Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) An Inside Look on...

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

WWW.OAMI.EUROPA.EU

An Inside Look on Opposition… and the Interaction Effects with the “Outside World”

Marc RICHTER – QMD / PMU (OHIM)

Workshop “Economic Analysis of Trade Marks and Brands”Alicante, Spain, June 2008


Table of Contents

• OHIM, QMD and PMU

• OHIM / Market interaction

• An example: Opposition Forecast

• What’s next?


OHIM, QMD and PMU

The Acronyms

– OHIM: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (aka “the Office”)

– QMD: Quality Management Department

– PMU: Performance Management Unit

The Structure

OHIM (President Wubbo de Boer)

QMD (Director Juan Ramón Rubio) Service 1 (Head of Service Andrea di Carlo)

Performance Management Unit

– René Havermans

– Luis Miguel López Santos

– Marc Richter

Service 2 (Head of Service Rainer Tretter)


OHIM, QMD and PMU

QMD Mission

...contribute to the efficient management of the Office's resources and to maximise clients' satisfaction.

PMU Mission

• Offer the OHIM, and in particular its Management, an effective statistical […] reporting tool which assists […] decision making.

• Offer the OHIM and particularly its senior and middle managers:

– quantitative analysis of main processes, […] proposing and maintaining […] performance indicators […]

– detection and explanation of deviations and anomalies in the production flows or in defined quality standards […] to establish corrective actions.

– […] analysis of the impact changes in the processes, technologies or in user behaviour may have on production flows and defined quality standards.

• Develop […] an OHIM Work Plan [with] quantifiable objectives for all the Office’s activities […]


A word on statistics

1770, “science dealing with data about the condition of a state or community,” from Ger. Statistik, popularized and perhaps coined by Ger. political scientist Gottfried Aschenwall (1719-72) in his “Vorbereitung zur Staatswissenschaft” (1748), from Mod.L. statisticum (collegium) “(lecture course on) state affairs,” from It. statista “one skilled in statecraft,” from L. status (see state (n.1)). […]

Source: www.etymonline.com

OHIM Statistics and Reporting

• 300+ reports maintained by PMU alone

• Analyses based exclusively on descriptive statistics in 99 % of the cases

• Upcoming: New Core Business System “EUROMARC++” Report migration, indicator consolidation,

error margin quantification where applicable

OHIM, QMD and PMU


OHIM, QMD and PMU

OHIM Incoming Business – Community Trade Mark (CTM) filings


OHIM, QMD and PMU

OHIM Incoming Business – Registered Community Design (RCD) filings


OHIM / Market interaction




CTM / RCDDecisionsStandards

Fees

CTM / RCDFilings

Reactions

Attitude

Former “PMU boundary”

Policy

Communication model(PMU Internal Draft)


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002

-11

2003

-01

2003

-03

2003

-05

2003

-07

2003

-09

2003

-11

2004

-01

2004

-03

2004

-05

2004

-07

2004

-09

2004

-11

2005

-01

2005

-03

2005

-05

2005

-07

2005

-09

2005

-11

2006

-01

2006

-03

2006

-05

2006

-07

2006

-09

2006

-11

2007

-01

2007

-03

2007

-05

2007

-07

2007

-09

2007

-11


• 2001: CTM e-filing & CTM online

• From 2003: e-business strategy– RCD e-filing & RCD online– E-communication– Online access to files– My Page…

• 2005: Fee reduction for e-filing• 2007: Future Working Methods for the 2010 horizon



2007: Potential loophole in OHIM policies permits non-payment exploit

under certain circumstances

2008: Policy loophole to be closed in the medium term, exploiters to be warned and/or penalised in the short term


An Example: Opposition Forecast



Scope of Analysis

• Pre-analysis Trigger: A CTM Application is published

• Process Trigger: One (or more) Oppositions are received (“OPP-REC”)

• Process Flow: Standardised, but with high case-by-case variance

due to individual case difficulty, parties involved etc.

• Process End: EUROMARC Status 262: Decision to be taken The “hard part” of work for the Office

Processual delays


In (“OPP REC”) Out (“St. 262”)



