Survey on Use of 3D Models and 3D Images in IP Data and Documentation
Collated Results (2021)
This survey contains information about the practices and expectations of IPOs and users (applicants) concerning the use of 3D models and 3D images.
- Purpose: provide information on IPO practices for consideration by the CWS
- Conducted: Nov 2019 to March 2020
- Survey approved: CWS/7
- Results approved: CWS/8
Notes
- This data is presented as provided by the respondent. If you have questions about a particular respondent's data, please contact that Office for more information.
- You can hover on an ST.3 code to see the name of the country or organization.
- Empty table cells mean that the respondent did not answer that part of the question. Likewise, a respondent with no entry on a particular question means they did not answer that question.
Survey Contents
Click an item to jump to the responses.
- Survey respondents
- 1.1. Does your office currently use 3D models or 3D images for IP objects within the office? If so, for which IP objects
- 1.2. Does your office consider using 3D models or 3D images for IP objects in the future? If so, for which IP objects
- 1.3. On which stages of IP objects' lifecycle does your office currently accept/implement 3D models?
- 1.4. Does your Office carry out any image transformations? If so, for which objects and on which stages?
- 1.5. On which stages of IP objects' lifecycle does your office consider accepting/implementing 3D models in the future?
- 2.1. Please describe existing practices/future plans for using 3D models and 3D images within your office
- 3.1. What laws and regulations concerning 3D models and 3D images are implemented within your jurisdiction?
- 4.1. Which formats of 3D models or 3D images does your office use at the moment? Does your office use the same or different formats for different stages of lifecycle - filling, examination, publication etc.?
- 4.2. Which formats of 3D models or 3D images does your office consider using in the future? Does your office consider using the same or different formats for different stages of lifecycle - filling, examination, publication etc.?
- 4.3. Please provide us with your suggestions and proposals on formats and reasons why you suppose them to be important (a list of formats to consider) except mentioned in items 6.1, 6.2
- 4.4. Which technical tools does your office currently use to work with 3D models (i.e. viewers, converters, etc.)? Are these standard tools commercially available, or do you consider using any special tool developed for your Office or by your Office?
- 4.5. Which technical tools does your office consider using in future work with 3D models (i.e. viewers, converters, etc.)? Are these standard tools commercially available, or do you consider using any special tool developed for your Office or by your Office?
- 4.6. Please provide us with your suggestions and proposals on tools and reasons why do you suppose them to be important (a list of tools to consider)
- 5.1. Please provide us with preferable specific file requirements? Should they be the same or different for different objects and stages (i.e. limitations and restrictions for 3D files, size (Mb) and format of 3D model for storing, processing, and sharing, etc.)
- 5.2. In your opinion, what would be the main requirements when choosing 3D file formats (open source, wide spread adoption, etc.)
- 5.3. In your opinion, what would be the main requirements when choosing tools for working with 3D files?
- 6.1. Which specific advantages and/or drawbacks do you expect from 3D models and 3D images regarding search, for instance prior art search?
- 6.2. Do you expect that applicants will comply to provide 3D models which fulfill the defined standards?
- 7.1. Do you have any other comments?
Survey respondents
| ST.3 Code | Country or Office |
|---|---|
| AP | African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) |
| AU | Australia |
| AZ | Azerbaijan |
| BE | Belgium |
| CA | Canada |
| CH | Switzerland |
| CL | Chile |
| CR | Costa Rica |
| CZ | Czechia |
| DE | Germany |
| DK | Denmark |
| EC | Ecuador |
| EM | European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) |
| EP | European Patent Office (EPO) |
| ES | Spain |
| FR | France |
| GB | United Kingdom |
| HU | Hungary |
| IE | Ireland |
| IL | Israel |
| IT | Italy |
| JP | Japan |
| KR | Republic of Korea |
| MX | Mexico |
| NO | Norway |
| PE | Peru |
| RU | Russian Federation |
| SK | Slovakia |
| SX | Sint Maarten (Dutch part) |
| US | United States of America |
| UY | Uruguay |
1.1. Does your office currently use 3D models or 3D images for IP objects within the office? If so, for which IP objects
| ST.3 Code | Response | Other (please specify) |
|---|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Trademarks Industrial designs | |
| AU Australia | Industrial designs | |
| AZ Azerbaijan | Other (please specify) | not applicable at present not applicable at present not |
| BE Belgium | Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) | |
| CA Canada | Other (please specify) | We accept 3D Images for Trademarks, but do not have specialized 3D software in the office. |
| CH Switzerland | ||
| CL Chile | ||
| CR Costa Rica | ||
| CZ Czechia | ||
| DE Germany | Trademarks Other (please specify) | In the field of chemical structures, once in a while, applicants file lists of 3D atom coordinates. |
| DK Denmark | ||
| EC Ecuador | Other (please specify) | No |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Trademarks Industrial designs | |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | Other (please specify) | None |
| ES Spain | Trademarks Industrial designs Other (please specify) | For trademarks and industrial designs, images in the formats specified below are allowed, but not 3D models. |
| FR France | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) Other (please specify) | Soleau envelope |
| GB United Kingdom | Trademarks | |
| HU Hungary | Trademarks Industrial designs | |
| IE Ireland | ||
| IL Israel | Trademarks Industrial designs Other (please specify) | Only 3D images |
| IT Italy | ||
| JP Japan | Other (please specify) | No, JPO currently doesn't use any 3D models or images. |
| KR Republic of Korea | Industrial designs | |
| MX Mexico | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) | |
| NO Norway | Other (please specify) | If filed, treated as physical objects (goods) for trademark and design, and not part of application |
| PE Peru | Other (please specify) | none |
| RU Russian Federation | ||
| SK Slovakia | ||
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | Trademarks | |
| US United States of America | Trademarks Other (please specify) | Trademarks Office currently accepts 3D images and stores as 2D image. The Description of Mark references the mark as 3D. Design Patents- Other (please specify): We have interpreted the definitions in this survey to mean that "3D images" encompasses mathematical models that can be virtually manipulated in three dimensions, such as CAD drawings. For design patent applications, USPTO only accepts static 2D image files which may convey 3D features through the use of, for example, shading and perspective. |
| UY Uruguay | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) |
