Is PCT Relevant?

 

Notice the difference between the examination/scrutiny/objections in case of trademarks VS that issued in patents. In the former case, from the examination report to the scrutiny; include territorial prior works. Whilst in case of patents, examination reports consist of global prior arts, yet, if in case patent is granted, then rights are territorial only, like in case of trademarks. Exclude Copyrights due to reciprocal treaties.

Thus, Madrid makes sense for Trademarks; but PCT is confounding, as it is mere extension of further 30/31-12= 18/19 months to convince the applicant whether it’s worth going global. But why need IPRP or ISR then? Let FER issued at territorial level be globally acceptable, issued by using tools confirmed/aligned by WIPO. This incessant further examinations extend costs and procedural formalities. That too for the inventions, wherein hardly 10-20 percent of them actually end up getting being deployed in the industry. Or, let the FER be restricted to any territory, by going through the data of that country of origin’s database, and once the application has been applied via PCT; then ISR, IPRP would make sense.

Thus, UDRP proceedings makes much more sagacity; and if something like UDRP is applied at Madrid or PCT also, wherein prosecution can be done, which can further be appealed at the WIPO only, with the Panel Members included: Panel Members + Representatives from the Country of Origin + Representatives from Designated Party. Decide at WIPO, appeal it, and if not acceptable, further appeal at the local jurisdiction.

Just a thought! 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi