1 Applications and grants by origin Grant data show a profile similar to that for application
data for all reported origins. However, there are some
Plant variety application and grant data for the top 20 differences in the ranking of origins. Applicants from
origins, based on the absolute count method, are pre- the Netherlands received the largest number of grants,
sented in Figures D.3.1.1 and D.3.1.2. followed by applicants residing in the US, Japan and
Germany (Figure D.3.1.2). China ranked in third position
The largest number of plant variety applications originated for applications but in 10th position for grants. The major-
in the Netherlands (2,769), followed by applications filed ity of origins received fewer grants in 2011 than in 2010;
by residents of the US, China and Germany (Figure this is in contrast to the trend observed for application
D.3.1.1). The majority of origins filed more applications data. The most notable decline (-62.7%) in grants was for
in 2011 than in 2010. Residents of Israel (+106.6%), Italy applicants residing in China. The distribution of resident
(+89.5%) and Denmark (+52.2%) saw the largest growth grants, grants abroad and regional grants data is similar,
in applications during this period. In contrast, residents for all origins, to that of application data.
of the Russian Federation (-30.1%), Ukraine (-15.7%) and
Switzerland (-11.3%) filed considerably fewer applications
in 2011 than in 2010.
Applicants residing in Brazil, China, the Republic of

Korea, the Russian Federation and Ukraine filed the bulk
of their applications at their respective national offices. In
contrast, applications abroad accounted for more than
half of all applications originating in Belgium, Germany,
New Zealand, Switzerland and the US.
Figure D.3.1.1 Plant variety applications for the top 20 origins, 2011
Resident Abroad Regional Resident Abroad Regional
17.8 6.7 9.0 8.5 2.3 -7.3 6.2 -15.7 -30.1 -11.3 106.6 -6.7 52.2 3.1 13.5 7.5 89.5 -2.2 38.2 10.2
292
Applications
Applications
1,871 242 234

210
186 180 175
1,204
1,077 973 123 119
838
549
414 386 354
e
y
ca
ina
nd
ea
e
s
ain
il
n
c
om
um
lia
k
l
ly
nd
ae
an
nd
in
bli
nc
az
pa
ar
tio
Ita
eri
or
a
rla
ala
ra
Ch
Isr
Sp
gd
lgi
nm
rm
Br
Fra
pu
a
str
Ja
era
fK
Am
erl
Uk
Be
Ze
Kin
Re
Ge
Au
itz
De
ed
co
th
Sw
of
h
Ne
nF
d
bli
ec
Ne
ite
tes
pu
Cz
Un
ssi
Sta
Re
Ru
d
ite
Un
Origin Origin
153
Figure D.3.1.2 Plant variety grants for the top 20 origins, 2011
Resident Abroad Regional Resident Abroad Regional

14.7 -6.8 -13.3 -8.2 9.7 -23.2 5.8 -18.9 -36.5 -62.7 51.6 -5.9 -16.5 -30.9 -8.0 13.8 -16.3 -7.4 35.4 -47.7
2,255 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
194 192
162 159
126
Grants
124
Grants
1,239 118 113 107
991 973 91
635
489
399
258 258
ine 246
y
a
d
ea
ina
ce
ds
a
ain
il
m
lic
an
rk
l
ly
nd
ric
pa
an
tio
ae
az
ric
ali
n
an
or
Ita
do
ma
ra
Ch
ub
rm
Fra
e
ala
Ja
erl
Isr
Sp
ra
Br
Af
fK
str
Am
erl
Uk
ing
ep
de
n
Ge
itz
Ze
Au
co
De
h
th
hR
Fe
dK
Sw
ut
of
Ne
w
bli
So
ec
Ne
an
tes
ite
pu
Cz
ssi
Un
ta
Re
dS
Ru
ite
Un
.
Origin Origin
D.3.2 Equivalent applications and grants Equivalent grant data for all reported origins show a
by origin profile similar to the one for equivalent application data.
However, there are some differences in the ranking of
Plant variety application and grant data for the top 20 origins. Applicants from the Netherlands received the
origins, based on the equivalent count method, are largest number of grants, followed by applicants residing
presented in Figures D.3.2.1 and D.3.2.2. in France, Germany and the US. For all origins, except
the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation,
Equivalent application count data show that, in 2011, the grants issued abroad accounted for the largest share
largest number of plant variety applications originated of total grants.
in the Netherlands, followed by applications filed by
residents of the US, Germany and France. The volume
of applications from the latter three were of a similar
magnitude; however, the volume of applications filed by
Dutch applicants was more than double that filed by US
applicants (Figure D.3.2.1).
For the majority of origins, applications abroad accounted

for the largest share of total applications. This was partly
due to the multiplier applied to regional applications.
Applicants residing in China, the Republic of Korea and
Ukraine filed the bulk of their applications at their respec-
tive national offices.
154
Figure D.3.2.1 Equivalent plant variety applications for the top 20 origins, 2011

17.0 36.9 0.9 -16.5 29.1 -10.4 -1.6 47.0 35.7 -10.3 -37.8 82.2 -4.3 319.9 8.4 4.7 96.2 173.0 -11.1 -15.7
29,783 Growth rate (%): 2010-11 1,523 1,487 Growth rate (%): 2010-11
1,282
1,163
Applications
Applications
1,072
862
12,583 12,205 11,524 622 587 575
414
3,596 3,292 2,756 2,624
2,368 2,065
y
a
ain
nd
n
e
m
k
ly
ds
ine
ina
ea
a
l
a
um
nd
d
an
ae
nc
ric
ar
pa
Ita
tin
ali
an
do
lan
an
or
Sp
nm
ala
rm
Fra
ra
e
Isr
Ch
erl
Ja
lgi
str
ail
en
ing
Am
erl
fK
Po
Uk
Ge
Be
Ze
itz
De
Au
Th
g
th
dK
co
Ar
Sw
of
w
Ne
bli
ite
Ne
tes
pu
Un
ta
Re
dS
ite
Un
Origin Origin
Figure D.3.2.2 Equivalent plant variety grants for the top 20 origins, 2011

15.2 33.2 8.5 13.5 10.6 -5.6 6.6 -15.4 -34.6 -27.8 -23.9 2.2 73.2 -23.2 28.5 8.6 12.7 37.4 -46.0 23.8
Grants
Grants
660
11,711 11,139
9,091 497 489 482 443 425
353 350 317
3,430 2,736
2,161 2,109 1,287 1,205
y
ca
n
e
um
k
ly
ds
ia
en
ea
c
ain
l
a
nd
n
d
an
ae
nc
ar
an
pa
bli
Ita
ali
tio
lan
do
str
eri
an
or
ed
ala
lgi
nm
Isr
rm
Fra
Sp
erl
Ja
pu
str
ra
ing
Au
Am
erl
fK
Po
Sw
Be
Ze
Ge
itz
De
Re
de
Au
th
dK
co
Sw
of
Fe
w
Ne
bli
ite
ec
Ne
tes
an
pu
Cz
Un
ssi
ta
Re
dS
Ru
ite
Un
Origin Origin
155
D.3.3 Non-resident applications by office The most popular destinations for plant variety protection
and origin by foreign applicants were the CPVO, Ukraine, the US
(B) (PPA data), Japan and Canada. Applicants from the
Plant breeders frequently seek protection for their new Netherlands accounted for the largest non-resident share
plant varieties abroad. Table D.3.3 offers an overview of at nine offices, and had the highest share at the offices
the flow of cross-border filings. The underlying data refer of Colombia and Ecuador (68% for each). US applicants
to actual numbers of plant variety applications instead accounted for the largest non-resident share at seven
of equivalent counts. offices, including the CPVO and the offices of Chile and
Mexico where they accounted for the majority share.
Swiss applicants had the highest non-resident share in
the Netherlands and the US (A) (PVPA data).
Table D.3.3 Non-resident plant variety applications by office and origin, 2011
Origin
Office AR AT AU BE CH CZ DE DK ES FR GB IL IT JP KR NL NZ RS TH US Others
Australia 1 2 2 2 2 18 5 6 9 1 1 11 17 23 1 41 9
Brazil 14 3 9 3 6 3 9 9 79 5 17 1
Canada 5 37 2 18 31 4 1 1 18 47 4 88 0
Chile 1 3 1 4 1 2 17 11 45 1
China 2 2 1 4 9 33 10 1
Colombia 4 1 1 7 7 68 1 9 2
Community Plant Variety Office 20 30 113 44 42 1 26 43 412 50
Ecuador 13 1 1 1 4 2 57 2 2
Israel 3 2 7 28 5 3 6 2 32 74 3 30 5
Japan 18 48 16 5 13 8 42 17 6 117 1 40 2
Mexico 3 1 2 4 4 2 18 5 44 2
Netherlands 47 19 8 21 9 3 9 13
New Zealand 1 6 3 1 2 1 4 1 12 8 7 18 1
Republic of Korea 3 8 2 6 1 11 24 1 4 10
Russian Federation 2 1 22 3 1 1 27 3 18
South Africa 3 27 1 3 3 7 16 8 2 1 27 10 105 0
Turkey 2 1 1 4 24 14 1 6 1 8 9
Ukraine 21 1 18 38 3 85 1 141 5 7 11 129 58 112 63
United States of America (A) 1 56 8 6 2 17 2 8
United States of America (B) 30 27 1 1 154 44 4 34 50 31 8 40 2 205 24 1 28
Others 43 2 6 8 5 6 109 1 14 54 5 2 17 1 3 94 13 0 0 45
Note: Argentina (AR), Austria (AT), Australia (AU), Belgium (BE), Switzerland (CH), Czech Republic (CZ), Germany (DE), Denmark (DK), Spain (ES), France (FR),
United Kingdom (GB), Israel (IL), Italy (IT), Japan (JP), Republic of Korea (KR), Netherlands (NL), New Zealand (NZ), Serbia (RS), Thailand (TH) and United States
of America (US)
156
D.4 As shown in Figure D.4.2, the CPVO accounted for

approximately 20% of all plant variety grants in force
Plant variety grants in force worldwide in 2011. This reflects the fact that this office
The protection of plant varieties is granted for a limited pe- has issued the largest number of grants over the past
riod of time, in accordance with the legislation governing few years. A high number of grants were also in force at
plant variety protection in the territory concerned. Figure the offices of Japan and the US (B) (PPA data).
D.4.1 shows the total number of plant variety grants in
force worldwide between 1995 and 2011. World totals The majority of the offices presented in Figure D.4.2 had
are WIPO estimates covering data for 66 offices. There higher numbers of plant variety grants in force in 2011
were around 94,300 plant varieties in force in 2011, which than in 2010. The offices of the Netherlands, the Republic
is more than double the amount in force in 1995 (around of Korea and Ukraine saw double-digit growth. In con-
39,600). There has been a consistent upward trend in trast, France and Italy exhibited substantial declines.
the number of plant varieties in force, even though the
growth rate has slowed since 2007.
Figure D.4.1 Trend in plant varieties in force worldwide

Plant varieties in force Growth rate (%)
100,000
80,000
Plant varieties in force
60,000
40,000
20,000
. 6.4 2.4 7.8 5.8 5.1 6.1 6.3 5.2 4.6 4.1 5.8 8.1 6.6 6.0 4.4 4.5
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Figure D.4.2 Plant varieties in force for selected offices, 2011
7.3 3.1 3.1 13.7 1.0 13.2 4.7 12.6 -8.4 4.6 2.7 4.9 -3.1 8.2 -12.1 -3.4 -3.8 0.5 -13.1 4.8
1,979 1,927
13,987
1,551 1,509
1,299 1,280 1,252 1,177
8,163 942
5,834
5,036
3,979 3,922
3,213 2,607
2,425
y
da
il
el
a
ly
nd
nd
ine
A)
a
n
ea
ina
e
B)
an
az
nc
ali
nd
ric
fic
pa
Ita
tio
a
do
na
a(
a(
ala
or
la
Isr
ra
Br
Ch
rm
Fra
str
Af
Of
la
Ja
ra
ng
Po
fK
Ca
ic
ic
Uk
Ze
er
Au
Ge
de
er
er
h
ty
Ki
co
th
ut
Am
Am
rie
w
Fe
d
Ne
So
bli
Ne
ite
Va
ian
of
of
pu
Un
nt
ss
es
es
Re
Pla
Ru
at
at
St
St
ity
d
un
ite
ite
mm
Un
Un
Co
Office Office
Note: United States of America (A) refers to PVPA data, and United States of America (B) refers to PPA data.
157
annex a
annex, glossary and

list of abbreviations
Annex A
Definitions for selected energy-related technology fields
Energy-related technologies International Patent Classification (IPC) Symbols
Solar energy technology F24J 2/00, F24J 2/02, F24J 2/04, F24J 2/05, F24J 2/06, F24J 2/07, F24J 2/08, F24J 2/10,
F24J 2/12, F24J 2/13, F24J 2/14, F24J 2/15, F24J 2/16, F24J 2/18, F24J 2/23, F24J 2/24,
F24J 2/36, F24J 2/38, F24J 2/42, F24J 2/46, F03G 6/06, G02B 5/10, H01L 31/052, E04D
13/18, H01L 31/04, H01L 31/042, H01L 31/18, E04D 1/30, G02F 1/136, G05F 1/67, H01L
25/00, H01L 31/00, H01L 31/048, H01L 33/00, H02J 7/35, H02N 6/00
Fuel cell technology H01M 4/00, H01M 4/86, H01M 4/88, H01M 4/90, H01M 8/00, H01M 8/02, H01M 8/04, H01M
8/06, H01M 8/08, H01M 8/10, H01M 8/12, H01M 8/14, H01M 8/16, H01M 8/18, H01M 8/20,
H01M 8/22, H01M 8/24
Wind energy F03D 1/00, F03D 3/00, F03D 5/00, F03D 7/00, F03D 9/00, F03D 11/00, B60L 8/00
Geothermal energy F24J 3/08, F03G 4/00, F03G 7/05
Note: For a definition of IPC symbols, see www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/. The correspondence between IPC symbols and technology fields is not always
clear-cut. Therefore, it is difficult to capture all patents in a specific technology field. Nonetheless, the IPC-based definitions of the four technologies presented
above are likely to capture the vast majority of related patents.
Source: WIPO
159
annex b
Annex B
International classification of goods and services under
the nice agreement
Class
Headings Products
Class 1 Chemicals used in industry, science and photography, as well as in agriculture, horticulture and forestry; unprocessed
artificial resins, unprocessed plastics; manures; fire extinguishing compositions; tempering and soldering
preparations; chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs; tanning substances; adhesives used in industry
Class 2 Paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants; mordants; raw
natural resins; metals in foil and powder form for painters, decorators, printers and artists
Class 3 Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations;
soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices
Class 4 Industrial oils and greases; lubricants; dust absorbing, wetting and binding compositions; fuels (including motor spirit)
and illuminants; candles and wicks for lighting
Class 5 Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations; sanitary preparations for medical purposes; dietetic substances
adapted for medical use, food for babies; plasters, materials for dressings; material for stopping teeth, dental wax;
disinfectants; preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides
Class 6 Common metals and their alloys; metal building materials; transportable buildings of metal; materials of metal for
railway tracks; non-electric cables and wires of common metal; ironmongery, small items of metal hardware; pipes
and tubes of metal; safes; goods of common metal not included in other classes; ores
Class 7 Machines and machine tools; motors and engines (except for land vehicles); machine coupling and transmission
components (except for land vehicles); agricultural implements other than hand-operated; incubators for eggs
Class 8 Hand tools and implements (hand-operated); cutlery; side arms; razors
Class 9 Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signaling, checking
(supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting,
switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission
or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and
mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and
computers; fire-extinguishing apparatus
Class 10 Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments, artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; orthopedic
articles; suture materials
Class 11 Apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating, cooking, refrigerating, drying, ventilating, water supply and
sanitary purposes
Class 12 Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water
Class 13 Firearms; ammunition and projectiles; explosives; fireworks
Class 14 Precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes;
jewellery, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments
Class 15 Musical instruments
Class 16 Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding
material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; paint brushes;
typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic
materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks
Class 17 Rubber, gutta-percha, gum, asbestos, mica and goods made from these materials and not included in other classes;
plastics in extruded form for use in manufacture; packing, stopping and insulating materials; flexible pipes, not of metal
Class 18 Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins,
hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery
160
annex b
Class 19 Building materials (non-metallic); non-metallic rigid pipes for building; asphalt, pitch and bitumen; non-metallic
transportable buildings; monuments, not of metal
Class 20 Furniture, mirrors, picture frames; goods (not included in other classes) of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone,
ivory, whalebone, shell, amber, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials, or of plastics
Class 21 Household or kitchen utensils and containers; combs and sponges; brushes (except paint brushes); brush-making
materials; articles for cleaning purposes; steelwool; unworked or semi-worked glass (except glass used in building);
glassware, porcelain and earthenware not included in other classes
Class 22 Ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags (not included in other classes); padding and
stuffing materials (except of rubber or plastics); raw fibrous textile materials
Class 23 Yarns and threads, for textile use
Class 24 Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed and table covers
Class 25 Clothing, footwear, headgear
Class 26 Lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid; buttons, hooks and eyes, pins and needles; artificial flowers
Class 27 Carpets, rugs, mats and matting, linoleum and other materials for covering existing floors; wall hangings (non-textile)
Class 28 Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes; decorations for Christmas trees
Class 29 Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams,
compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats
Class 30 Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread,
pastry and confectionery, ices; honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments);
spices; ice
Class 31 Agricultural, horticultural and forestry products and grains not included in other classes; live animals; fresh fruits and
vegetables; seeds, natural plants and flowers; foodstuffs for animals, malt
Class 32 Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups and other
preparations for making beverages
Class 33 Alcoholic beverages (except beers)
Class 34 Tobacco; smokers’ articles; matches
Class
Headings Services
Class 35 Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions
Class 36 Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs
Class 37 Building construction; repair; installation services
Class 38 Telecommunications
Class 39 Transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement
Class 40 Treatment of materials
Class 41 Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities
Class 42 Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research
services; design and development of computer hardware and software
Class 43 Services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation
Class 44 Medical services; veterinary services; hygienic and beauty care for human beings or animals; agriculture, horticulture
and forestry services
Class 45 Legal services; security services for the protection of property and individuals; personal and social services rendered
by others to meet the needs of individuals
Note: See www.wipo.int/classifications/nivilo/nice/index.htm?lang=EN for further information on the International Classification of Goods and Services under the
Nice Agreement.
Source: WIPO
161
annex b
Class groups defined by Edital®

Industry sector Nice classes
Agricultural products and services 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43
Management, Communications, Real estate and Financial services 35, 36
Chemicals 1, 2, 4
Textiles - Clothing and Accessories 14, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34
Construction, Infrastructure 6, 17, 19, 37, 40
Pharmaceuticals, Health, Cosmetics 3, 5, 10, 44
Household equipment 8, 11, 20, 21
Leisure & Education = Leisure, Education, Training 13, 15, 16, 28, 41
Scientific research, Information and Communication technology 9, 38, 42, 45
Transportation and Logistics 7, 12, 39
Source: Edital®
162
glossary
Glossary
This glossary seeks to assist readers in better under- Budapest Treaty provides that the deposit of a microor-
standing key technical terms and concepts. Many of ganism with any “international depositary authority” (IDA)
the terms are defined generically (e.g., “application”), but suffices for the purposes of patent procedure before the
apply to several or all of the various forms of IP covered national patent offices of all contracting states and before
in this report. any regional patent office (where such a regional office
recognizes the effects of the Treaty).
Applicant: An individual or other legal entity that files
an application for a patent, utility model, trademark or Class: Refers to the classes defined in the Locarno and
industrial design. There may be more than one applicant Nice Classifications. Classes indicate the categories
in an application. For the statistics presented in this pub- of products and services (where applicable) for which
lication, the name of the first-named applicant is used to trademark or industrial design protection is requested.
determine the owner of the application. (See “Locarno Classification” and “Nice Classification”.)
Application: The procedure for requesting IP rights at Class count: The number of classes specified in a trade-
an office, which examines the application and decides mark application or registration. In the international trade-
whether to grant or refuse protection. Application also mark system and at certain offices, an applicant can file
refers to a set of documents submitted to an office by a trademark application that specifies one or more of the
the applicant. 45 goods and services classes of the Nice Classification.
Offices use either a single- or multi-class filing system.
Application abroad: For statistical purposes, an applica- For example, the offices of Japan, the Republic of Korea
tion filed by a resident of a given state/jurisdiction with and the United States of America (US) as well as many
an IP office of another state/jurisdiction. For example, an European offices have multi-class filing systems. The
application filed by an applicant domiciled in France with offices of Brazil, China and Mexico follow a single-class
the JPO is considered an “application abroad” from the filing system, requiring a separate application for each
perspective of France. This differs from a “non-resident class in which applicants seek trademark protection. To
application”, which describes an application filed by a capture the differences in application numbers across
resident of a foreign state/jurisdiction from the perspec- offices, it is useful to compare their respective application
tive of the office receiving the application. and registration class counts.
Application date: The date on which the IP office Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of the
receives an application that meets the minimum re- European Union (EU): An EU agency that manages a
quirements. Application date is also referred to as the system of plant variety rights covering the 27 EU mem-
filing date. ber states.
Budapest Treaty: Disclosure of an invention is a require- Complex technology: A technology usually defined
ment for the granting of a patent. Normally, an invention as one for which the resulting products or processes
is disclosed by means of a written description. Where an consist of numerous separately patentable elements,
invention involves a microorganism or the use of a micro- and for which patent ownership is typically widespread.
organism, disclosure is not always possible in writing but For example, smartphones fall into the category of com-
can sometimes only be effected by the deposit, with a plex technologies.
specialized institution, of a sample of the microorganism.
In order to eliminate the need to deposit a microorganism
in each country in which patent protection is sought, the
163
glossary
Contracting Party (Hague member): A state or inter- Equivalent grant (registration): Grants (registrations)
governmental organization that is a member of the Hague at regional offices are equivalent to multiple grants (reg-
System for the International Registration of Industrial istrations), one in each of the states that is a member
Designs. The expression “contracting party” includes any of those offices. To calculate the number of equivalent
state or intergovernmental organization party to the 1999 grants (registrations) for BOIP, EAPO, OAPI or OHIM data,
Act and/or the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement. The each grant (registration) is multiplied by the correspond-
entitlement to file an international application under the ing number of member states. For EPO and ARIPO data,
Hague Agreement is limited to natural persons or legal each grant is counted as one grant abroad if the applicant
entities having a real and effective industrial or commercial does not reside in a member state; or as one resident and
establishment, or a domicile, in at least one of the con- one grant abroad if the applicant resides in a member
tracting parties to the Agreement, or to nationals of one state. The equivalent grant (registration) concept is used
of these contracting parties, or of a member state of an for reporting data by origin.
intergovernmental organization that is a contracting party.
In addition, but only under the 1999 Act, an international European Patent Convention (EPC): The Convention
application may be filed on the basis of habitual residence on the Grant of European Patents, commonly known as
in the jurisdiction of a contracting party. the European Patent Convention (EPC), is a multilateral
treaty instituting the European Patent Organisation and
Designation: The specification in an international reg- providing a legal system according to which European
istration of a Hague or Madrid member’s jurisdiction in patents are granted. The EPC permits applicants to file a
which holders of registrations seek protection for their single application at the European Patent Office (EPO) and
industrial designs or trademarks. to designate any of the participating European countries.
Direct filing: See “National route”. European Patent Office (EPO): The EPO is the re-
gional patent office created under the European Patent
Discrete technology: A technology describing products Convention (EPC), in charge of granting European patents
or processes that consist of a single and/or relatively few for EPC member states. Under PCT procedures, the
patentable elements, and for which patent ownership is EPO acts as a receiving office, an international search-
relatively concentrated. For example, a pharmaceutical ing authority and an international preliminary examin-
product is considered a discrete technology. ing authority.
Equivalent application: Applications at regional offices Filing: See “Application”.

are equivalent to multiple applications, one in each of the
states that is a member of those offices. To calculate Foreign-oriented patent families: A patent family having
the number of equivalent applications for BOIP, EAPO, at least one filing office that is different from the office of
OAPI or OHIM data, each application is multiplied by the the applicant’s origin. (See “Patent Family”.)
corresponding number of member states. For EPO and
ARIPO data, each application is counted as one applica- Grant: A set of exclusive rights legally accorded to the
tion abroad if the applicant does not reside in a member applicant when a patent or utility model is “granted” or
state; or as one resident and one application abroad if “issued”. (See “Patent” and “Utility model”.)
the applicant resides in a member state. The equivalent
application concept is used for reporting data by origin. Gross domestic product (GDP): The total unduplicated
output of economic goods and services produced within
a country as measured in monetary terms.
164
glossary
Hague international application: An application for the article, including compositions of lines or colors or any
international registration of an industrial design filed under three-dimensional forms that give a special appearance
the WIPO-administered Hague system. to a product or handicraft. The holder of a registered
industrial design has exclusive rights against unauthor-
Hague international registration: An international regis- ized copying or imitation of the design by third parties.
tration issued via the Hague system, which facilitates the Industrial design registrations are valid for a limited pe-
acquisition of industrial design rights in multiple jurisdic- riod. The term of protection is usually 15 years for most
tions. An application for international registration of an jurisdictions. However, differences in legislation do exist,
industrial design leads to its recording in the International notably in China (which provides for a 10-year term from
Register and the publication of the registration in the the application date) and the US (which provides for a
International Designs Bulletin. If the registration is not 14-year term from the date of registration).
refused by the IP office of a designated Hague member,
the international registration will have the same effect as Intellectual property (IP): Refers to creations of the
a registration made in that jurisdiction. mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols,
names, images and designs used in commerce. IP is
Hague route: An alternative to the Paris route (direct divided into two categories: industrial property, which
route), the Hague route enables an application for inter- includes patents, utility models, trademarks, industrial
national registration of industrial designs to be filed using designs and geographical indications of source; and
the Hague system. copyright, which includes literary and artistic works
such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works,
Hague system: The abbreviated form of the Hague artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs
System for the International Registration of Industrial and sculptures, and architectural designs. Rights re-
Designs. This system consists of several international lated to copyright include those of performing artists in
treaties (the London Act (currently frozen), the Hague their performances, producers of phonograms in their
Act and the Geneva Act). The Hague system makes it recordings, and those of broadcasters in their radio and
possible for an applicant to register up to 100 industrial television programs.
designs in multiple jurisdictions by filing a single applica-
tion with the International Bureau of WIPO. It simplifies International Bureau (IB): In the context of the PCT,
the process of multinational registration by reducing the Hague and Madrid systems, the International Bureau of
requirement to file separate applications with each IP WIPO acts as a receiving office for international applica-
office. The system also simplifies the subsequent man- tions from all contracting states/parties. It also handles
agement of the industrial design, since it is possible to processing tasks with respect to these applications and
record changes or to renew the registration through a the subsequent management of Hague and Madrid reg-
single procedural step. istrations.
In Force: Refers to IP rights that are currently valid. International Depositary Authority (IDA): A scientific
To remain in force, IP protection must be maintained institution - typically a “culture collection” - capable of
(see “Maintenance”). storing microorganisms that has acquired the status of an
"international depositary authority" under the Budapest
Industrial design: Industrial designs are applied to a Treaty and that provides for the receipt, acceptance and
wide variety of industrial products and handicrafts. They storage of microorganisms and the furnishing of samples
refer to the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a useful thereof. Presently, there are 41 such authorities.
165
glossary
International Patent Classification (IPC): The IPC pro- international registration will have the same effect as a
vides for a hierarchical system of language-independent registration made in that jurisdiction.
symbols for the classification of patents and utility models
according to the different areas of technology to which Madrid route: An alternative to the Paris route (direct
they pertain. The symbols contain information relating to route), the Madrid route enables an application for inter-
sections, classes, subclasses and groups. national registration of a trademark to be filed using the
Madrid system.
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties
of Plants (UPOV): An intergovernmental organiza- Madrid system: The abbreviated form of the Madrid
tion established by the International Convention for the System for the International Registration of Marks, es-
Protection of New Varieties of Plants ("UPOV Convention"), tablished under the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid
which was adopted on December 2, 1961. UPOV pro- Protocol and administered by WIPO. The Madrid system
vides and promotes an effective system of plant variety makes it possible for an applicant to register a trademark
protection, with the aim of encouraging the development in a large number of countries by filing a single applica-
of new varieties of plants for the benefit of society. tion at their national or regional IP office that is party to
the system. The Madrid system simplifies the process
Invention: A new solution to a technical problem. To of multinational trademark registration by reducing the
obtain patent rights, the invention must be novel, involve requirement to file separate applications at each of-
an inventive step and be industrially applicable, as judged fice. It also simplifies the subsequent management of
by a person skilled in the art. the mark, since it is possible to record changes or to
renew the registration through a single procedural step.
Locarno Classification (LOC): The abbreviated form of Registration through the Madrid system does not create
the International Classification for Industrial Designs under an “international” trademark, and the decision to register
the Locarno Agreement used for registering industrial or refuse the trademark remains in the hands of national
designs. The LOC comprises a list of 32 classes and and/or regional office(s). Trademark rights are limited to
their respective subclasses, with explanatory notes and the jurisdiction of the trademark registration office(s).
an alphabetical list of goods in which industrial designs
are incorporated, and an indication of the classes and Maintenance: An act by the applicant to keep the IP
subclasses into which they fall. grant/registration valid (in force), primarily by paying the
required fee to the IP office of the state/jurisdiction provid-
Madrid international application: An application ing protection. The fee is also known as a “maintenance
for the international registration of a trademark filed fee”. A trademark can be maintained indefinitely by pay-
under the WIPO-administered Madrid Agreement or ing renewal fees; however, patents, utility models and
Madrid Protocol. industrial designs can only be maintained for a limited
number of years. (See “Renewal”.)
Madrid international registration: An international reg-
istration issued via the Madrid system, which facilitates Microorganism deposit: the transmittal of a microorgan-
the acquisition of trademark rights in multiple jurisdictions. ism to an international depositary authority (IDA), which
An application for international registration of a trademark receives and accepts it, or the storage of such a micro-
leads to its recording in the International Register and organism by the IDA, or both transmittal and storage.
the publication of the registration in the WIPO Gazette
of International Marks. If the registration is not refused National Phase Entry (NPE): See “National Phase
by the IP office of a designated Madrid member, the under the PCT”.
166
glossary
National Phase under the PCT: This follows the inter- Paris route: An alternative to the PCT, Hague or Madrid
national phase of the PCT procedure, and consists of the routes, the Paris route (also called the “direct route”) en-
entry and processing of the international application in ables individual IP applications to be filed directly with an
the individual countries or regions in which the applicant office that is a signatory of the Paris Convention.
seeks protection for an invention.
Patent: A set of exclusive rights granted by law to ap-
National route: Applications for IP protection filed di- plicants for inventions that are new, non-obvious and
rectly with the national office of or acting for the relevant commercially applicable. It is valid for a limited period
state/jurisdiction (see also “PCT route”, “Hague route” or of time (generally 20 years), during which patent holders
“Madrid route”). National route is also called the “direct can commercially exploit their inventions on an exclusive
route” or “Paris route”. basis. In return, applicants are obliged to disclose their
inventions to the public in a manner that enables others,
Nice Classification (NCL): The abbreviated form of skilled in the art, to replicate the invention. The patent
the International Classification of Goods and Services system is designed to encourage innovation by provid-
for the Purposes of Registering Marks under the Nice ing innovators with time-limited exclusive legal rights,
Agreement. The Nice Classification is divided into 34 thus enabling innovators to appropriate a return on their
classes for goods and 11 for services. innovative activity.
Non-Resident: For statistical purposes, a “non-resident” Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): The PCT is an inter-
application refers to an application filed with the IP office national treaty, administered by WIPO. The PCT system
of or acting for a state/jurisdiction in which the first-named facilitates the filing of patent applications worldwide and
applicant in the application does not have residence. For makes it possible to seek patent protection for an inven-
example, an application filed with the JPO by an applicant tion simultaneously in each of a large number of countries
residing in France is considered a non-resident applica- by first filing a single "international" patent application. The
tion from the perspective of this office. Non-resident granting of patents, which remains under the control of
applications are sometimes referred to as foreign ap- the national or regional patent offices, is carried out in
plications. A non-resident grant or registration is an IP what is called the "national phase" or "regional phase”.
right issued on the basis of a non-resident application.
Patent Family: A set of interrelated patent applications
Origin (Country/Region): For statistical purposes, the filed in one or more countries/jurisdictions to protect the
“origin” of an application means the country/territory of same invention.
residence of the first-named applicant in the application.
In some cases (notably in the US), the country of origin Patent opposition: An administrative process for disput-
is determined by the residence of the assignee instead ing the validity of a granted patent that is often limited to a
of that of the applicant. specific time period after the patent has been granted. For
example, at the EPO anyone may oppose a patent within
Paris Convention: The Paris Convention for the nine months of publication of the grant of the European
Protection of Industrial Property (1883), signed on March patent in the European Patent Bulletin.
20, 1883, is one of the most important IP treaties. It
establishes the “right of priority” that enables an IP ap- PCT Filing: Abbreviated form of “PCT Inter-
plicant, when filing an application in countries other than national Application”.
the original country of filing, to claim priority of an earlier
application filed up to 12 months previously.
167
glossary
PCT International Application: A patent application Plant Patent Act (PPA) of the US: Under the law com-
filed through the WIPO-administered Patent Cooperation monly known as the “Plant Patent Act”, whoever invents
Treaty (PCT). or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and
new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants,
PCT-Patent Prosecution Highway Pilots (PCT-PPH): hybrids and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber
A number of bilateral agreements signed between patent propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state,
offices enable applicants to request a fast-track examina- may obtain a patent therefor.
tion procedure, whereby patent examiners can make use
of the work products of another office or offices. These Plant Variety: According to the UPOV Convention, “va-
work products can include the results of a favorable writ- riety” means a plant grouping within a single botanical
ten opinion by an ISA, the written opinion of an IPEA or taxon of the lowest known rank, which, irrespective of
the international preliminary report on patentability (IPRP) whether the conditions for the grant of a breeder’s right
issued within the framework of the PCT. By requesting are fully met, can be (a) defined by the expression of
this procedure, applicants can generally obtain patents the characteristics resulting from a given genotype or
from participating offices more quickly. combination of genotypes; (b) distinguished from any
other plant grouping by the expression of at least one of
PCT route: Patent applications filed or patents granted the said characteristics; and (c) considered as a unit with
based on PCT international applications. regard to its suitability for being propagated unchanged.
PCT system: The PCT, an international treaty admin- Plant Variety Grant: Under the UPOV Convention, the
istered by WIPO, facilitates the acquisition of patent breeder’s right is only granted (title of protection is issued)
rights in a large number of jurisdictions. The PCT system where the variety is new, distinct, uniform, stable and has
simplifies the process of multiple national patent filings a suitable denomination.
by reducing the requirement to file a separate application
in each jurisdiction. However, the decision of whether to Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) of the US: Under
grant patent rights remains in the hands of national and the PVPA, the US protects all sexually reproduced plant
regional patent offices, and patent rights remain limited to varieties and tuber propagated plant varieties excluding
the jurisdiction of the patent-granting authority. The PCT fungi and bacteria.
international application process starts with the interna-
tional phase, during which an international search and Prior art: All information disclosed to the public about an
possibly a preliminary examination are performed, and invention, in any form, before a given date. Information on
concludes with the national phase, during which national prior art can assist in determining whether the claimed
and regional patent offices decide on the patentability of invention is new and involves an inventive step (is non-
an invention according to national law. obvious) for the purposes of international searches and
international preliminary examination.
Pending patent application: In general, a patent applica-
tion filed with a patent office and for which no patent has yet Priority date: The filing date of the application on the
been granted or refused nor the application withdrawn. In basis of which priority is claimed.
jurisdictions where a request for examination is obligatory
to start the examination process, a pending application Publication date: The date on which an IP application is
may refer to an application for which a request for examina- disclosed to the public. On that date, the subject matter
tion has been received but for which no patent has been of the application becomes “prior art”.
granted or refused, nor the application withdrawn.
168
glossary
Regional Application/Grant (Registration): An ap- Resident: For statistical purposes, a “resident” applica-
plication filed with or granted (registered) by a regional tion refers to an application filed with the IP office of or
IP office having jurisdiction over more than one country. acting for the state/jurisdiction in which the first-named
Regional IP offices in operation include: the African applicant in the application has residence. For example,
Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), an application filed with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) by a
the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP), the resident of Japan is considered a resident application for
Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO), the European Patent the JPO. Resident applications are sometimes referred to
Office (EPO), the African Intellectual Property Organization as domestic applications. A resident grant/registration is
(OAPI) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal an IP right issued on the basis of a resident application.
Market (OHIM) of the EU.
Trademark: A trademark is a distinctive sign that iden-
Regional route (or regional direct): Applications for IP tifies certain goods or services as those produced or
protection filed or granted based on applications filed provided by a specific person or enterprise. The holder
with a regional IP office. of a registered trademark has the legal right to exclusive
use of the mark in relation to the products or services
Registered Community Design (RCD): A registration for which it is registered. The owner can prevent unau-
issued by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal thorized use of the trademark, or a confusingly similar
Market (OHIM) based on a single application filed directly mark, so as to prevent consumers and the public in
with this office by an applicant seeking protection within general from being misled. Unlike patents, trademarks
the EU as a whole. can be maintained indefinitely by paying renewal fees.
The procedures for registering trademarks are governed
Registration: A set of exclusive rights legally accorded by the rules and regulations of national and regional IP
to the applicant when an industrial design or trademark offices. Trademark rights are limited to the jurisdiction of
is “registered” or “issued”. (See “Industrial design” or the authority that registers the trademark. Trademarks
“Trademark”.) Registrations are issued to applicants can be registered by filing an application at the relevant
to make use of and exploit their industrial design or national or regional office(s), or by filing an international
trademark for a limited period of time and can, in some application through the Madrid system.
cases, particularly in the case of trademarks, be re-
newed indefinitely. Utility Model: A special form of patent right granted by a
state/jurisdiction to an inventor or the inventor’s assignee
Renewal: The process by which the protection of an IP for a fixed period of time. The terms and conditions for
right is maintained (i.e., kept in force). This usually consists granting a utility model are slightly different from those
of paying renewal fees to an IP office at regular intervals. for normal patents (including a shorter term of protec-
If renewal fees are not paid, the registration may lapse. tion and less stringent patentability requirements). The
(See “Maintenance”.) term “utility model” can also describe what are known in
certain countries as “petty patents”, “short-term patents”
Research and development (R&D) expenditure: The or “innovation patents”.
money spent on creative work undertaken on a system-
atic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, Validation: Procedure by which patent protection is
including knowledge related to human culture and so- validated post-grant at the offices designated in an EPO
ciety, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise patent grant. The procedure varies among European
new applications. offices but usually involves a translation into the national
language and/or a payment of fees.
169
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, stimulates
innovation and contributes to economic development
while safeguarding the public interest.
170
list of abbreviations
List of abbreviations
ARIPO African Regional Intellectual Property Organization
BOIP Benelux Office for Intellectual Property
CPVO Community Plant Variety Office of the European Union
EAPO Eurasian Patent Organization
EPO European Patent Office
EU European Union
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IB International Bureau
ID Industrial Design
IDA International Depositary Authority
IP Intellectual Property
IPC International Patent Classification
JPO Japan Patent Office
KIPO Korean Intellectual Property Office
OAPI African Intellectual Property Organization
OHIM Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
PCT Patent Cooperation Treaty
PCT NPE Patent Cooperation Treaty National Phase Entry
PPA Plant Patent Act of the United States of America
PPP Purchasing Power Parity
PVPA Plant Variety Protection Act of the United States of America
R&D Research and Development
RCD Registered Community Design
SIPO State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China
UM Utility Model
UPOV International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
USPTO United States Patent and Trademark Office
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
171
statistical tables - patents
statistical tables
Table P1: Patent applications by patent office and origin, 2011
Equivalent
Applications PCT International PCT National Phase
Applications by Office by Origin Applications Entry
Non- Receiving
Name Total Resident Resident Total (1) Office Origin Office Origin
Afghanistan .. .. .. 4 n.a. 0 .. 3
African Intellectual Property Organization .. .. .. n.a. 3 n.a. .. n.a.
African Regional Intellectual Property Organization .. .. .. n.a. 2 n.a. .. n.a.
Albania 11 3 8 3 0 0 6 ..
Algeria 897 94 803 102 3 4 766 2
Andorra .. .. .. 29 n.a. 3 .. 22
Angola (5) .. .. .. 4 n.a. 0 .. 3
Antigua and Barbuda .. .. .. 10 0 1 .. 6
Argentina (2,4) 4,717 .. .. 307 n.a. 25 .. 112
Armenia 140 121 19 200 4 6 10 7
Aruba .. .. .. 2 n.a. 0 .. ..
Australia 25,526 2,383 23,143 11,348 1,690 1,739 18,847 6,906
Austria 2,430 2,154 276 11,393 566 1,346 185 5,031
Azerbaijan 205 193 12 418 10 9 9 1
Bahamas .. .. .. 115 n.a. 9 .. 79
Bahrain 140 1 139 9 0 0 136 ..
Bangladesh 306 32 274 36 n.a. 0 .. 1
Barbados (5) 71 0 71 402 n.a. 110 71 289
Belarus 1,871 1,725 146 2,368 8 14 102 6
Belgium 763 636 127 11,427 72 1,191 .. 6,199
Belize .. .. .. 12 0 6 .. ..
Bermuda .. .. .. 157 n.a. 0 .. 62
Bhutan .. .. .. 1 n.a. 0 .. 1
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) .. .. .. 2 n.a. 0 .. 2
Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba .. .. .. 1 n.a. 0 .. ..
Bosnia and Herzegovina 55 43 12 48 6 6 9 2
Botswana .. .. .. 4 0 0 .. ..
Brazil (2,3) 22,686 2,705 19,981 4,212 519 564 18,654 1,012
Brunei Darussalam .. .. .. 12 n.a. 0 .. 2
Bulgaria 283 262 21 394 28 28 8 65
Burkina Faso (2,3,6) 2 2 0 3 0 0 .. 1
Burundi .. .. .. .. n.a. 3 .. ..
Cambodia .. .. .. 2 n.a. 0 .. 1
Cameroon (6) .. .. .. 1 n.a. 3 .. ..
Canada 35,111 4,754 30,357 24,528 2,176 2,929 26,759 8,357
Chad (6) .. .. .. 52 0 0 .. 44
Chile 2,792 339 2,453 657 84 118 2,199 230
China 526,412 415,829 110,583 435,608 17,471 16,402 64,486 12,713
China, Hong Kong SAR 13,493 181 13,312 1,647 0 0 .. 216
China, Macao SAR 60 4 56 28 n.a. 0 .. 3
Colombia 1,953 183 1,770 386 2 57 1,701 145
Congo (6) .. .. .. .. 0 1 .. ..
Cook Islands .. .. .. 1 n.a. 0 .. 1
Costa Rica 644 14 630 36 2 3 619 7
Côte d’Ivoire (6) .. .. .. 2 0 2 .. ..
Croatia 251 230 21 366 45 47 10 59
Cuba 246 62 184 157 9 10 183 83
Curaçao .. .. .. 1 n.a. 0 .. ..
Cyprus 8 0 8 340 0 26 .. 138
Czech Republic 880 783 97 1,802 126 148 44 511
172
Equivalent
Non- Receiving
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2,3) 8,057 8,018 39 8,055 4 4 37 26
Democratic Republic of the Congo .. .. .. 1 n.a. 1 .. ..
Denmark 1,771 1,574 197 11,565 678 1,314 48 6,572
Dominica .. .. .. 3 0 2 .. 1
Dominican Republic (2,4) 339 .. .. 8 6 7 .. 1
Ecuador (2,3) 694 4 690 15 3 33 .. 5
Egypt 2,209 618 1,591 727 29 33 1,537 41
El Salvador .. .. .. 8 1 1 .. 4
Estonia 77 62 15 272 9 35 5 100
Eurasian Patent Organization 3,560 536 3,024 n.a. 14 n.a. 2,895 n.a.
European Patent Office 142,793 71,898 70,895 n.a. 30,893 n.a. 80,275 n.a.
Finland 1,774 1,650 124 11,516 1,230 2,079 .. 6,586
France 16,754 14,655 2,099 65,349 3,498 7,438 .. 33,227
Gabon (6) .. .. .. .. 0 3 .. ..
Gambia (8) .. .. .. 1 n.a. 0 .. ..
Georgia 398 138 260 158 5 7 245 13
Germany 59,444 46,986 12,458 172,764 1,698 18,852 2,946 69,983
Ghana .. .. .. .. 0 2 .. ..
Greece (2,3) 744 728 16 1,172 58 93 .. 257
Grenada .. .. .. 1 0 0 .. 1
Guatemala 331 4 327 5 0 0 318 ..
Guinea (6) .. .. .. 1 0 0 .. 1
Honduras 255 2 253 2 0 0 236 2
Hungary 698 662 36 1,695 131 140 5 820
Iceland 71 50 21 324 18 43 15 187
India 42,291 8,841 33,450 15,717 897 1,330 28,456 3,022
Indonesia 5,838 541 5,297 607 8 13 4,847 41
International Bureau .. .. .. n.a. 8,774 n.a. .. n.a.
Iran (Islamic Republic of) .. .. .. 113 n.a. 1 .. 8
Iraq .. .. .. 4 n.a. 0 .. ..
Ireland 561 494 67 4,131 67 415 .. 1,781
Israel 6,886 1,360 5,526 10,821 1,061 1,452 5,525 5,026
Italy 9,721 8,794 927 27,679 424 2,695 .. 10,751
Jamaica 113 20 93 25 n.a. 3 .. ..
Japan 342,610 287,580 55,030 472,417 37,972 38,874 51,519 95,258
Jordan 400 40 360 75 n.a. 1 .. 5
Kazakhstan 1,732 1,415 317 1,821 22 23 132 24
Kenya (2,3) 197 77 120 81 4 9 118 13
Kuwait .. .. .. 100 n.a. 4 .. 6
Kyrgyzstan (2,3) 140 134 6 181 0 1 1 1
Lao People’s Democratic Republic (5) .. .. .. .. n.a. 5 .. ..
Latvia 183 173 10 323 10 17 .. 102
Lebanon (4) 282 .. .. 48 n.a. 1 .. 27
Liberia .. .. .. 1 0 1 .. ..
Libya .. .. .. 1 0 0 .. ..
Liechtenstein (7) .. .. .. 1,157 n.a. 86 .. 268
Lithuania 108 93 15 142 14 25 5 22
Luxembourg 128 85 43 2,281 0 246 4 1,485
Madagascar (5) 61 3 58 4 n.a. 2 52 ..
Malaysia 6,452 1,076 5,376 1,927 251 263 4,687 492
Mali (6) .. .. .. 6 0 0 .. ..
Malta 15 9 6 267 0 18 .. 195
173
Equivalent
Non- Receiving
Marshall Islands .. .. .. 2 n.a. 0 .. ..
Mauritius (2,4) 16 .. .. 41 n.a. 4 .. 10
Mexico 14,055 1,065 12,990 1,863 167 225 11,000 547
Monaco 9 6 3 142 0 26 .. 63
Mongolia (2,3) 179 110 69 111 0 1 68 37
Montenegro (5) 103 20 83 30 0 2 82 ..
Morocco 1,049 169 880 191 18 19 857 15
Namibia (8) .. .. .. 10 0 19 .. 9
Nepal .. .. .. 3 n.a. 0 .. 1
Netherlands 2,895 2,585 310 32,376 996 3,503 .. 20,396
New Zealand 6,209 1,501 4,708 3,021 277 328 4,045 1,116
Nicaragua .. .. .. .. 0 1 .. ..
Niger (6) .. .. .. 2 0 0 .. 2
Nigeria (5) .. .. .. 17 0 5 .. 2
Norway 1,776 1,122 654 5,325 355 698 509 3,143
Oman (5) .. .. .. 8 0 0 .. ..
Pakistan 953 92 861 139 n.a. 1 .. 3
Panama 441 21 420 70 n.a. 10 .. 35
Paraguay (2,3) 365 18 347 41 n.a. 1 .. 21
Peru 1,168 39 1,129 75 6 6 1,002 32
Philippines 3,196 186 3,010 298 20 21 .. 22
Poland 4,123 3,879 244 4,890 207 235 54 468
Portugal 646 571 75 992 48 95 13 287
Qatar .. .. .. 29 0 0 .. 1
Republic of Korea 178,924 138,034 40,890 187,454 10,413 10,447 31,039 14,047
Republic of Moldova 108 97 11 193 3 2 7 ..
Romania 1,463 1,424 39 1,597 23 26 15 60
Russian Federation 41,414 26,495 14,919 31,433 1,049 996 12,287 1,556
Saint Kitts and Nevis .. .. .. .. n.a. 1 .. ..
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (5) .. .. .. 8 0 4 .. 6
Samoa .. .. .. 33 n.a. 2 .. 4
San Marino (4) 64 .. .. 68 0 1 .. 26
Sao Tome and Principe (5) .. .. .. 3 n.a. 0 .. ..
Saudi Arabia 990 347 643 1,067 n.a. 147 .. 309
Senegal (6) .. .. .. 1 0 2 .. 1
Serbia 229 180 49 240 17 19 21 36
Seychelles .. .. .. 86 0 3 .. 55
Sierra Leone (8) .. .. .. 2 n.a. 1 .. 2
Singapore 9,794 1,056 8,738 4,529 457 662 6,726 1,937
Slovakia 257 224 33 432 49 59 18 120
Slovenia (2,3) 453 442 11 1,043 80 125 .. 412
Solomon Islands .. .. .. 1 n.a. 0 .. ..
South Africa 7,245 656 6,589 1,718 93 319 6,140 968
Spain 3,626 3,430 196 10,564 1,301 1,729 98 4,352
Sri Lanka (2,3,5) 460 225 235 243 n.a. 12 .. 7
Sudan .. .. .. .. 0 2 .. ..
Swaziland (8) .. .. .. 7 0 2 .. 6
Sweden 2,341 2,004 337 21,480 1,845 3,462 53 14,073
Switzerland 2,043 1,597 446 37,477 312 4,009 53 20,778
Syrian Arab Republic .. .. .. 7 5 5 .. ..
T F Y R of Macedonia 40 37 3 41 0 0 .. ..
174
Equivalent
Non- Receiving
Tajikistan 5 4 1 22 0 0 .. ..
Thailand 3,924 927 2,997 1,137 51 67 2,150 70
Trinidad and Tobago .. .. .. 16 0 0 .. 5
Tunisia .. .. .. 15 6 8 .. 2
Turkey 4,113 3,885 228 5,265 279 539 157 928
Turkmenistan .. .. .. 2 0 0 .. ..
Uganda (8) .. .. .. 2 n.a. 2 .. ..
Ukraine 5,253 2,649 2,604 3,312 131 141 2,321 137
United Arab Emirates (5) .. .. .. 194 n.a. 38 .. 51
United Kingdom 22,259 15,343 6,916 49,938 4,226 4,848 1,937 23,569
United Republic of Tanzania (8) .. .. .. 3 0 0 .. 2
United States of America 503,582 247,750 255,832 432,298 49,303 49,051 97,561 142,505
Uruguay 687 20 667 61 n.a. 5 .. 19
Uzbekistan 556 282 274 304 0 1 257 ..
Vanuatu .. .. .. 1 n.a. 0 .. 1
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 1,598 33 1,565 90 n.a. 2 .. 4
Viet Nam 3,560 300 3,260 321 11 18 2,945 14
Yemen 44 7 37 9 n.a. 1 .. ..
Zambia .. .. .. 1 1 0 .. 1
Zimbabwe .. .. .. 6 0 2 .. ..
(1) Equivalent patent applications by origin data are incomplete, as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of applications.
(2) 2010 data are reported for applications by office.
(3) 2010 data are reported for applications by origin.
(4) The office did not report resident applications. Therefore, the applications by origin data may be incomplete.
(5) The International Bureau acts as the receiving office for PCT applications.
(6) The African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) acts as the receiving office for PCT applications.
(7) The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IFPI) acts as the receiving office for PCT applications.
(8) The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) acts as the receiving office for PCT applications.
n.a. not applicable
.. not available
175
Table P2: Patent grants by patent office and origin, and patents in force, 2011
Equivalent Grants In Force