1.2. Does your office consider using 3D models or 3D images for IP objects in the future? If so, for which IP objects
| ST.3 Code | Response | Other (please specify) |
|---|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Not sure | |
| AU Australia | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) | |
| AZ Azerbaijan | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) Integrated circuit topology | |
| BE Belgium | ||
| CA Canada | Trademarks Not sure | |
| CH Switzerland | Trademarks Industrial designs | |
| CL Chile | Trademarks | |
| CR Costa Rica | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) Integrated circuit topology Other (please specify) | Utility models, other distinctive signs |
| CZ Czechia | Trademarks Industrial designs | |
| DE Germany | Trademarks Other (please specify) | Trademarks: provided that there has been an agreement with the EUIPO, 3D models and/or 3D images are potentially possible and useful for position marks, other marks and tracer marks. Designs: there are no concrete plans for introducing 3d models. We are waiting for the developments within the amendment of European design law. |
| DK Denmark | ||
| EC Ecuador | Trademarks Other (please specify) | Possibly, hologram trademarks (subject to an amendment to the law). |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | ||
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | Not sure | |
| ES Spain | Trademarks Industrial designs Other (please specify) | For trademarks and industrial designs, images in the formats specified below are allowed, but not 3D models. There are no plans in the near future to use 3D models for either trademarks or industrial designs. |
| FR France | Other (please specify) | NO |
| GB United Kingdom | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) | |
| HU Hungary | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) Integrated circuit topology | |
| IE Ireland | ||
| IL Israel | Trademarks Industrial designs | |
| IT Italy | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) | |
| JP Japan | Other (please specify) | JPO currently doesn't have any specific plans for all IP objects |
| KR Republic of Korea | Not sure | |
| MX Mexico | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) | |
| NO Norway | Trademarks Industrial designs | |
| PE Peru | Trademarks | |
| RU Russian Federation | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) Integrated circuit topology | |
| SK Slovakia | Trademarks Industrial designs Other (please specify) | Not sure in case of patents and integrated circuit topology. |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) | |
| US United States of America | Other (please specify) | Design Patents- Other (please specify): The USPTO's existing plans for 3D models and 3D images include permitting exhibition or demonstration of such by applicants during examiner interviews, per MPEP 713.08. Future plans include studying 3D models and 3D images as they pertain to patent applications. Trademarks Office may consider using 3D images for IP objects in the future. The Office has not determined which IP object to be considered 3D images. |
| UY Uruguay | Trademarks Industrial designs Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) Patents in other fields of technology (e.g. Electrical engineering, Mechanical engineering, etc.) |
1.3. On which stages of IP objects' lifecycle does your office currently accept/implement 3D models?
| ST.3 Code | Trademarks | Industrial designs | Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) | Patents (e.g. inventions and/or utility models) in other fields of technology except chemistry | Integrated circuit topology | Enveloppe Soleau | Other (please specify) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Filing of the application | Filing of the application | ||||||
| AU Australia | Filing of the application Storage | This is an 'optional' item at application filing. | ||||||
| AZ Azerbaijan | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange Other (please specify in comments) | not applicable at present | ||||||
| BE Belgium | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | The only thing we accept in this regard are images for patents which are drawn in perspective, i.e. which indicate length, depth and height in the drawing | |||||
| CA Canada | No 3D model formats are in use at CIPO. | |||||||
| CH Switzerland | ||||||||
| CL Chile | To date, the National Institute of Industrial Property of Chile (INAPI), has not had any instance of the use of 3D images in the IPR applications it has processed. In the case of patents, utility models and industrial designs, volume is represented through isometric drawings that can show volume or perspective. These drawings are received at the stage of the application filing and stored in our electronic DB and in a physical file. Bibliographical data (DB) is exchanged; files are not sent. | |||||||
| CR Costa Rica | These are not currently being used, but could be accepted in the future with the application submission. | |||||||
| CZ Czechia | ||||||||
| DE Germany | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | |||||||
| DK Denmark | We have not implemented 3D models in any processes within our Office | |||||||
| EC Ecuador | Filing of the application | At the present time, Ecuador does not use 3D in its system. | ||||||
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | ||||||
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | The EPO dos not currently accept 3D models in any part of the process | |||||||
| ES Spain | The Patent and Trademark Office of Spain (OEPM) does not use 3D models. | |||||||
| FR France | Filing of the application Storage | |||||||
| GB United Kingdom | Filing of the application Storage | |||||||
| HU Hungary | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | In accordance with local regulations. | |||||
| IE Ireland | ||||||||
| IL Israel | Cuurrentlly we seport only 3D images and Not 3D models | |||||||
| IT Italy | At the moment we don't accept any 3d model | |||||||
| JP Japan | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | JPO doesn't have answers to this question because we don't use 3D models in the Office. | |
| KR Republic of Korea | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication | |||||||
| MX Mexico | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication | Filing of the application Examination | Filing of the application | ||||
| NO Norway | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Allow filing of 3D-objects/models/images, as supplement for understanding of design or trademark. | |||||
| PE Peru | Peru does not use 3D models. | |||||||
| RU Russian Federation | ||||||||
| SK Slovakia | ||||||||
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication | |||||||
| US United States of America | Under the interpretation that "accept/implement" means "formally enter into an application file wrapper", USPTO does not accept or implement 3D models at any of the listed stages for design patent applications. Integrated Circuit Topology (mask works) is covered by the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act ("SCPA") of 1984, 17 U.S.C. §§ 901-14 . TM is only accepting 2D image. However, the Description of Mark can describe the 3D image of the Mark. | |||||||
