In 2007, I began attending sessions of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO’s) Standing Committee on Trademarks, Industrial Designs, and Geographical Indications (SCT) in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss the development of the Design Law Treaty. I attended these yearly meetings typically on behalf of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI), though occasionally as a representative of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). I was consistently intrigued by the opportunity to bring harmony to international design law—an area plagued by discord and confusion, including disagreement over the very terminology used to describe the right (e.g., design patent, industrial design, design registration, design model, aesthetic model, etc.). Fast forward 17 years, and I found myself in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, attending the final Diplomatic Conference for the Design Law Treaty.
Recent Posts
- CAFC Says Patent Claims Need Not Explicitly Disclose Material Benefits for Trademark Functionality Doctrine
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, January 3: Judge Stoll Faults CAFC Majority for Fact Finding, Darrell Issa to Chair House IP Subcommittee Again, and China to Subsidize Smartphone Sales
- Legislative Developments in Patents: Prospects for the PREVAIL and RESTORE Acts and PERA in 2025
- The Year Ahead: Here’s What Our Readers Will Have on their Radar for 2025
- The IP Community’s Wildest Dreams for 2025