Grants by Office by Origin by Office

Name Total Resident Non-Resident Total (1) Total
Afghanistan .. .. .. 1 ..
Albania 21 1 20 1 64
Algeria 1,546 93 1,453 94 4,625
Andorra .. .. .. 6 ..
Antigua and Barbuda .. .. .. 2 ..
Argentina .. .. .. 104 ..
Armenia 112 109 3 136 285
Australia 17,877 1,267 16,610 6,162 105,463
Austria (5) 1,198 1,010 188 4,855 10,066
Azerbaijan 118 109 9 185 ..
Bahamas .. .. .. 56 ..
Bangladesh 85 6 79 6 ..
Barbados 6 0 6 436 61
Belarus 1,474 1,365 109 2,001 4,842
Belgium 541 424 117 5,217 ..
Belize .. .. .. 12 ..
Bermuda .. .. .. 57 ..
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) .. .. .. 1 ..
Bosnia and Herzegovina 115 28 87 29 746
Botswana .. .. .. 4 ..
Brazil (2,3,5) 3,251 314 2,937 805 40,022
Brunei Darussalam .. .. .. 18 ..
Bulgaria 128 61 67 136 7,399
Burkina Faso .. .. .. 1 ..
Canada 20,762 2,150 18,612 10,617 137,368
Chad .. .. .. 3 ..
Chile 1,013 104 909 195 8,644
China 172,113 112,347 59,766 118,158 696,939
China, Hong Kong SAR (5) 5,050 76 4,974 690 33,225
China, Macao SAR 45 2 43 9 429
Colombia 617 34 583 62 2,979
Costa Rica 38 1 37 17 245
Croatia 184 11 173 86 2,791
Cuba 154 53 101 151 228
Cyprus 1 0 1 139 171
Czech Republic 687 325 362 749 9,059
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2,3) 6,290 6,243 47 6,263 ..
Denmark 110 73 37 4,260 1,597
Dominican Republic .. .. .. 4 ..
Ecuador (2,4,5) 28 .. .. 3 199
Egypt 483 61 422 89 3,187
Estonia 129 32 97 88 1,293
Eurasian Patent Organization 1,258 222 1,036 n.a. n.a.
European Patent Office 62,112 32,585 29,527 n.a. n.a.
Finland 841 718 123 5,827 36,003
France (5) 10,213 8,815 1,398 34,766 435,915
Georgia 237 104 133 108 1,066
Germany 11,719 8,208 3,511 72,346 527,917
Ghana .. .. .. 1 ..
Greece (2,3,5) 479 467 12 628 32,120
Guatemala 39 3 36 3 636
176


Guinea .. .. .. 1 ..
Honduras 151 1 150 2 255
Hungary 445 160 285 643 5,227
Iceland (5) 67 6 61 124 1,892
India 5,168 776 4,392 2,877 41,361
Indonesia .. .. .. 19 ..
Iran (Islamic Republic of) .. .. .. 33 ..
Iraq .. .. .. 2 ..
Ireland 250 195 55 1,865 88,044
Israel 5,104 734 4,370 4,237 24,338
Italy 6,380 5,680 700 16,212 38,900
Jamaica .. .. .. 2 ..
Japan 238,323 197,594 40,729 304,604 1,542,096
Jordan 40 15 25 38 320
Kazakhstan (5) 1,887 1,608 279 1,711 581
Kenya .. .. .. 4 ..
Kuwait .. .. .. 28 ..
Kyrgyzstan (2,3,5) 109 106 3 170 112
Latvia 180 179 1 285 6,170
Lebanon .. .. .. 15 ..
Lesotho .. .. .. 1 ..
Liechtenstein .. .. .. 550 ..
Lithuania 96 85 11 107 625
Luxembourg (5) 65 39 26 912 21,346
Madagascar (2,3) 55 5 50 5 417
Malawi .. .. .. 1 ..
Malaysia (5) 2,353 310 2,043 599 96
Malta 1 0 1 94 432
Mauritania .. .. .. 1 ..
Mauritius (2,4) 8 .. .. 23 ..
Mexico 11,485 245 11,240 473 89,992
Monaco 13 8 5 80 51,007
Mongolia (2,3,5) 96 50 46 50 2,645
Montenegro 406 12 394 12 634
Morocco 979 126 853 148 ..
Mozambique .. .. .. 1 ..
Namibia .. .. .. 2 ..
Nepal .. .. .. 1 ..
Netherlands 2,042 1,767 275 14,924 12,713
New Zealand 4,710 326 4,384 1,000 35,700
Niger .. .. .. 1 ..
Nigeria .. .. .. 2 ..
Norway 1,612 409 1,203 2,286 16,060
Oman .. .. .. 3 ..
Pakistan 469 29 440 34 ..
Panama 321 12 309 74 6,152
Paraguay .. .. .. 2 ..
Peru 385 9 376 20 2,489
Philippines (5) 1,135 6 1,129 51 52,527
Poland 3,112 1,989 1,123 2,208 35,612
Portugal 145 96 49 287 1,932
Qatar .. .. .. 3 ..
Republic of Korea 94,720 72,258 22,462 97,714 678,005
177