| UY Uruguay | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication |
1.4. Does your Office carry out any image transformations? If so, for which objects and on which stages?
| ST.3 Code | Trademarks | Industrial designs | Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) | Patents (e.g. inventions and/or utility models) in other fields of technology except chemistry | Integrated circuit topology | Utility models and other distinctive signs | Other (please specify) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | ||||||||
| AU Australia | N/A | |||||||
| AZ Azerbaijan | Filing of the application | Filing of the application | Filing of the application | Filing of the application | Filing of the application | |||
| BE Belgium | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | The transformations concern scanning applications that were filed on paper, reducing the size of files or cropping images | |||||
| CA Canada | We do not transform images, but we accept 3D images for Trademark filings. | |||||||
| CH Switzerland | ||||||||
| CL Chile | Our office does not carry out image transformations. | |||||||
| CR Costa Rica | Storage Publication | Examination Storage Publication | Storage Publication | Storage Publication | Storage Publication | Storage Publication | It is not clear what is meant by "image transformations", but the format of the image submitted is converted in the cases mentioned, in order to meet database specifications. | |
| CZ Czechia | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | ||||
| DE Germany | Trademarks: DPMA does not carry out any kind of image transformations considering the types of trademarks which are relevant for 3D models or 3D images. Any kind of transformation of the trademark representation would be a violation of applicable trademark law. | |||||||
| DK Denmark | N/A | |||||||
| EC Ecuador | No | |||||||
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Filing of the application | In Designs, a Javascript viewer which is able to grab snapshots of the 3D model is used to create a set of image views. Only these image views are protected. In Trademarks, the e-filing accepts the 3D models file as-is without creation of image. For the publication or certificate, only the URL to the online eSearch tool is supplied (a link to the original 3D model file). | ||||||
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | ||||||||
| ES Spain | The Patent and Trademark Office of Spain (OEPM) does not carry out any image transformations. | |||||||
| FR France | Publication | Publication | Publication | Publication | Soleau envelope: No image transformation. | |||
| GB United Kingdom | Filing of the application | |||||||
| HU Hungary | Storage Publication Data exchange | |||||||
| IE Ireland | ||||||||
| IL Israel | Filing of the application Examination Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Search Publication Data exchange | For Patents we have Drawing files in PDF format. | |||||
| IT Italy | ||||||||
| JP Japan | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | JPO currently doesn't use any 3D models or images for each stage. | |
| KR Republic of Korea | Search Other (please specify in comments) | For searching and priority documents, we use 7 snapshots which are retrieved from the original 3D models. | ||||||
| MX Mexico | No | |||||||
| NO Norway | Filing of the application Storage Search Publication | Filing of the application Storage Search Publication | Limited to 2D tranformations: file type conversion, file size and resolution., thumb and publication representation creations. Plan to implement 2D rendition of 3D and video for GUI usage. | |||||
| PE Peru | No image transformations are carried out. | |||||||
| RU Russian Federation | ||||||||
| SK Slovakia | Images filed in other formats (not formats of 3D models and 3D images) are transformated, encoded as JPEG. | |||||||
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | ||||||||
| US United States of America | USPTO accepts PDF image files, which are transformed to TIFF files and used in examination, search, publication and data exchange systems. The originally submitted PDF image file is also available for examiners and the public. USPTO receives JPEG image files for Hague applications, which are transformed to PDF files. These files are used in examination. The files are transformed to TIFF images for search, publication and data exchange. The originally submitted JPEG and PDF image files are also available for examiners and the public to view. Trademarks does not currently conduct any transformations of image files. | |||||||
| UY Uruguay |
1.5. On which stages of IP objects' lifecycle does your office consider accepting/implementing 3D models in the future?
| ST.3 Code | Trademarks | Industrial designs | Patents in chemistry as a field of technology (e.g. chemical structures, biological structures) | Patents (e.g. inventions and/or utility models) in other fields of technology except chemistry | Integrated circuit topology | Utility models and other distinctive signs | Other (please specify) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Filing of the application Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Storage Search Publication Data exchange | ||||||
| AU Australia | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | These are only considerations for exploration not currently scheduled for build or implementation to date. | ||||
| AZ Azerbaijan | Examination Search | Examination Search | Examination Search | Examination Search | ||||
| BE Belgium | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | We are currently not considering this | |
| CA Canada | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | ||
| CH Switzerland | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Not sure | Not sure | ||||
| CL Chile | This has yet to be determined for any of the IPRs mentioned. | |||||||
| CR Costa Rica | Filing of the application Examination | Filing of the application Examination | Filing of the application | Filing of the application Examination | Filing of the application Examination | Filing of the application Examination | Nevertheless, the database and server storage capacity will need to be assessed. | |
| CZ Czechia | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | ||||||
| DE Germany | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | |||||||
| DK Denmark | We have not considered this yet. | |||||||
| EC Ecuador | This would help to implement the content of the application consistently throughout the process. | |||||||
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Search | Search | Trademark & Design Search methods: Using current methods i.e. search based on image coding and/or Image recognition using AI Search based on 3D models to evaluate: - 3D model search algorithms based on mesh, vertices, triangles… components + using AI - 3D model reconstruction from 2D images when required/useful | |||||
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | Not sure | Not sure | ||||||
| ES Spain | n/a | |||||||
| FR France | None. | |||||||
| GB United Kingdom | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | ||||
| HU Hungary | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage | Filing of the application Examination Storage | Filing of the application Examination Storage | |||
| IE Ireland | We do not currently us 3D models or 3D images within the office. We do not have any plan to use them in the future. | |||||||
| IL Israel | Filing of the application Examination Search Publication Data exchange Not sure | Filing of the application Examination Search Publication Data exchange Not sure | ||||||
| IT Italy | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | Not sure | |||
| JP Japan | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Other (please specify in comments) | Not sure | JPO currently doesn't have any specific plans. | |
| KR Republic of Korea | Not sure | |||||||
| MX Mexico | ||||||||
| NO Norway | Filing of the application Storage Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Storage Publication Data exchange | We hope to limit the need for transformation to zero: The filed object is unchanged throughout any processing and publication, except production of thumbs for GUI representations. | |||||
| PE Peru | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Data exchange | ||||||
| RU Russian Federation | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage Search Publication Data exchange | Not sure | Filing of the application Examination Storage Publication Data exchange | Filing of the application Examination Storage | |||
| SK Slovakia | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | |||
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure | |||||
| US United States of America | USPTO continues to study 3D models and 3D images in reference to patent applications and monitor progress in this area. At this point, TM is not sure when TM will start accepting 3D images and in what format. TM will continue allowing applicants to describe the 3D mark. | |||||||
| UY Uruguay |
2.1. Please describe existing practices/future plans for using 3D models and 3D images within your office
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Currently the applicant indicates whether a Trademark or Design is 3D and provides the image. The future plan is to be able to store 3D models in the database and be able to search and exchange data. |
| AU Australia | September 2017 IP Australia implemented transactional channel changes to allow 3D images to be provided at filing of new applications. The accepted format is a 3D pdf single page document that is only used as a visual reference and not for consideration to examination practises. |
| AZ Azerbaijan | Currently, there is no such practice, however, taking into account current trends, It is planned to study the possibility of using 3D models and images. Also, preparation of an action plan on implementation of 3D models and images. |
| BE Belgium | As indicated previously, in this regard we only accept images for patents which are drawn in perspective, i.e. which indicate length, depth and height in the drawing. |
| CA Canada | As of 17 July 2019, CIPO will accept trademark applications which comprise, in whole or in part, of a 3-dimension sign. The proposed practice at this time is to require the applicant to submit multiple images (PNG files) as well as a description to clearly identify the various aspects of the 3D mark (or portion of the mark). As there is currently no international standard for 3D models, the multiple image & description approach is being used however if/when a 3D standard is establish CIPO would consider updating their practice to allow for the inclusion of a 3D model as long as the software for viewing the model if publicly available. CIPO has no immediate plans in place the use of 3D models for other types of IP. |
| CH Switzerland | We intend to accept 3D models and 3D images in order to allow the filing of trademarks that can only be represented electronically (multimedia marks, sound trademarks). In addition, legal certainty, for example in the case of motion marks, will be increased as the object of protection is easily recognizable to third parties. |
| CL Chile | As mentioned, INAPI does not work with 3D images. Nevertheless, our industrial property law is currently being amended to enable our system to include non-traditional trademarks, such as 3D trademarks. Accordingly, when it comes time to implement this law, the stages at which 3D models will be used/accepted will need to be determined. The questionnaire replies from the other IP offices seem to indicate that this would greatly help to guide the work that INAPI will need to start once the legal amendments in relation to 3D trademarks are adopted. |
| CR Costa Rica | We do not have any guidelines on this yet. |
| CZ Czechia | No concrete plans, but we are interested in exploring current possibilities. |
| DE Germany | Trademarks: In accordance with the 3D file formats currently supported by EUIPO, 3D trademark applications can be submitted at DPMA based on the 3D file formats OBJ, STL, and X3D. These formats are used throughout the different stages of lifecycle as stated in item 1.3. There are no nearer future plans for changes on the currently implemented practices. But in order to keep up with economic and technical developments we will extend the accepted file formats, if necessary. |
| DK Denmark | No existing or future plans for 3D models & 3D images |
| EC Ecuador | Ecuador does not currently have any plans to use 3D models or images in the near future, but we are not ruling out that possibility in the future. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Both e-Filing of trade mark and industrial design accept JPEG images and OBJ, STL, and X3D files for 3D models. |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | At the moment EPO does not support 3D models and images. EPO recognizes however that many inventions that applicants file are natively prepared and available as 3D models and the selection of an appropriate 2D perspective to render on the application requires additional effort and sometimes is also not meaningful during the Search process |
| ES Spain | Currently, at the Patent and Trademark Office of Spain (OEPM), applications are filed for trademarks and industrial designs with images in the formats specified below (but not 3D models). There are no plans to use 3D models in the near future. |
| FR France | Use of 3D images, but not 3D models for Soleau envelopes. No additional plans. |
| GB United Kingdom | Our existing practice regarding 3D images for trade mark applications can be found in our Trade Marks manual on our website https://www.gov.uk/g |
| HU Hungary | Currently the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office accepts 3D models and 3D images in the following file formats: .pdf, .tif, .tiff, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mp4, .m4a, .mpeg, .mpg, |
| IE Ireland | We do not currently us 3D models or 3D images within the office. We do not have any plan to use them in the future. |
| IL Israel | At this point were just considering the option, with out any specific plans. We want to suggest the idea to applicants and get feedbacks. |
| IT Italy | we are planning how to implement these models |
| JP Japan | JPO currently doesn't have any specific plans for all IP objects. However, particularly with regard to the filing procedures for design registration, since positive effects to improve users' convenience can be expected by adding possible options for presenting design reproductions, we are to focus on the ongoing considerations at the 3D Task Force and other relevant bodies (Design Representation Task Force, etc.) which would deal with the standardized use of 3D models/images for IP objects. |
| KR Republic of Korea | System improvement to reduce errors, Change the method of creating the snapshots and so on |
| MX Mexico | Applications submitted for: trademarks, industrial designs and patents for 3D technology or which include 3D images. |
| NO Norway | By 2020 allow 3D objects as trademarks, including web publishing with URL/URI from gazette. 3D objects must follow specified formats and other limitations (e.g. size). Due to archive regulatons (long term preservation) only ISO standards allowed. Auto extract of images for thumb generation for search applications and web functionality. |
| PE Peru | In the future, we would like to have 3D images for tridimensional viewing of industrial designs. |
| RU Russian Federation | At the moment we do not use 3D models and images, but we conduct research and test the possibility of support of 3D for all IP objects |
| SK Slovakia | The Office currently does not accept 3D models and 3D images in its practices. Taking into account existing technical tools in other areas, it can be expected, that we will use these tools for displaying of industrial property objects within a few years. It will depend also on the development of national legislation in this field. |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | Currently we have 3d models for shapes, three dimensional shapes (which includes three dimension product and packaging configurations), that are used to distinguish one's goods and services from those of another. Clients can send their registration form with attached their 3d image, the registration is assessed based on our local laws on formal and absolute grounds. After the applications is either registered or refused. Currently we do not have plans to implement other 3d models like industrial design, integrated circuit topology etc. This will be under review by our office within the next 5 years. Patents are regulated via Kingdom legislation and for this we will have to redirect you to the Netherlands Patent Office. |
| US United States of America | USPTO's existing plans for 3D models and 3D images include permitting exhibition or demonstration of such by applicants during examiner interviews, per MPEP 713.08. Future plans include studying 3D models and 3D images as they pertain to patent applications. The current practice at TM for 3D image is required to describe the 3D image in the Description of Mark field. Submit 2D image. |
| UY Uruguay | Applications are filed for trademarks, industrial designs and patents for 3D technologies or which include 3D images. |