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

Sum of 262

262 arr. year 262 arr. quarter

REC year



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

19

98

-09

19

98

-11

19

99

-01

19

99

-03

19

99

-05

19

99

-07

19

99

-09

19

99

-11

20

00

-01

20

00

-03

20

00

-05

20

00

-07

20

00

-09

20

00

-11

20

01

-01

20

01

-03

20

01

-05

20

01

-07

20

01

-09

20

01

-11

20

02

-01

20

02

-03

20

02

-05

20

02

-07

20

02

-09

20

02

-11

20

03

-01

20

03

-03

20

03

-05

20

03

-07

20

03

-09

20

03

-11

20

04

-01

20

04

-03

20

04

-05

20

04

-07

20

04

-09

20

04

-11

20

05

-01

20

05

-03

20

05

-05

20

05

-07

20

05

-09

20

05

-11

20

06

-01

20

06

-03

20

06

-05

20

06

-07

20

06

-09

20

06

-11

20

07

-01

20

07

-03

20

07

-05

20

07

-07

20

07

-09

20

07

-11

20

08

-01

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

Sum of 262

262 arr. year 262 arr. quarter

REC year



0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

40,00%

45,00%

50,00%

55,00%

60,00%

65,00%

70,00%

75,00%

80,00%

85,00%

90,00%

95,00%

100,00%

19

98

-09

19

98

-11

19

99

-01

19

99

-03

19

99

-05

19

99

-07

19

99

-09

19

99

-11

20

00

-01

20

00

-03

20

00

-05

20

00

-07

20

00

-09

20

00

-11

20

01

-01

20

01

-03

20

01

-05

20

01

-07

20

01

-09

20

01

-11

20

02

-01

20

02

-03

20

02

-05

20

02

-07

20

02

-09

20

02

-11

20

03

-01

20

03

-03

20

03

-05

20

03

-07

20

03

-09

20

03

-11

20

04

-01

20

04

-03

20

04

-05

20

04

-07

20

04

-09

20

04

-11

20

05

-01

20

05

-03

20

05

-05

20

05

-07

20

05

-09

20

05

-11

20

06

-01

20

06

-03

20

06

-05

20

06

-07

20

06

-09

20

06

-11

20

07

-01

20

07

-03

20

07

-05

20

07

-07

20

07

-09

20

07

-11

20

08

-01

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007



0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Year 3after OPP-REC


• Misleading data in PMU report: At time of first analysis, 262 ratios seemed to be approx. constant

• A ratio forecast approach shows the real progression, along with a (possible) behavioral change:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

32,333,3 (2002)32,8

35 (2003)

31,4 (2000/2001)

33,7

37/38 (2004/2005)

2004:33.6 %

2003:32.8 %

2002:32.3 %


t [M]

r [%]



2006 262 ratio growth forecast(for validation purposes, conservative error estimates)

2002-OPPs: 29.00 % 30.75 % 1.75 % (± 0.25 %)2003-OPPs: 27.00 % 30.50 % 3.50 % (± 0.50 %)2004-OPPs: 17.00 % 28.00 % 11.00 % (± 2.00 %)2005-OPPs: 1.00 % 18.00 % 17.00 % (± 2.00 %)2006-OPPs: 0.00 % 1.25 % 1.25 % (± 0.50 %)



2006 262 ratio growth forecast (for validation purposes)

2002-OPPs: 1.75 % (± 0.25 %) of 9,861 OPPs 173 (± 25)2003-OPPs: 3.50 % (± 0.50 %) of 9,986 OPPs 350 (± 50)2004-OPPs: 11.00 % (± 2.00 %) of 10,801 OPPs 1188 (± 216)2005-OPPs: 17.00 % (± 2.00 %) of 17,493 OPPs 2974 (± 350)2006-OPPs: 1.25 % (± 0.50 %) of 14,000 (± 5,000) OPPs 175 (± 97)

4860 (± 426 / 8.8%)Result 2006: 5192 (+ 6.8%)

Linear propagation of uncertainty

20023,6% 2003

7,2%

200424,4%

200561,2%

20063,6% 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006



2007 262 ratio growth forecast(for validation purposes, conservative error estimates)




2007 262 ratio growth forecast (for validation purposes)

2003-OPPs: 2.00 % (± 0.25 %) of 9,986 OPPs 200 (± 25)2004-OPPs: 5.00 % (± 0.50 %) of 10,801 OPPs 540 (± 54)2005-OPPs: 11.50 % (± 1.50 %) of 17,493 OPPs 2012 (± 262)2006-OPPs: 20.00 % (± 2.00 %) of 14,223 OPPs 2845 (± 284)2007-OPPs: 1.25 % (± 0.50 %) of 15,500 (± 2500) OPPs 194 (± 84)

5791 (± 400 / 6.9%)

Result 2007: 6077 (+ 4.9%)

200534,7%

200649,1%

20033,5%

20049,3%

20073,4% 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007



2008 262 ratio growth forecast




2008 262 ratio growth forecast

2004-OPPs: 2.00 % (± 0.25 %) of 10,801 OPPs 216 (± 27)2005-OPPs: 3.75 % (± 0.50 %) of 17,493 OPPs 656 (± 87)2006-OPPs: 11.00 % (± 1.50 %) of 14,223 OPPs 1565 (± 213)2007-OPPs: 21.00 % (± 2.00 %) of 16,633 OPPs 3493 (± 333)2008-OPPs: 1.25 % (± 0.50 %) of 20,600 (± 3500) OPPs 258 (± 113)