Republic of Moldova 63 61 2 72 799
Romania 430 406 24 456 14,393
Russian Federation 29,999 20,339 9,660 22,177 168,558
Rwanda .. .. .. 1 ..
Saint Kitts and Nevis .. .. .. 2 ..
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines .. .. .. 5 ..
Samoa .. .. .. 10 ..
San Marino .. .. .. 22 ..
Saudi Arabia 252 17 235 228 1,933
Senegal .. .. .. 1 ..
Serbia 179 60 119 100 1,439
Seychelles .. .. .. 29 ..
Singapore 5,949 484 5,465 2,043 ..
Slovakia 317 50 267 105 3,617
Slovenia (2,3,5) 250 241 9 557 1,485
South Africa (5) 5,296 567 4,729 1,119 6,530
Spain 2,812 2,614 198 5,068 32,834
Sri Lanka (2,3) 504 220 284 223 ..
Swaziland .. .. .. 17 ..
Sweden (5) 1,039 842 197 10,905 80,132
Switzerland 368 243 125 17,564 143,253
Syrian Arab Republic .. .. .. 2 ..
T F Y R of Macedonia .. .. .. 1 ..
Tajikistan 5 5 0 23 253
Thailand 900 143 757 231 10,578
Trinidad and Tobago .. .. .. 7 ..
Tunisia .. .. .. 11 ..
Turkey 893 770 123 1,227 7,565
Turkmenistan .. .. .. 9 ..
Ukraine 4,061 1,902 2,159 2,149 24,771
United Arab Emirates .. .. .. 35 ..
United Kingdom 7,173 2,992 4,181 18,275 445,380
United States of America 224,505 108,626 115,879 201,158 2,113,628
Uruguay 13 1 12 8 863
Uzbekistan 179 108 71 108 679
Vanuatu .. .. .. 2 ..
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) .. .. .. 33 ..
Viet Nam 1,844 48 1,796 53 9,990
Zimbabwe .. .. .. 133 ..
(1) Equivalent patents granted by origin data are incomplete, as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of applications for
which patents were granted.
(2) 2010 data are reported for patents granted by office.
(3) 2010 data are reported for patents granted by origin.
(4) The office did not report resident patents granted; therefore, grants by origin data may be incomplete.
(5) 2010 data are reported for patents in force.
n.a. not applicable
.. not available
178
statistical tables - trademarks
Table T1: Trademark applications by office and origin, 2011
Equivalent
Application Class Madrid International
Application Class Count by Office Count by Origin Applications
Designated
Madrid
Name Total Resident Non-Resident Total (1) Origin Member
Afghanistan .. .. .. 195 n.a. n.a.
Albania 9,242 427 8,815 488 0 2,965
Algeria 11,620 3,456 8,164 3,497 3 2,054
Andorra 2,047 677 1,370 2,434 n.a. n.a.
Angola .. .. .. 447 n.a. n.a.
Antigua and Barbuda (4) 1,975 .. 1,975 288 0 788
Argentina (2,4) 69,565 .. .. 9,725 n.a. n.a.
Armenia 10,297 2,084 8,213 3,328 32 3,118
Aruba .. .. .. 1,954 n.a. n.a.
Australia 112,635 69,058 43,577 141,215 987 11,254
Austria (4) 8,925 .. 8,925 255,289 803 3,420
Azerbaijan (4) 8,493 .. 8,493 561 5 3,822
Bahamas .. .. .. 4,689 n.a. n.a.
Bahrain 10,868 269 10,599 1,135 3 2,522
Bangladesh 11,645 8,632 3,013 8,905 n.a. n.a.
Barbados 1,371 142 1,229 3,425 n.a. n.a.
Belarus (4) 15,184 .. 15,184 3,927 203 6,252
Belgium (5) n.a. n.a. n.a. 172,663 n.a. n.a.
Belize .. .. .. 1,390 n.a. n.a.
Benelux (6) 75,792 60,081 15,711 127,625 1,920 3,632
Benin .. .. .. 6 n.a. n.a.
Bermuda .. .. .. 6,441 n.a. n.a.
Bhutan (4) 1,791 .. 1,791 1 0 664
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) .. .. .. 44 n.a. n.a.
Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba (4) 1,572 .. 1,572 .. 0 673
Bosnia and Herzegovina 12,570 479 12,091 957 21 4,004
Botswana (4) 2,199 .. 2,199 39 0 864
Brazil (3) 152,735 .. .. 120,886 n.a. n.a.
Brunei Darussalam .. .. .. 214 n.a. n.a.
Bulgaria 19,703 13,476 6,227 70,067 189 2,280
Burkina Faso .. .. .. 7 n.a. n.a.
Cambodia .. .. .. 35 n.a. n.a.
Cameroon .. .. .. 149 n.a. n.a.
Canada 133,921 73,192 60,729 155,666 n.a. n.a.
Central African Republic .. .. .. 5 n.a. n.a.
Chile (9) 70,974 48,917 22,057 54,914 n.a. n.a.
China 1,418,251 1,273,827 144,424 1,441,246 2,149 20,169
China, Hong Kong SAR 61,062 22,317 38,745 76,208 n.a. n.a.
China, Macao SAR 8,590 1,240 7,350 1,496 n.a. n.a.
Colombia 29,084 16,976 12,108 22,050 n.a. n.a.
Congo .. .. .. 165 n.a. n.a.
Cook Islands .. .. .. 46 n.a. n.a.
Costa Rica 14,124 6,759 7,365 8,007 n.a. n.a.
Côte d'Ivoire .. .. .. 125 n.a. n.a.
Croatia 22,116 4,822 17,294 12,367 218 5,822
Cuba 4,732 600 4,132 1,306 3 1,457
Curaçao 2,723 1 2,722 3,224 10 765
Cyprus 3,867 646 3,221 46,717 24 1,177
Czech Republic 37,236 29,462 7,774 106,423 361 2,565
179
Equivalent
Designated
Madrid
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4) 3,466 .. 3,466 86 0 1,399
Denmark 13,950 8,141 5,809 115,660 350 1,970
Djibouti .. .. .. 1 n.a. n.a.
Dominica .. .. .. 105 n.a. n.a.
Dominican Republic .. .. .. 727 n.a. n.a.
Ecuador (2,3) 16,195 8,750 7,445 9,742 n.a. n.a.
Egypt (4) 11,020 .. 11,020 2,028 35 4,793
El Salvador .. .. .. 322 n.a. n.a.
Equatorial Guinea .. .. .. 1 n.a. n.a.
Estonia 6,634 1,766 4,868 16,067 42 1,845
Ethiopia .. .. .. 19 n.a. n.a.
Fiji .. .. .. 161 n.a. n.a.
Finland 15,224 10,468 4,756 110,974 189 1,724
France (4,8) 288,540 .. .. 1,032,782 3,804 4,470
Gabon .. .. .. 13 n.a. n.a.
Georgia 10,301 1,454 8,847 1,872 7 3,454
Germany 205,961 181,118 24,843 2,120,913 4,999 5,232
Ghana (4) 2,750 .. 2,750 5 22 1,153
Greece (4) 4,397 .. 4,397 39,825 70 1,978
Grenada .. .. .. 2 n.a. n.a.
Guatemala (2,3) 9,175 3,778 5,397 4,625 n.a. n.a.
Guinea .. .. .. 11 n.a. n.a.
Guyana .. .. .. 8 n.a. n.a.
Haiti 1,949 572 1,377 577 n.a. n.a.
Holy See .. .. .. 162 n.a. n.a.
Honduras 1,997 0 1,997 112 n.a. n.a.
Hungary 14,865 8,762 6,103 38,393 235 2,202
Iceland 8,560 1,501 7,059 3,851 45 2,564
India 198,547 176,386 22,161 194,697 n.a. n.a.
Indonesia .. .. .. 2,434 n.a. n.a.
Iran (Islamic Republic of) (4) 8,028 .. 8,028 2,737 15 3,623
Iraq .. .. .. 255 n.a. n.a.
Ireland (4) 7,610 .. .. 71,446 63 1,427
Israel 16,838 3,392 13,446 23,274 200 4,182
Italy 98,054 85,129 12,925 776,789 2,306 4,355
Jamaica .. .. .. 1,170 n.a. n.a.
Japan (4,8) 189,217 .. .. 345,722 1,538 13,152
Jordan 6,812 2,298 4,514 3,904 n.a. n.a.
Kazakhstan (4) 12,994 .. 12,994 1,598 54 5,472
Kenya (4) 3,936 .. 3,936 719 9 1,715
Kuwait .. .. .. 871 n.a. n.a.
Kyrgyzstan 7,388 271 7,117 338 7 2,833
Lao People's Democratic Republic .. .. .. 273 n.a. n.a.
Latvia 7,391 2,166 5,225 10,051 109 2,054
Lebanon .. .. .. 2,343 n.a. n.a.
Lesotho (4) 1,723 .. 1,723 6 0 690
Liberia (4) 2,124 .. 2,124 2 0 818
Libya .. .. .. 30 n.a. n.a.
Liechtenstein (4) 7,817 3 7,814 18,446 103 2,791
Lithuania 8,730 3,330 5,400 12,263 113 2,163
Luxembourg (5) n.a. n.a. n.a. 86,667 n.a. n.a.
180
Equivalent
Designated
Madrid
Madagascar 5,239 1,872 3,367 1,957 1 992
Malawi .. .. .. 21 n.a. n.a.
Malaysia 28,833 13,001 15,832 18,304 n.a. n.a.
Maldives .. .. .. 57 n.a. n.a.
Mali .. .. .. 4 n.a. n.a.
Malta 822 423 399 14,909 n.a. n.a.
Marshall Islands .. .. .. 278 n.a. n.a.
Mauritania .. .. .. 21 n.a. n.a.
Mauritius .. .. .. 2,901 n.a. n.a.
Mexico 100,281 71,091 29,190 88,777 n.a. n.a.
Monaco 9,926 1,956 7,970 14,564 61 2,802
Mongolia (2,3) 8,009 3,234 4,775 3,448 6 1,794
Montenegro (4) 10,147 .. 10,147 522 10 3,648
Morocco (2,3) 29,829 16,396 13,433 20,473 84 4,380
Mozambique (4) 2,581 .. 2,581 113 0 1,114
Myanmar .. .. .. 33 n.a. n.a.
Namibia (4) 2,457 .. 2,457 108 0 1,012
Nepal .. .. .. 50 n.a. n.a.
Netherlands (5) n.a. n.a. n.a. 396,361 n.a. n.a.
New Zealand 32,395 14,665 17,730 31,374 n.a. n.a.
Nicaragua .. .. .. 43 n.a. n.a.
Niger .. .. .. 2 n.a. n.a.
Nigeria .. .. .. 391 n.a. n.a.
Norway (4) 22,449 .. 22,449 33,221 423 9,185
Office for Harmonization in the Internal 303,663 234,079 69,584 79,995 5,859 17,618
Market (7)
Oman (4) 5,555 .. 5,555 255 0 2,352
Pakistan .. .. .. 597 n.a. n.a.
Panama 11,372 4,167 7,205 9,354 n.a. n.a.
Papua New Guinea .. .. .. 39 n.a. n.a.
Paraguay (2,3) 22,102 13,140 8,962 13,468 n.a. n.a.
Peru (3) 28,766 .. .. 19,911 n.a. n.a.
Philippines (2,3) 24,597 11,771 12,826 12,362 n.a. n.a.
Poland 48,835 39,805 9,030 214,538 342 3,362
Portugal 30,750 23,901 6,849 94,727 175 2,361
Qatar .. .. .. 2,960 n.a. n.a.
Republic of Korea 174,297 132,864 41,433 187,540 488 10,557
Republic of Moldova 13,392 3,049 10,343 4,432 46 3,700
Romania 29,705 22,612 7,093 77,356 76 2,595
Russian Federation 209,483 148,192 61,291 208,100 1,652 16,843
Saint Kitts and Nevis .. .. .. 131 n.a. n.a.
Saint Lucia .. .. .. 76 n.a. n.a.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines .. .. .. 115 n.a. n.a.
Samoa .. .. .. 488 n.a. n.a.
San Marino (4) 3,703 .. 3,703 3,784 7 1,390
Sao Tome and Principe (4) 1,504 .. 1,504 2 0 570
Saudi Arabia .. .. .. 3,840 n.a. n.a.
Senegal .. .. .. 17 n.a. n.a.
Serbia 18,675 2,649 16,026 9,013 163 5,328
Seychelles 91 91 0 1,637 n.a. n.a.
Sierra Leone (4) 1,908 .. 1,908 29 0 779
181
Equivalent
Designated
Madrid
Singapore 36,579 6,504 30,075 36,532 226 8,197
Sint Maarten (Dutch Part) 2,184 0 2,184 .. 0 744
Slovakia 15,179 8,301 6,878 31,365 105 2,052
Slovenia (2,3) 10,764 5,591 5,173 34,866 183 2,020
Solomon Islands .. .. .. 41 n.a. n.a.
Somalia .. .. .. 2 n.a. n.a.
South Africa 33,484 19,522 13,962 29,661 n.a. n.a.
Spain 73,245 62,410 10,835 735,238 568 3,822
Sri Lanka (2,3) 6,244 3,942 2,302 5,194 n.a. n.a.
Sudan (4) 2,974 .. 2,974 108 0 1,274
Suriname .. .. .. 97 n.a. n.a.
Swaziland (4) 1,881 .. 1,881 288 0 790
Sweden 25,437 19,420 6,017 208,796 259 2,125
Switzerland 85,011 34,264 50,747 407,529 2,928 14,705
Syrian Arab Republic (4) 6,329 .. 6,329 1,145 5 2,585
T F Y R of Macedonia (4) 9,767 .. 9,767 963 24 3,628
Tajikistan 6,208 297 5,911 297 0 2,114
Thailand 38,950 23,457 15,493 31,811 n.a. n.a.
Timor-Leste .. .. .. 1 n.a. n.a.
Togo .. .. .. 87 n.a. n.a.
Trinidad and Tobago .. .. .. 12 n.a. n.a.
Tunisia .. .. .. 3,680 n.a. n.a.
Turkey 184,939 152,261 32,678 201,885 982 9,950
Turkmenistan (4) 5,308 .. 5,308 22 0 2,467
Uganda .. .. .. 282 n.a. n.a.
Ukraine 60,240 28,514 31,726 40,777 365 9,536
United Arab Emirates .. .. .. 15,375 n.a. n.a.
United Kingdom 89,240 72,109 17,131 976,971 1,129 4,453
United Republic of Tanzania .. .. .. 607 n.a. n.a.
United States of America 412,014 319,311 92,703 1,315,727 4,791 17,152
Uruguay 10,670 4,099 6,571 5,211 n.a. n.a.
Uzbekistan 12,108 4,500 7,608 4,510 0 2,807
Vanuatu .. .. .. 4 n.a. n.a.
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 19,587 11,066 8,521 12,079 n.a. n.a.
Viet Nam 56,138 34,718 21,420 36,996 56 5,507
Yemen 3,233 2,191 1,042 2,220 n.a. n.a.
Zambia (4) 2,266 .. 2,266 2 0 939
Zimbabwe .. .. .. 15 n.a. n.a.
(1) Data on equivalent application class count by origin are incomplete, as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of application
class counts.
(2) 2010 data are reported for application class count by office.
(3) 2010 data are reported for equivalent application class count by origin.
(4) Only Madrid designation data are available; therefore, application class count by office and origin data may be incomplete.
(5) This country does not have a national trademark office. 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).
(6) Resident applications include those filed by residents of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
(7) Resident applications include those filed by residents of EU member states.
(8) Equivalent application class count by origin is calculated using an estimated component for the missing resident application class count at the national office.
(9) Application class count by office data include renewal statistics.
n.a. not applicable
.. not available
182
Table T2: Trademark registrations by office and origin, and trademarks in force, 2011
Madrid
International
Equivalent Registration Registrations by Registrations in
Registration Class Count by Office Class Count by Origin Origin Force by Office
Name Total Resident Non-Resident Total (1) Total Total
Afghanistan .. .. .. 276 n.a. ..
Albania 9,006 297 8,709 360 0 7,167
Algeria 9,717 1,894 7,823 1,913 2 15,271
Andorra 2,030 673 1,357 2,489 n.a. 18,570
Angola .. .. .. 359 n.a. ..
Antigua and Barbuda (4) 1,539 .. 1,539 523 0 ..
Argentina .. .. .. 8,908 n.a. ..
Armenia 9,475 1,597 7,878 2,553 44 10,684
Aruba .. .. .. 299 n.a. ..
Australia 78,183 42,526 35,657 102,887 958 476,726
Austria (4) 8,528 .. 8,528 229,529 799 111,908
Azerbaijan (4) 8,443 .. 8,443 507 9 ..
Bahamas .. .. .. 3,545 n.a. ..
Bahrain 10,946 422 10,524 1,459 2 ..
Bangladesh (2,3) 1,519 307 1,212 580 n.a. ..
Barbados 216 22 194 2,818 n.a. ..
Belarus (4) 14,838 .. 14,838 3,332 166 100,436
Belgium (6) n.a. n.a. n.a. 152,778 n.a. n.a.
Belize .. .. .. 823 n.a. ..
Benelux (7) 62,860 51,556 11,304 116,913 1,902 576,619
Bermuda .. .. .. 4,272 n.a. ..
Bhutan (4) 1,789 .. 1,789 1 0 ..
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) .. .. .. 31 n.a. ..
Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba (4) 1,572 .. 1,572 .. 0 ..
Botswana (4) 2,199 .. 2,199 21 0 ..
Brazil .. .. .. 15,767 n.a. ..
Brunei Darussalam .. .. .. 139 n.a. ..
Bulgaria 14,576 6,932 7,644 40,284 142 57,149
Burkina Faso .. .. .. 1 n.a. ..
Burundi .. .. .. 2 n.a. ..
Cambodia .. .. .. 6 n.a. ..
Cameroon .. .. .. 7 n.a. ..
Canada 71,027 37,519 33,508 105,946 n.a. 476,687
Cape Verde .. .. .. 139 n.a. ..
Central African Republic .. .. .. 5 n.a. ..
Chad .. .. .. 1 n.a. ..
Chile (5,10) 45,525 28,961 16,564 34,468 n.a. 403,871
China 1,033,571 926,330 107,241 1,071,652 2,053 5,510,077
China, Hong Kong SAR 43,575 15,405 28,170 55,747 n.a. 276,186
China, Macao SAR 6,870 821 6,049 1,036 n.a. 56,970
Colombia 22,138 13,083 9,055 17,270 n.a. 240,860
Congo .. .. .. 1 n.a. ..
Cook Islands .. .. .. 48 n.a. ..
Costa Rica 10,184 4,591 5,593 5,705 n.a. 113,705
Côte d'Ivoire .. .. .. 114 n.a. ..
Croatia 22,578 5,170 17,408 11,882 180 132,596
Cuba 4,170 401 3,769 868 3 16,364
Curaçao 2,710 1 2,709 1,837 8 20,144
Cyprus 3,874 628 3,246 25,318 25 688,356
183
Madrid
International
Czech Republic 30,449 23,376 7,073 83,575 283 117,575
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4) 3,084 .. 3,084 278 0 ..
Democratic Republic of the Congo .. .. .. 27 n.a. ..
Denmark 11,462 7,162 4,300 103,035 364 165,848
Dominica .. .. .. 16 n.a. ..
Dominican Republic .. .. .. 650 n.a. ..
Ecuador (2,3,5) 10,752 10,752 0 12,139 n.a. 115,102
Egypt (4) 10,717 .. 10,717 2,846 32 ..
El Salvador .. .. .. 314 n.a. ..
Equatorial Guinea .. .. .. 85 n.a. ..
Estonia 6,154 1,607 4,547 15,023 44 61,416
Ethiopia .. .. .. 13 n.a. ..
Fiji .. .. .. 23 n.a. ..
Finland 12,600 8,084 4,516 96,073 192 114,203
France (4,9) 9,315 .. 9,315 875,224 3,785 ..
Gabon .. .. .. 13 n.a. ..
Georgia 9,505 1,047 8,458 1,225 7 45,982
Germany 164,821 148,778 16,043 1,872,023 4,943 780,950
Ghana (4) 2,750 .. 2,750 90 0 ..
Greece (4) 4,352 .. 4,352 33,369 65 ..
Grenada .. .. .. 8 n.a. ..
Guatemala .. .. .. 894 n.a. ..
Guinea .. .. .. 10 n.a. ..
Guinea-Bissau .. .. .. 4 n.a. ..
Guyana .. .. .. 254 n.a. ..
Haiti .. .. .. 5 n.a. 1,949
Holy See .. .. .. 162 n.a. ..
Honduras 5,001 1,149 3,852 1,198 n.a. 105,794
Hungary 11,820 5,841 5,979 33,161 214 175,118
Iceland 8,028 1,356 6,672 3,784 33 53,250
India 142,943 122,440 20,503 139,109 n.a. 881,211
Indonesia .. .. .. 1,653 n.a. ..
Iran (Islamic Republic of) (4) 7,295 .. 7,295 2,549 17 ..
Iraq .. .. .. 159 n.a. ..
Ireland (4) 6,242 .. .. 62,187 59 89,540
Israel 19,526 3,360 16,166 20,061 180 166,179
Italy 137,987 124,029 13,958 782,068 2,333 361,305
Jamaica .. .. .. 1,281 n.a. ..
Japan (4,9) 12,179 .. 12,179 294,633 1,582 1,761,363
Jordan 5,435 1,157 4,278 2,589 n.a. 22,794
Kazakhstan (4,5) 11,758 .. 11,758 2,301 51 28,117
Kenya (4) 3,934 .. 3,934 788 9 ..
Kuwait .. .. .. 929 n.a. ..
Kyrgyzstan 6,886 200 6,686 231 3 8,394
Lao People's Democratic Republic .. .. .. 140 n.a. ..
Latvia 7,104 1,996 5,108 9,101 103 29,485
Lebanon .. .. .. 2,142 n.a. ..
Lesotho (4) 1,723 .. 1,723 .. 0 ..
Liberia (4) 2,124 .. 2,124 18 0 ..
Libya .. .. .. 32 n.a. ..
Liechtenstein (4) 7,778 3 7,775 16,253 98 ..
Lithuania 7,354 2,254 5,100 10,044 88 36,825
184
Madrid
International
Luxembourg (6) n.a. n.a. n.a. 78,495 n.a. n.a.
Madagascar 4,455 1,381 3,074 1,465 1 ..
Malawi .. .. .. 5 n.a. ..
Malaysia 23,819 10,201 13,618 16,488 n.a. 56,649
Maldives .. .. .. 58 n.a. ..
Malta 845 423 422 12,793 n.a. 27,648
Marshall Islands .. .. .. 152 n.a. ..
Mauritania .. .. .. 15 n.a. ..
Mauritius .. .. .. 3,056 n.a. ..
Mexico 68,234 45,957 22,277 60,757 n.a. 721,928
Monaco 9,895 1,923 7,972 12,246 58 10,127
Mongolia (2,3,5) 8,135 3,510 4,625 3,716 6 55,573
Montenegro (4) 10,094 .. 10,094 563 10 19,703
Morocco (2,3,5) 27,714 14,619 13,095 18,263 88 117,870
Mozambique (4) 2,558 .. 2,558 110 0 ..
Myanmar .. .. .. 32 n.a. ..
Namibia (4) 2,457 .. 2,457 34 0 ..
Nepal .. .. .. 20 n.a. ..
Netherlands (6) n.a. n.a. n.a. 350,879 n.a. n.a.
New Zealand 11,607 5,524 6,083 18,497 n.a. 223,677
Nicaragua .. .. .. 51 n.a. ..
Niger .. .. .. 1 n.a. ..
Nigeria .. .. .. 560 n.a. ..
Norway (4) 20,006 .. 20,006 29,556 355 100,865
Office for Harmonization in the Internal 270,438 208,327 62,111 64,330 5,553 757,021
Market (8)
Oman (4) 5,554 .. 5,554 213 0 ..
Pakistan .. .. .. 687 n.a. ..
Panama 9,349 3,351 5,998 8,290 n.a. 159,391
Papua New Guinea .. .. .. 19 n.a. ..
Paraguay .. .. .. 338 n.a. ..
Peru (4,5) 21,595 .. .. 3,719 n.a. 221,521
Philippines (2,3) 18,176 7,662 10,514 9,063 n.a. ..
Poland 31,519 23,170 8,349 150,528 310 238,053
Portugal 27,580 21,298 6,282 86,270 158 322,954
Qatar .. .. .. 2,437 n.a. ..
Republic of Moldova 11,386 2,142 9,244 3,315 42 18,321
Romania 22,985 15,022 7,963 43,932 73 78,260
Russian Federation 97,100 51,010 46,090 105,874 1,328 423,940
Rwanda .. .. .. 3 n.a. ..
Saint Kitts and Nevis .. .. .. 209 n.a. ..
Saint Lucia .. .. .. 217 n.a. ..
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines .. .. .. 37 n.a. ..
Samoa .. .. .. 432 n.a. ..
San Marino (4) 3,703 .. 3,703 3,252 7 ..
Sao Tome and Principe (4) 1,504 .. 1,504 .. 0 ..
Saudi Arabia .. .. .. 3,504 n.a. ..
Senegal .. .. .. 84 n.a. ..
Serbia 16,989 1,675 15,314 7,701 161 27,335
Seychelles 91 91 0 1,890 n.a. ..
Sierra Leone (4) 1,908 .. 1,908 2 0 ..
185
Madrid
International
Singapore 25,993 4,183 21,810 29,993 235 309,445
Sint Maarten (Dutch Part) 2,159 0 2,159 .. 0 19,699
Slovakia 12,967 6,611 6,356 22,609 82 49,403
Slovenia (2,3,5) 9,474 4,477 4,997 33,192 171 24,829
Solomon Islands .. .. .. 4 n.a. ..
Somalia .. .. .. 1 n.a. ..
South Africa 31,286 17,728 13,558 26,316 n.a. 287,052
Spain 66,659 56,721 9,938 660,868 558 885,057
Sri Lanka (2,3) 1,039 570 469 1,947 n.a. ..
Sudan (4) 2,934 .. 2,934 2 0 ..
Suriname .. .. .. 358 n.a. ..
Swaziland (4) 1,881 .. 1,881 8 0 ..
Sweden 16,995 11,567 5,428 182,659 247 136,206
Switzerland 79,651 31,372 48,279 375,264 2,928 212,208
Syrian Arab Republic (4) 4,517 .. 4,517 655 4 ..
T F Y R of Macedonia (4) 9,717 .. 9,717 856 18 ..
Tajikistan 6,468 326 6,142 327 0 9,472
Thailand 18,707 11,657 7,050 17,910 n.a. ..
Togo .. .. .. 553 n.a. ..
Trinidad and Tobago .. .. .. 63 n.a. ..
Tunisia .. .. .. 1,785 n.a. ..
Turkey 90,166 61,774 28,392 104,665 912 461,713
Turkmenistan (4) 5,278 .. 5,278 .. 0 ..
Uganda .. .. .. 7 n.a. ..
Ukraine 52,041 22,429 29,612 31,780 356 133,411
United Arab Emirates .. .. .. 12,880 n.a. ..
United Kingdom 75,804 59,906 15,898 863,421 1,093 509,157
United Republic of Tanzania .. .. .. 296 n.a. ..
United States of America 249,034 179,604 69,430 1,032,708 4,652 1,735,204
Uruguay 8,215 3,611 4,604 4,859 n.a. 76,453
Uzbekistan 9,464 2,448 7,016 2,467 0 14,478
Vanuatu .. .. .. 8 n.a. ..
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 12,006 6,455 5,551 7,288 n.a. ..
Viet Nam 43,236 23,887 19,349 25,706 60 155,010
Yemen 2,729 2,083 646 2,226 n.a. ..
Zambia (4) 2,266 .. 2,266 3 0 ..
Zimbabwe .. .. .. 14 n.a. ..
(1) Data on equivalent registration class count by origin are incomplete, as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of registration
class counts.
(2) 2010 data are reported for registration class count by office.
(3) 2010 data are reported for equivalent registration class count by origin.
(4) Only Madrid designation data are available; therefore, registration class count by office and origin data may be incomplete.
(5) 2010 data are reported for trademarks in force.
(6) This country does not have a national trademark office. 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).
(7) Resident registrations include those issued to residents of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
(8) Resident registrations include those issued to residents of EU member states.
(9) Equivalent registration class count by origin is calculated using an estimated component for the missing resident registration class count at the national office.
(10) Registration class count by office data include renewal statistics.
n.a. not applicable
.. not available
186
statistical tables - industrial designs
Table ID1: Industrial design applications by office and origin, 2011
Equivalent Application Hague International

Application Design Count by Office Design Count by Origin Applications
Designated
Name Total Resident Non-Resident Total(1) Origin Hague Member
Afghanistan .. .. .. 11 0 n.a.
African Intellectual Property Organization (4) 595 .. 595 12 0 96
Albania 848 16 832 16 0 190
Algeria 803 699 104 699 0 n.a.
Andorra .. .. .. 189 0 n.a.
Angola .. .. .. 54 0 n.a.
Antigua and Barbuda .. .. .. 54 0 n.a.
Argentina (2,4) 1,676 .. .. 43 0 n.a.
Armenia 818 27 791 27 0 167
Australia 5,966 2,664 3,302 15,826 1 n.a.
Austria .. .. .. 68,219 22 n.a.
Azerbaijan 632 27 605 30 0 167
Bahamas .. .. .. 221 0 n.a.
Bahrain .. .. .. 4 0 n.a.
Bangladesh .. .. .. 12 0 n.a.
Barbados .. .. .. 205 0 n.a.
Belarus 573 236 337 342 0 n.a.
Belgium (4) n.a. n.a. n.a. 42,351 42 n.a.
Belize (4) 450 .. 450 15 0 119
Benelux (4,5) 941 .. 941 150 0 100
Benin (4) 79 .. 79 1 0 13
Bermuda .. .. .. 326 0 n.a.
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,094 25 1,069 127 2 251
Botswana (4) 166 .. 166 .. 0 30
Brazil (2,3) 5,501 3,863 1,638 6,693 0 n.a.
Brunei Darussalam .. .. .. 1 0 n.a.
Bulgaria 664 614 50 6,751 16 27
Canada .. .. .. 10,623 3 n.a.
Chile .. .. .. 6 0 n.a.
China 521,468 507,538 13,930 563,161 5 n.a.
China, Hong Kong SAR 4,839 1,818 3,021 19,671 1 n.a.
China, Macao SAR 158 7 151 39 0 n.a.
Colombia 384 147 237 187 0 n.a.
Cook Islands .. .. .. 6 0 n.a.
Costa Rica (2,3) 67 10 57 12 0 n.a.
Côte d'Ivoire (4) 51 .. 51 .. 1 16
Croatia 2,723 622 2,101 2,579 19 485
Curaçao .. .. .. .. 1 n.a.
Cyprus 206 206 0 2,814 3 n.a.
Czech Republic 1,238 1,189 49 21,424 8 n.a.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4) 311 .. 311 6 0 81
Denmark 311 209 102 39,544 18 33
Dominican Republic (2,4) 79 .. .. 31 0 n.a.
Ecuador (2,3) 162 52 110 53 0 n.a.
Egypt (4) 1,445 .. 1,445 405 3 303
El Salvador .. .. .. 5 0 n.a.
Estonia (4) 49 .. 49 2,547 1 22
Finland 309 258 51 20,472 15 14
France 16,206 14,795 1,411 211,495 241 122
Gabon (4) 89 .. 89 .. 0 11
187

Designated
Georgia 1,149 206 943 207 0 210
Germany 54,041 41,441 12,600 561,921 584 125
Ghana (4) 139 .. 139 2 0 34
Greece (2,3) 1,941 1,526 415 4,828 10 52
Guatemala 240 35 205 36 0 n.a.
Honduras .. .. .. 1 0 n.a.
Hungary 893 755 138 5,210 3 38
Iceland 326 52 274 669 9 92
India 8,216 5,156 3,060 8,158 0 n.a.
Indonesia .. .. .. 76 0 n.a.
Iran (Islamic Republic of) .. .. .. 5 0 n.a.
Ireland (2,3) 124 110 14 7,475 1 n.a.
Israel .. .. .. 7,728 1 n.a.
Italy 29,274 28,306 968 308,896 141 98
Japan 30,805 26,658 4,147 125,230 0 n.a.
Jordan 77 9 68 12 0 n.a.
Kazakhstan .. .. .. 55 0 n.a.
Kenya .. .. .. 1 0 n.a.
Kuwait .. .. .. 2 0 n.a.
Kyrgyzstan (4) 561 .. 561 .. 0 150
Latvia 194 117 77 2,852 0 30
Lebanon .. .. .. 102 0 n.a.
Liechtenstein (4) 1,280 24 1,256 4,166 25 324
Lithuania 533 61 472 1,223 1 52
Luxembourg (4) n.a. n.a. n.a. 9,446 27 n.a.
Malaysia .. .. .. 1,179 0 n.a.
Mali (4) 85 .. 85 .. 0 10
Malta .. .. .. 326 0 n.a.
Mexico 4,149 1,909 2,240 2,361 0 n.a.
Monaco 1,591 29 1,562 606 3 360
Mongolia 765 182 583 182 0 162
Montenegro 1,051 14 1,037 14 0 249
Morocco 5,394 3,457 1,937 3,729 4 398
Namibia (4) 168 .. 168 .. 0 28
Netherlands (4) n.a. n.a. n.a. 65,598 128 n.a.
New Zealand (2,3) 1,298 449 849 5,659 1 n.a.
Niger (4) 85 .. 85 27 0 9
Nigeria .. .. .. 1 0 n.a.
Norway (4) 2,055 48 2,007 5,675 47 578
Office for Harmonization in the Internal 87,225 64,343 22,882 28,212 0 1,923
Market (5)
Oman (4) 697 .. 697 .. 0 195
Panama 70 0 70 86 0 n.a.
Peru 334 86 248 89 0 n.a.
Philippines .. .. .. 12 0 n.a.
Poland (4) 50 .. 50 81,154 17 24
Portugal 1,623 1,598 25 26,703 2 n.a.
Republic of Korea 58,571 54,300 4,271 86,169 0 n.a.
Republic of Moldova 1,854 936 918 1,133 1 202
Romania 1,164 1,030 134 5,203 4 23
Russian Federation 6,077 2,887 3,190 5,946 1 n.a.
188