3.1. What laws and regulations concerning 3D models and 3D images are implemented within your jurisdiction?
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Harare Protocol on Patents and Industrial Designs and the Banjul Protocol on Marks |
| AU Australia | Currently no laws associated to 3D IP Rights. Changes may be considered as a part of IP Australia's Design Review Program. |
| AZ Azerbaijan | Currently, the legislation does not reflect provisions directly related to 3D models and 3D images. |
| BE Belgium | / |
| CA Canada | As of July 17, Canada (trademarks) acceded to the Madrid Protocol, Singapore Treaty, and Nice Agreement. At that time, the trademark laws and regulations were updated to allow 3D images for filing of trademark applications. |
| CH Switzerland | Article 10 of Swiss trademark ordinance allows the IPI to accept electronic reproductions only. The IPI may define the acceptable formats. |
| CL Chile | We do not currently have regulations concerning 3D images. |
| CR Costa Rica | To our knowledge, there are no regulations specifically for 3D models and images. |
| CZ Czechia | We are not aware of any specific laws governing the area of 3D images or models in IP specifically. |
| DE Germany | General regulations: The German government has defined obligatory "Standards and Architectures for eGoverment Applications" ("SAGA") and guidelines for the architecture for governmental applications. These standards address the following goals: • Cost effectiveness • Agility • Openness • Security • Interoperability • Reusability • Scalability Among others, these standards define which formats should be used for accepting, storing and transmitting information, in order to guarantee that everybody is able to work with these formats and that the formats are suitable for long time archiving as this is necessary for information in intellectual property files. For 3D-models, only the following two formats are defined as potential candidates that may be used: • eXtensible 3D, Edition 2 (X3D) • Universal 3D 4th Edition (U3D) Trademark specific: • Trademark law • Trademark Ordinance • Announcement of 14 January 2019 of the readable types of data carriers at the DPMA and the formats for the representation of trade marks (Sec. 6a Trade Mark Ordinance [ https://www.dpma.de/ |
| DK Denmark | There are no laws/regulations concerning 3D models/images implemented. |
| EC Ecuador | Ecuadorian regulations do not include any provisions relating to 3D models or images. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Trade marks: Article 3(1) EUTMIR allows for trade marks to be represented in any appropriate form using generally accepted technology, as long as it can be reproduced on the Register in a clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective manner so as to enable the competent authorities and the public to determine with clarity and precision the subject matter of the protection afforded to its proprietor. Article 3(3)(c ) EUTMIR further specifies that for trade marks consisting of, or extending to a three-dimensional shape, including containers, packaging, the product itself of their appearance (shape mark), the mark shall be represented by submitting either a graphic reproduction of the shape, including computer-generated imaging, or a photographic reproduction. Article 3(5) states that where the representation is provided electronically, the Executive Director of the Office shall determine the formats and size of the electronic file as well as any other relevant technical specifications. EUTMIR: https://eur-lex.euro |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | Under the EPC no provision exists that deals with 3D models or 3D images. Drawings forming part of a patent application must be executed as black and white line drawings (see R 46 EPC). Otherwise they are formally deficient and must be re-filed. 3D models and 3D images that are not displayed as black and white line drawings would thus be formally deficient and would have to be re-filed. As to the document formats for electronic filings, the EPO currently accepts XML and PDF formats in accordance with the Administrative Instructions under the PCT, Part 7 and Annex F (see OJ EPO 2018, A45). |
| ES Spain | Regulations at the national, European Union and international levels on trademarks and other distinctive signs, as well as on industrial designs (drawings and industrial models). |
| FR France | For patents: Director General Decision No. 2018-156 relating to filing modalities. For trademarks: Director General Decision No. 2017-144. For designs and models: Director General Decision No.2017-145. |
| GB United Kingdom | Our acceptance of 3D trade marks is governed by Section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The patents Rules 2007 Schedule 2 part 3 https://www.gov.uk/g |
| HU Hungary | The following laws and regulations govern the allowability of 3D models and 3D images in Hungary: - Government Decree No. 147 of 2007 (VI. 26.) on the Detailed Rules Concerning Electronic Filing of Certain Documents in Industrial Property Procedures - Decree No. 16 of 2004 (IV.27.) of the Minister of Justice (IM) on the Detailed Formal Requirements of Trademark Applications & Applications for the Protection of Geographical Indications - Government decree No. 451/2016. (XII. 19.) on the Detailed Rules of Electronic Administration. - Decree No. 19/2001 (XI.29.) of the Minister of Justice (IM) on the Detailed Formal Requirements of the Application for Design Protection - Act No. CCXXII. of 2015. on General Rules of Electronic Administration and Trust Services |
| IE Ireland | None |
| IL Israel | Desigh and Trademarks regulations |
| IT Italy | we haven't any specification in italian law, in future we must implement in our regulations. |
| JP Japan | JPO currently doesn't have any laws and regulations relating to 3D models/images. |
| KR Republic of Korea | Enforcement Rule of the Design Protection Act (Form3 and 4) |
| MX Mexico | National laws and their regulatory decrees relating to trademarks, patents and industrial designs, as well as relevant international agreements. |
| NO Norway | None at moment. New trademark regulations are suggested, but currently not in force. |
| PE Peru | We do not have specific laws on this matter. Decision 486 establishing the Common Regime on IP under Legislative Decree No. 1075 sets out the general requirements for the elements to be included with the trademark registration application. These include a representation of the mark where it involves a three-dimensional or a figurative mark. In relation to industrial designs: Article 113 [under Decision No. 486 of the Commission of the Andean Community, Common Industrial Property Regime (Cartagena Agreement)] stipulates that “the particular appearance of a product resulting from any arrangement of lines or combination of colors or any two-dimensional or three-dimensional outward shape, line, outline, configuration, texture or material that does not alter the intended purpose or use of the said product shall be considered an industrial design. |
| RU Russian Federation | The law concerning the filing of 3D models as part of the application of IP rights objects is currently under consideration |
| SK Slovakia | Not yet implemented. |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | At the moment we have our local laws for 3d models for shapes, three dimensional shapes which are: Merkenlandsverordening (Ordinance on Intellectual property), Merkenlandsbesluit (Decree on Intellectual Property) and for Patents this is by Kingdom legislation. |
| US United States of America | 37 CFR 1.91- 37 CFR 1.91 Models or exhibits not generally admitted as part of application or patent. MPEP 608.03(a)- 608.03(a) Handling of Models, Exhibits, and Specimens [R-07.2015] MPEP 713.08- 713.08 Demonstration, Exhibits, Models [R-07.2015] TM has not accepted 3DM images so therefore there is no laws or regulations. Guidance on examining 3D image has issued. |
| UY Uruguay | National laws and their regulatory decrees relating to trademarks, patents and industrial designs. Also, international agreements which refer to the matter. |
4.1. Which formats of 3D models or 3D images does your office use at the moment? Does your office use the same or different formats for different stages of lifecycle - filling, examination, publication etc.?