6188 (± 421 / 6.8%)

200510,6%

200625,3%

200756,4%

20043,5%2008

4,2% 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Applying an “empiric” correction factor: 6485 (≡ 104.8 %)


y = 0,00026x + 0,30502

y = -0,00001x + 0,31254

y = 0,00089x + 0,29992

0,0%

2,5%

5,0%

7,5%

10,0%

12,5%

15,0%

17,5%

20,0%

22,5%

25,0%

27,5%

30,0%

32,5%

35,0%

37,5%

40,0%

42,5%

20

00

-01

20

00

-02

20

00

-03

20

00

-04

20

00

-05

20

00

-06

20

00

-07

20

00

-08

20

00

-09

20

00

-10

20

00

-11

20

00

-12

20

01

-01

20

01

-02

20

01

-03

20

01

-04

20

01

-05

20

01

-06

20

01

-07

20

01

-08

20

01

-09

20

01

-10

20

01

-11

20

01

-12

20

02

-01

20

02

-02

20

02

-03

20

02

-04

20

02

-05

20

02

-06

20

02

-07

20

02

-08

20

02

-09

20

02

-10

20

02

-11

20

02

-12

20

03

-01

20

03

-02

20

03

-03

20

03

-04

20

03

-05

20

03

-06

20

03

-07

20

03

-08

20

03

-09

20

03

-10

20

03

-11

20

03

-12

20

04

-01

20

04

-02

20

04

-03

20

04

-04

20

04

-05

20

04

-06

20

04

-07

20

04

-08

20

04

-09

20

04

-10

20

04

-11

20

04

-12

20

05

-01

20

05

-02

20

05

-03

20

05

-04

20

05

-05

20

05

-06

20

05

-07

20

05

-08

20

05

-09

20

05

-10

20

05

-11

20

05

-12

20

06

-01

20

06

-02

20

06

-03

20

06

-04

20

06

-05

20

06

-06

20

06

-07

20

06

-08

20

06

-09

20

06

-10

20

06

-11

20

06

-12

20

07

-01

20

07

-02

20

07

-03

20

07

-04

20

07

-05

20

07

-06

20

07

-07

Ratio as-is

Ratio as-is minus 36 months

Ratio acc

Ratio acc minus 24 months

Linear (Ratio acc minus 24 months)

Linear (Ratio acc)

Linear (Ratio as-is minus 36 months)


What’s the 262 arrival ratio expectation for today’s oppositions?



What’s the 262 arrival ratio expectation for today’s oppositions?

Gap: Cases in progress or closed w/o decisionon substance


What’s next?

What’s next?


What’s next?

PMU’s medium to long term goals

• Automating more standard analyses

• Better consideration of cause-and-effect chains

– Even more visualisation and process orientation

– More consideration of the OHIM / Market interaction

› Generally: Collaboration and exchangeAttitude of constant improvement

› Specifically: “All-out attack” on OppositionsClassifications of “typical behaviour”


What’s next?

Origin (Paper, WIPO. e-file)

Nationality

Language

Country

Opponent

Representative?

CTM OPP

Size

#marks

Specialty

ClassesGroundsEarlier rights

Industry

Type (word,fig…)

Licencee???Evolution

Wins

Opps

Ratios

Surveillance letter?

Settlements

Duration

Examiner(s)

Admissibility

Cooling-off

Dossier

Adversarial part

Proof of use

Decisionmaking

Quality

Abuse?

Appeal?

Numbers

Multis

Complaint?

USS?

Behaviour if loser?

Behaviour if opposed?

Seasonality

Applicant

Dept/Serv

Experience

P/S?Data Domain Allocation Map(PMU Internal Draft)


What’s next?

“Opposition attack” – Iterative Methodology(PMU Internal Draft)

– Brainstorming to maps

– Maps as stimulus to generate (additional) questions

– “Pivoting checklists” for explorative analysis (more questions)

– Questions to clusters

– Clusters to (testable) hypotheses

– Test results to models

– Models to forecast / decision support systems


WWW.OAMI.EUROPA.EU

Information: (+ 34) 965 13 9100 (switchboard)

(+ 34) 965 13 8711 (personal extension)

(+ 34) 965 13 9143 (QMD fax)

[email protected]

Marc RichterOffice for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)Avenida de Europa, 4E-03008 AlicanteSPAIN

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) An Inside Look on...

Documents

Transcript of Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) An Inside Look on...