Designated
Rwanda (4) 5 .. 5 .. 0 1
Samoa .. .. .. 4 0 n.a.
San Marino .. .. .. 30 0 n.a.
Sao Tome and Principe (4) 83 .. 83 .. 0 21
Saudi Arabia 752 246 506 249 0 n.a.
Senegal (4) 79 .. 79 .. 0 14
Serbia 1,216 107 1,109 380 15 280
Seychelles .. .. .. 228 0 n.a.
Singapore 3,985 663 3,322 2,810 6 629
Slovakia 416 362 54 5,071 0 n.a.
Slovenia (2,4) 566 .. .. 6,151 15 76
South Africa .. .. .. 1,056 0 n.a.
Spain 18,994 18,540 454 123,849 32 76
Sri Lanka .. .. .. 299 0 n.a.
Suriname (4) 125 .. 125 .. 0 29
Swaziland .. .. .. 3 0 n.a.
Sweden 606 583 23 40,715 34 n.a.
Switzerland (4) 7,605 2,577 5,028 196,299 600 1,628
Syrian Arab Republic (4) 200 .. 200 4 0 69
T F Y R of Macedonia 1,459 87 1,372 228 1 350
Tajikistan 5 0 5 .. 0 n.a.
Thailand .. .. .. 348 0 n.a.
Trinidad and Tobago .. .. .. 2 0 n.a.
Tunisia .. .. .. 27 0 0
Turkey 41,218 35,488 5,730 47,699 86 1,093
Ukraine 6,735 3,444 3,291 4,220 7 563
United Arab Emirates .. .. .. 388 0 n.a.
United Kingdom .. .. .. 145,810 29 n.a.
United States of America 30,467 17,443 13,024 184,305 229 n.a.
Uzbekistan 327 301 26 301 0 n.a.
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) .. .. .. 16 0 n.a.
Viet Nam 2,104 1,367 737 1,656 0 n.a.
Yemen .. .. .. 5 0 n.a.
Zimbabwe .. .. .. 2 0 n.a.
(1) Equivalent application design count by origin data are incomplete, as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of application
design counts.
(2) 2010 data are reported for application design count by office.
(3) 2010 data are reported for equivalent application design count by origin.
(4) Only Hague designation data are available; therefore, application design count by office and origin data may be incomplete.
(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).
n.a. not applicable
.. not available
189
Table ID2: Industrial design registrations by office and origin, and industrial designs in force, 2011
Hague
Equivalent Registration International Registrations in
Registration Design Count by Office Design Count by Origin Registrations Force by Office
Name Total Resident Non-Resident Total (1) Origin Total
Afghanistan .. .. .. 11 0 ..
African Intellectual Property Organization 595 .. 595 12 0 ..
(4)
Albania 822 0 822 1 0 49
Algeria 148 95 53 95 0 999
Andorra .. .. .. 190 0 ..
Antigua and Barbuda .. .. .. 54 1 ..
Argentina .. .. .. 32 0 ..
Armenia 802 17 785 33 0 67
Australia 5,647 2,511 3,136 15,235 1 45,612
Austria .. .. .. 65,688 21 13,706
Azerbaijan 630 16 614 16 0 ..
Bahamas .. .. .. 286 0 ..
Bahrain .. .. .. .. 0 4
Barbados .. .. .. 197 0 ..
Belarus 363 196 167 247 0 1,223
Belgium (4) n.a. n.a. n.a. 39,231 37 n.a.
Belize (4) 450 .. 450 9 0 ..
Benelux (4) 941 .. 941 150 0 10,347
Benin (4) 79 .. 79 .. 0 ..
Bermuda .. .. .. 271 0 ..
Botswana (4) 166 .. 166 .. 0 ..
Brazil .. .. .. 6,151 0 ..
Brunei Darussalam .. .. .. 4 0 ..
Bulgaria 683 630 53 6,307 16 2,710
Canada .. .. .. 12,161 1 34,810
Chile .. .. .. 11 0 1,778
China 380,290 366,428 13,862 419,395 0 922,371
China, Hong Kong SAR 4,478 1,638 2,840 20,514 1 33,840
China, Macao SAR 64 2 62 34 0 503
Colombia 772 313 459 340 0 ..
Cook Islands .. .. .. 6 0 ..
Costa Rica (2,3) 74 0 74 1 0 303
Côte d'Ivoire (4) 51 .. 51 .. 1 ..
Croatia 2,530 413 2,117 2,344 17 4,506
Cuba .. .. .. .. 0 402
Cyprus 206 206 0 2,989 3 688
Czech Republic 826 806 20 18,339 9 3,720
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4) 311 .. 311 5 0 ..
Denmark 211 122 89 35,779 18 4,014
Dominican Republic .. .. .. 29 0 ..
Ecuador (2,3,5) 162 52 110 54 0 917
Egypt (4) 1,407 .. 1,407 371 1 ..
Estonia (4) 24 .. 24 2,684 0 1,501
Finland 355 272 83 21,038 14 3,375
France (4) 1,064 74 990 203,700 229 ..
Gabon (4) 89 .. 89 .. 0 ..
Georgia 1,125 179 946 181 0 259
Germany 49,905 39,341 10,564 552,285 573 57,245
Ghana (4) 139 .. 139 .. 0 ..
190
Hague
Greece (2,3,5) 2,023 1,604 419 4,481 9 1,599
Guatemala 150 10 140 12 0 243
Haiti .. .. .. 1 0 ..
Honduras .. .. .. .. 0 26
Hungary 642 531 111 4,703 2 4,228
Iceland 328 52 276 652 9 684
India 6,237 3,971 2,266 6,970 0 44,600
Indonesia .. .. .. 74 0 ..
Iran (Islamic Republic of) .. .. .. 2 0 ..
Ireland (2,3) 93 79 14 8,814 0 937
Israel .. .. .. 6,233 0 ..
Italy 22,371 21,382 989 302,910 134 ..
Japan 26,274 23,042 3,232 118,143 0 246,115
Jordan 85 27 58 28 0 1,841
Kazakhstan (5) .. .. .. 27 0 682
Kenya .. .. .. 1 0 ..
Kyrgyzstan (4,5) 561 .. 561 .. 0 186
Latvia 180 103 77 2,991 0 927
Lebanon .. .. .. 15 0 ..
Liechtenstein (4) 1,280 24 1,256 4,448 21 ..
Lithuania 529 55 474 1,298 1 335
Luxembourg (4) n.a. n.a. n.a. 9,427 26 n.a.
Madagascar .. .. .. .. 0 1,863
Malaysia .. .. .. 1,028 0 15,206
Mali (4) 85 .. 85 .. 0 ..
Malta .. .. .. 270 0 88
Mexico 2,443 865 1,578 1,172 0 21,643
Monaco (5) 1,599 37 1,562 985 3 382
Mongolia 829 246 583 246 0 18,945
Montenegro 1,037 0 1,037 .. 0 41
Morocco (2,3) 1,617 45 1,572 727 7 ..
Namibia (4) 168 .. 168 .. 0 ..
Netherlands (4) n.a. n.a. n.a. 61,267 133 n.a.
New Zealand (2,3,5) 1,072 338 734 3,174 1 9,650
Niger (4) 85 .. 85 27 0 ..
Norway (4) 22 .. 22 5,416 42 5,864
Office for Harmonization in the Internal 86,326 63,085 23,241 27,309 0 158,315
Market
Oman (4) 697 .. 697 1 0 ..
Pakistan .. .. .. 1 0 6,147
Panama 43 0 43 88 0 445
Peru 229 46 183 54 0 1,855
Philippines (5) .. .. .. 6 0 5,983
Poland 1,445 1,387 58 76,915 16 12,915
Portugal 1,536 1,497 39 25,272 2 4,454
Republic of Moldova 1,204 325 879 527 2 3,511
Romania 1,537 1,453 84 5,577 4 3,736
Russian Federation 5,747 3,002 2,745 5,794 0 21,295
Rwanda (4) 5 .. 5 .. 0 ..
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines .. .. .. 5 0 ..
San Marino .. .. .. 27 0 ..
Sao Tome and Principe (4) 83 .. 83 .. 0 ..
191
Hague
Saudi Arabia 457 62 395 65 0 1,741
Senegal (4) 79 .. 79 .. 0 ..
Serbia 1,166 86 1,080 328 11 6,467
Seychelles .. .. .. 221 0 ..
Singapore 3,972 613 3,359 5,890 4 11,970
Slovakia 372 327 45 5,177 0 1,025
Slovenia (2,3,5) 527 91 436 3,745 14 658
South Africa .. .. .. 933 0 13,968
Spain 19,534 19,081 453 116,513 27 44,926
Sri Lanka .. .. .. 303 0 ..
Suriname (4) 125 .. 125 .. 0 ..
Swaziland .. .. .. 1 0 ..
Sweden 599 547 52 39,286 35 7,613
Switzerland (4) 7,604 2,576 5,028 191,699 584 9,535
Syrian Arab Republic (4) 55 .. 55 2 0 ..
T F Y R of Macedonia 1,421 72 1,349 210 1 2,333
Tajikistan 3 0 3 .. 0 38
Thailand .. .. .. 328 0 10,477
Tunisia .. .. .. 108 0 ..
Turkey 37,607 31,970 5,637 43,837 78 65,089
Ukraine 5,351 2,224 3,127 2,953 5 9,454
United Arab Emirates .. .. .. 200 0 ..
United Kingdom .. .. .. 140,962 17 45,489
United States of America 21,356 11,756 9,600 184,101 227 262,316
Uruguay .. .. .. 6 0 580
Uzbekistan 202 180 22 180 0 365
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) .. .. .. 2 0 ..
Viet Nam 1,331 928 403 1,316 0 7,596
Yemen .. .. .. 1 0 ..
(1) Equivalent registration design count by origin data are incomplete, as some offices do not report detailed statistics containing the origin of registration
design counts.
(2) 2010 data are reported for registration design count by office.
(3) 2010 data are reported for equivalent registration design count by origin.
(4) Only Hague designation data are available; therefore, registration design count by office and origin data may be incomplete.
(5) 2010 data are reported for industrial designs in force.
n.a. not applicable
.. not available
192
statistical tables - plant variety
Table PV1: Plant variety applications and grants by office and origin, 2011
Equivalent
Applications applications Grants in
Applications by Office by Origin by Origin Grants by Office Force
Non- Non-
Name Total Resident Resident Total Total Total Resident Resident Office
Argentina (1) .. .. .. 67 587 .. .. .. ..
Australia 330 179 151 292 1,072 183 81 102 2,410
Austria 2 2 0 42 302 .. .. .. 67
Azerbaijan 62 62 0 62 62 18 18 0 217
Belarus 59 40 19 41 41 38 29 9 233
Belgium 2 1 1 119 1,523 5 5 0 147
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 10 2 8 2 2 10 2 8 40
Brazil 324 166 158 175 175 172 103 69 1,551
Bulgaria 30 30 0 40 40 44 44 0 427
Canada 305 49 256 70 174 251 52 199 1,979
Chile 92 6 86 12 12 115 15 100 720
China 1,255 1,193 62 1,204 1,282 240 235 5 2,607
Colombia 114 14 100 14 14 101 13 88 441
Community Plant Variety Office 3,184 2,403 781 n.a. 2 2,585 2,031 554 18,900
Costa Rica 5 3 2 8 60 .. .. .. ..
Croatia 32 32 0 32 32 .. .. .. ..
Cyprus (2) .. .. .. 13 13 .. .. .. ..
Czech Republic 92 81 11 123 409 81 76 5 686
Denmark 15 1 14 242 3,596 27 4 23 247
Dominican Republic (1) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11
Ecuador 85 2 83 14 170 33 0 33 402
Estonia 12 2 10 5 5 12 4 8 97
Finland (1) .. .. .. 10 88 .. .. .. ..
France 109 96 13 838 11,524 .. .. .. 1,509
Georgia 11 10 1 10 10 11 10 1 36
Germany 105 95 10 1,077 12,205 114 106 8 1,927
Greece (2) .. .. .. 3 29 .. .. .. ..
Hungary 31 26 5 38 298 9 9 0 250
India (2) .. .. .. 6 58 .. .. .. ..
Ireland 3 2 1 15 41 2 1 1 71
Israel 402 202 200 343 1,487 365 119 246 942
Italy 8 6 2 180 2,624 4 3 1 1,177
Japan 1,126 793 333 973 2,065 1,139 783 356 8,163
Kenya 93 34 59 35 61 87 47 40 293
Kyrgyzstan (1) .. .. .. .. .. 5 5 0 8
Latvia 6 6 0 9 87 29 25 4 280
Lithuania 4 1 3 1 1 4 1 3 34
Malaysia (2) 27 14 13 14 14 .. .. .. ..
Mauritius (2) .. .. .. 7 7 .. .. .. ..
Mexico 145 60 85 61 61 112 32 80 647
Morocco 62 0 62 .. .. 40 16 24 177
Nepal (2) .. .. .. 10 10 .. .. .. ..
Netherlands 783 654 129 2,769 29,783 717 595 122 5,834
New Zealand 121 56 65 186 862 109 40 69 1,252
Nicaragua 2 0 2 .. .. 1 0 1 5
Norway 23 3 20 6 58 22 9 13 224
Panama 2 0 2 8 60 .. .. .. 3
Papua New Guinea (2) .. .. .. 1 1 .. .. .. ..
Paraguay 17 5 12 9 9 17 5 12 323
Peru 29 9 20 9 9 6 0 6 38
193
statistical tables - plant variety
Equivalent
Applications applications Grants in
Applications by Office by Origin by Origin Grants by Office Force
Non- Non-
Name Total Resident Resident Total Total Total Resident Resident Office
Philippines (2) .. .. .. 1 1 .. .. .. ..
Poland 70 47 23 76 622 61 47 14 1,280
Portugal 5 4 1 4 4 1 1 0 12
Republic of Korea 587 517 70 549 575 448 387 61 3,213
Republic of Moldova 18 16 2 18 18 15 15 0 86
Romania 35 28 7 39 39 34 34 0 239
Russian Federation 452 374 78 386 386 571 484 87 3,922
Serbia (2) .. .. .. 58 58 .. .. .. ..
Singapore (1) .. .. .. 3 3 .. .. .. ..
Slovakia 16 10 6 14 14 9 6 3 384
Slovenia 1 1 0 2 28 1 1 0 21
South Africa 285 72 213 86 190 297 116 181 2,425
Spain 61 56 5 210 2,368 47 46 1 332
Swaziland (2) .. .. .. 7 7 .. .. .. ..
Sweden 19 11 8 47 229 12 5 7 178
Switzerland 72 13 59 354 3,292 71 7 64 796
Thailand (2) .. .. .. 45 1,163 .. .. .. ..
Turkey 111 40 71 51 51 91 42 49 280
Ukraine 1,095 402 693 414 414 465 248 217 3,979
United Kingdom 49 21 28 234 2,756 26 19 7 1,299
United States of America (A) 474 374 100 1,871 12,583 276 252 24 5,036
United States of America (B) (3) 1,139 0 1,139 n.a. .. 823 0 823 13,987
Uruguay 68 6 62 7 7 62 33 29 415
Uzbekistan 14 13 1 13 13 8 8 0 43
Viet Nam 52 28 24 28 28 39 20 19 99
(1) The office did not report data; therefore, applications by origin data may be incomplete.
(2) The country is not a UPOV member.
(3) Applications by origin are reported under “United States of America (A)”, as statistics by origin do not distinguish between applications under the PVPA or the
Plant Patent Act.
.. Not available
194
2012 | World Intellectual Property Indicators

For more information contact
WIPO at www.wipo.int
World Intellectual Property Organization

34, chemin des Colombettes
2012
P.O. Box 18
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland World Intellectual Property Indicators
Telephone :
+4122 338 91 11
Fax :
+4122 733 54 28 WIPO Economics & Statistics Series
WIPO Publication No. 941E/2012 ISBN 978-92-805-2305-8

WIPO Indicators 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WIPO Indicators 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WIPO Indicators 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WIPO Economics & Statistics Series

2012 | World Intellectual Property Indicators

World Intellectual Property Organization

WIPO Publication No. 941E/2012 ISBN 978-92-805-2305-8

Colleagues in WIPO’s Innovation and Technology

Samiah Do Carmo Figueiredo provided administrative

Readers are welcome to use the information provided

IP filings by office and income group

Share in world total (%) Average annual growth (%)

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

The majority of the top 20 offices saw

Continuous growth in applications for Continued decrease in pending

Shift in the geography of trademark filings

Middle- and low-income countries account

Substantial increases in applications at

This publication uses the World Bank income clas-

Application data availability

Estimated world Data Data

Where an office provides data that are not broken down

National and international data

Please note that due to the continual updating of data

annex, glossary and list of abbreviations 159

List of abbreviations 171

statistical tables 172

Table P1 Patent applications by patent office and origin, 2011 172

Introduction quantifying the importance

A paper for the UK Design Council defines design as “the bridge

Industrial Design rights: a legal perspective

In most countries, an industrial design must be registered in order

5 International Council of Societies of

12 See the Frascati Manual – the standard reference

Due to the complex interrelationship between different

Putting figures on the uptake of

The pattern for the income groups described above holds

Box 2 – Challenges in interpreting global industrial design statistics

Figure 2: Industrial design applications for selected offices

Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Figure 3: Comparison of non-resident shares in total applications for industrial designs

Non-Resident share (%)

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

OHIM received the second highest number of design

21 Growth rate refers to average annual growth.

China Republic of Korea Japan

Application year Application year

Turkey India Thailand Vietnam

Application year Application year

Note: OHIM = Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Table 3: Number of designs contained in applications (design counts) by office, 2011

Growth Non- Growth Non-

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Note: See note for Table 3.

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012

Figure 5: Applications abroad (application

Applications abroad (2001=1)

However, the numbers of applications filed abroad by

applications were filed abroad. 3

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, October 2012