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Raster image |
| AU Australia | Single page 3D pdf which is encoded as a Universal 3D (U3D) |
| AZ Azerbaijan | Currently, the formats of 3D models or 3D images in our office are not used. |
| BE Belgium | PDF and JPEG |
| CA Canada | .PNG for filing (trademarks) |
| CH Switzerland | none. |
| CL Chile | We do not use 3D; we use 2D perspective drawing. |
| CR Costa Rica | Currently, the office is not using any particular format. |
| CZ Czechia | None used currently. |
| DE Germany | Generally Beside the officially allowed formats for filing an application, applicants can send electronic media with supporting information. Currently there is no restriction on the formats contained in these electronic media. It is unknown whether any 3D models were ever submitted via this mechanism. Trademark specific: The 3D file formats supported by DPMA are OBJ, STL, and X3D. These formats are used throughout the different stages of lifecycle as stated in item 1.3. |
| DK Denmark | None |
| EC Ecuador | N/A |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | - 3D Formats used: OBJ, STL, X3D - The same format is used for all stages of the life cycle |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | N/A |
| ES Spain | For trademarks, the following formats are allowed: JPG, JPEG GIF, BMP, PNG, TIFF and TIF. For industrial designs: JPG, PNG, GIF. |
| FR France | For Soleau envelopes (e-Soleau): no format restrictions. For patents, trademarks, designs and models: usual image format (such as jpeg, tiff or png). At the publication stage: conversion to tiff then pdf. |
| GB United Kingdom | A 3D mark is one consisting of, or extending to, a three-dimensional shape, this includes representations of containers, packaging, the product itself or its appearance. The shape can be represented by a graphic representation or a photographic reproduction or a computer- generated image in 3D format in OBJ, STL or X3D, with a maximum file size of 20 MB. |
| HU Hungary | Currently the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office accepts 3D models and 3D images in the following file formats: .pdf, .tif, .tiff, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mp4, .m4a, .mpeg, .mpg, Our internal systems could handle pdf, jpg, mp4 therefore other formats are converted to these formats. |
| IE Ireland | Not applicable |
| IL Israel | We use Jpeg and Tiff format. We use the same format for all lifecycles except By publish all images our converted to Jpeg. |
| IT Italy | none |
| JP Japan | JPO doesn't have answers to this question because we don't use 3D models in the Office. |
| KR Republic of Korea | KIPO accepts 3ds, 3dm, igs, dwg and dwf. We use the same formats for all the stages of the lifecycle. |
| MX Mexico | It uses the same format in all stages: a .jpg image showing all views of the 3D object. |
| NO Norway | Only specified video, 3D, or other object, if format follows ANY ISO standard, due to national archive standards (Long time preservations). Only MPEG video formats (MPEG2 & MPEG4 is specifically recommended). Otherwise set of 2D representations may be filed with description for unique representatin of 3D shape or movement. |
| PE Peru | At the present time, the Office of Distinctive Signs and Office of Inventions and New Technologies of Peru's national IP office (INDECOPI) does not use 3D model or image formats. |
| RU Russian Federation | |
| SK Slovakia | The Office does not use any formats of 3D models or 3D images at the moment. |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | We are currently using 3d images which represents the object(s) displayed in three dimensions (length, depth, height), e.g. 3D photos, stereoscopy, etc. |
| US United States of America | N/A - For design patent applications, USPTO only accepts static 2D image files |
| UY Uruguay | The same format is used for all stages: a .jpg image showing all views of the 3D object. |
4.2. Which formats of 3D models or 3D images does your office consider using in the future? Does your office consider using the same or different formats for different stages of lifecycle - filling, examination, publication etc.?
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | DWF, DWG |
| AU Australia | Universal 3D (U3D) |
| AZ Azerbaijan | In the future, it is planned to use DWG and DWF formats throughout the entire examination and publication cycle. Depending on the stage, format changes are possible. |
| BE Belgium | / |
| CA Canada | .PNG for other lifecycle stages for trademarks |
| CH Switzerland | - sound marks: mp3 - multimedia marks: mp4 - motion marks: mp4 - three dimensional marks: OBJ, STL or X3D (only one) Same format for all stages of lifecycle. |
| CL Chile | We have yet to look into this. The results of this questionnaire will help us to shed light on this matter. |
| CR Costa Rica | There are no guidelines on this yet; nevertheless, the use of the formats suggested in the present document could be assessed. |
| CZ Czechia | Same format throughout the lifecycle would be ideal given the difficulties with format conversions. Recently IPO CZ has received a suggestion from the academic field for the consideration of a format called U3D. |
| DE Germany | Generally As newer formats are regularly examined and added to our governmental standards, it can be expected that the list of allowed formats will be extended. This also applies to 3D formats. Trademarks: There are no nearer future plans for changes on the currently implemented practices. But in order to keep up with economic and technical developments we will extend the currently supported 3D file formats, as long as they comply with legal requirements. Designs: no concrete plans yet. One possibility could be to allow similar formats as for trademarks. However, considerations should also include the fact that design applications can contain up to 100 designs (multiple applications), which would result in large data volumes. |
| DK Denmark | N/A |
| EC Ecuador | Since there are no plans in the near future to implement this, formats should be adaptable such that they can be used by the office's current system. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | See 4.3 |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | EPO dos not handle at the moment any 3D format. From the 3D formats proposed by ROSPATENT in the document CWS/6/22 tabled during the CWS/7, the X3D could be a good candidate because it is an ISO standard (and XML based) and can therefore be combined with existing XML Schemas in the same way as MathML. |
| ES Spain | n/a |
| FR France | No plans to change format in the future; the same formats are used in the different stages. |
| GB United Kingdom | Not yet defined. |
| HU Hungary | N/A (under consideration) |
| IE Ireland | We do not currently us 3D models or 3D images within the office. We do not have any plan to use them in the future. |
| IL Israel | |
| IT Italy | Open source formats |
| JP Japan | First of all, we need to firm up the future vision for the introduction of 3D models/images within JPO. Then, we'll start to consider each specific requirement (including formats) for each stage in view of the convenience for both users and JPO. |
| KR Republic of Korea | N/A |
| MX Mexico | N/A |
| NO Norway | We will follow recommendations in WIPO standard, even if only industrial standard (Non ISO). ISO standardized formats will be supportet (X3D and STEP). We believe that central archive authority will allow industry standard if it is WIPO recommendation. |
| PE Peru | At the moment, there are no plans for this. |
| RU Russian Federation | Actually, we are testing STEP and about to use it at several 3D model lifecycle stages as an (ISO 10303); that does not mean, however, that we do not intend to support other CAD formats like STL, which has already been tested as a second file format of our 3D Platform. |
| SK Slovakia | |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | Currently we do not have future plans (within the next 5 years) to implement other 3d models other than industrial design. |
| US United States of America | USPTO has not determined the format. Hopefully, 3D model and 3D image standard can provide a format that can be used across the board. |
| UY Uruguay | n/a |
4.3. Please provide us with your suggestions and proposals on formats and reasons why you suppose them to be important (a list of formats to consider) except mentioned in items 6.1, 6.2
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | |
| AU Australia | U3D was adopted by the office and will be persisted due to strong associated international standards (ISO) and compatibility to adopted tools. |
| AZ Azerbaijan | It is advisable to use formats that are accessible to users and that are convenient to use. The above mentioned formats are easy to use. |
| BE Belgium | / |
| CA Canada | For Trademarks, CIPO is of the opinion that it is preferred that an open source format be used and at least an open source viewer be available (may be a proprietary software for the creation/editing of the model). As there is currently no international standard for 3D models, the multiple image & description approach is being used however if/when a 3D standard is establish CIPO would consider updating their practice to allow for the inclusion of a 3D model as long as the software for viewing the model if publicly available. CIPO has no immediate plans in place the use of 3D models for other types of IP. |
| CH Switzerland | none. |
| CL Chile | Please see our previous answer. |
| CR Costa Rica | The office has no experience in this area. |
| CZ Czechia | U3D - embeddable within PDFs (native support), meaning no special software solutions needed for viewing and basic examination of the models OBJ - widely adopted, open format, already in use by EUIPO X3D - extension of VRML format, open, already in use by EUIPO STL - popular in the fields of rapid protyping and 3D printing despite its drawbacks (poor memory and computational efficiency) |
| DE Germany | Generally: As we are usually obliged to stick to our governmental standards, we would be pleased to see X3D and U3D as recommended formats. Trademarks: In accordance with the 3D file formats currently supported by EUIPO, DPMA accepts OBJ, STL, and X3D for 3D trademarks. Each of them is a standardized or widely used and open file format. |
| DK Denmark | N/A |
| EC Ecuador | We recommend having minimum requirements on 3D formats for member countries in order to so that different countries can understand these. We also recommend identifying what systems are compatible for use with 3D formats. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | 3MF to consider if requested by users + industry wide adoption. 3MF (3D Manufacturing Format) is an open source XML file format standard designed for using additive manufacturing, including information about materials, colors, and other information that can't be represented in the STL format. |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | |
| ES Spain | |
| FR France | We suggest presenting 3D objects in video format, which is more accessible than 3D modeling software such as CATIA. |
| GB United Kingdom | To be considered as part of our Transformation Programme. |
| HU Hungary | N/A |
| IE Ireland | None |
| IL Israel | |
| IT Italy | |
| JP Japan | Not Sure. |
| KR Republic of Korea | From our experience, we think it would be more sufficient to allow submission of one or two standardized formats, to reduce errors. |
| MX Mexico | |
| NO Norway | STEP due to ISO standard and wide use. STL due to standardization and focus on surface/form X3D, due to standardization and beeing the most modern and versatile standardized format To be evaluated: COLLADA, widely used in games, and now an open format. |
| PE Peru | In the event that 3D viewing is possible in the future, it would be important for us for the system to be compatible with our own national system. |
| RU Russian Federation | We assume that the following formats may be considered by the TF: 3DS, 3DM, DWG, IGES, OBJ, STL, STEP, X3D. The list is not final and can be expanded. |
| SK Slovakia | |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | 3d Images as they represent objects displayed in three dimensions (length, depth, height), e.g. 3D photos, etc. And possibly 3d models which pertains to electronic files that are created by specialized software, for mathematically representing the surface of an object in three dimensions. This would be useful for industrial designs. |
| US United States of America | N/A |
| UY Uruguay |
4.4. Which technical tools does your office currently use to work with 3D models (i.e. viewers, converters, etc.)? Are these standard tools commercially available, or do you consider using any special tool developed for your Office or by your Office?
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Office viewer and In-Design. These are commercially available standard tools. |
| AU Australia | Adobe Acrobat (3D pdf viewer) |
| AZ Azerbaijan | Currently our office does not use technical tools to work with 3D models |
| BE Belgium | Adobe reader |
| CA Canada | none |
| CH Switzerland | none. |
| CL Chile | Please see our reply to question 4.1 |
| CR Costa Rica | The office does not currently have the technical tools to work with 3D models. |
| CZ Czechia | None used currently. |
| DE Germany | Trademarks: DPMA's trademark system uses an HTML5 compatible standard web browser (Firefox) for the visualization of the 3D models, partially utilizing dedicated Java script libraries. File format conversions do not take place due to legal reasons. |
| DK Denmark | We do not work with 3D models |
| EC Ecuador | N/A |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | - Web browser: HTML < canvas> + WebGL - Open Source JavaScript Library: JSC3D (https://github.com/h |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | EPO does not currently support 3D formats. |
| ES Spain | 3D models are not currently used. |
| FR France | We do not work with 3D models, with the exception of the e-Soleau. The content of a Soleau envelope is not meant to be consulted; we thus do not need any special tool. |
| GB United Kingdom | None currently confirmed/defined. |
| HU Hungary | The HIPO uses commercially available tools (eg. Windows Media Player, Acrobat Reader, IrfanView). |
| IE Ireland | Not applicable |
| IL Israel | |
| IT Italy | |
| JP Japan | JPO doesn't have answers to this question because we don't use 3D models in the Office. |
| KR Republic of Korea | Cadian viewer and Autocad viewer |
| MX Mexico | Since the models are submitted in .jpg image format, they are viewed in this format prior to being converted into a .pdf document. |
| NO Norway | VLC Media Player, available for free. |
| PE Peru | none. |
| RU Russian Federation | AutoCAD and Pro/Engineer were basically used while searching and comparing 3D models by the pilot platform |
| SK Slovakia | The Office currently does not use any technical tools in work with 3D models. |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | NA |
| US United States of America | N/A |
| UY Uruguay | Since the models are submitted with an image in .jpg format, they are viewed in this form, prior to the conversion of the filed application to a pdf document. |
4.5. Which technical tools does your office consider using in future work with 3D models (i.e. viewers, converters, etc.)? Are these standard tools commercially available, or do you consider using any special tool developed for your Office or by your Office?
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | CAD software |
| AU Australia | Unable to determine at this point |
| AZ Azerbaijan | Before developing a special tool, it is planned to use the tools such as Design Review, Autodesk Design Review. |
| BE Belgium | / |
| CA Canada | CIPO has not yet conducted a full assessment of options at this time. |
| CH Switzerland | We consider using standard tools. |
| CL Chile | Please see our reply to question 4.2. |
| CR Costa Rica | There are no guidelines on this yet. An overall needs analysis on this matter needs to be conducted. |
| CZ Czechia | Adobe Acrobat (viewer with native support of U3D file format) |
| DE Germany | Trademarks: Currently, there are no future plans for any changes on the status quo. Designs: no concrete plans, probably similar tools as for trademarks. |
| DK Denmark | N/A |
| EC Ecuador | The office does not have tools for this. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | See 4.6 |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | Ideally X3D formats should be readable by common Web browsers without the need for plugins or applets. X3D format is designed to be as integrated into HTML5 pages as other XML standards such as MathML and SVG. Any tool that EPO will internally use to read X3D formats would likely be possible to integrate with its new IT generation tools with the minimum effort. The same for e-filing, which should potentially also be able to accept/convert other formats submitted by the applicants to the one selected by EPO |
| ES Spain | |
| FR France | none. |
| GB United Kingdom | To be considered as part of our Transformation Programme. |
| HU Hungary | N/A |
| IE Ireland | Not applicable |
| IL Israel | |
| IT Italy | in future we consider to develop tools inside our Office |
| JP Japan | First of all, we need to firm up the future vision for the introduction of 3D models/images within JPO. Then, we'll start to consider each specific technical tool including whether we purchase it from the outside or newly develop it, in view of the convenience for both users and JPO. |
| KR Republic of Korea | N/A |
| MX Mexico | |
| NO Norway | Acsepto v11 and later. Commerciarl proprietar product by Sword-Group SA, France. VLC Media Player |
| PE Peru | This has not been looked into so far. |
| RU Russian Federation | Tools are not defined yet |
| SK Slovakia | The Office does not use currently any technical tools in work with 3D models, but in the future we will prefer open source tools. |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | We can not elaborate on this at the moment. Our office is open for progress and innovation and will keep updating and looking for new means of tools etc. |
| US United States of America | N/A |
| UY Uruguay |
4.6. Please provide us with your suggestions and proposals on tools and reasons why do you suppose them to be important (a list of tools to consider)
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | CAD software is user friendly and makes it easier to analyze 3D images |
| AU Australia | Unable to determine at this point |
| AZ Azerbaijan | These tools are available and easy to use. |
| BE Belgium | / |
| CA Canada | For Trademarks, CIPO is of the opinion that it is preferred that an open source format be used and at least an open source viewer be available (may be a proprietary software for the creation/editing of the model). |
| CH Switzerland | - |
| CL Chile | Please see our reply to question 4.2. |
| CR Costa Rica | The office has no experience in this area. |
| CZ Czechia | |
| DE Germany | The tools should be free, available for the public and able to process and show the formerly mentioned file formats, e.g.: • X3D -> X3DOM (https://www.x3dom.org/) • U3D -> ThreeJS (https://threejs.org/) |
| DK Denmark | |
| EC Ecuador | The office does not have tools for this. The office is of the view that WIPO should make a basic tool available for these systems. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Other Javascript libraries/frameworks/converters such as Three.js and Babylon.js. |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | |
| ES Spain | |
| FR France | There should be open formats in order to have open (free) software. The office has no plans to take out commercial software licenses, and it would not be appropriate to require that our users use commercial software in order to consult data that are online. |
| GB United Kingdom | None currently. |
| HU Hungary | N/A |
| IE Ireland | None |
| IL Israel | |
| IT Italy | |
| JP Japan | Not Sure. |
| KR Republic of Korea | N/A |
| MX Mexico | |
| NO Norway | NA |
| PE Peru | None. |
| RU Russian Federation | |
| SK Slovakia | The Office does not use currently any technical tools in work with 3D models, but in the future we will prefer open source tools. |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | We refer to question 4.5 |
| US United States of America | N/A |
| UY Uruguay |
5.1. Please provide us with preferable specific file requirements? Should they be the same or different for different objects and stages (i.e. limitations and restrictions for 3D files, size (Mb) and format of 3D model for storing, processing, and sharing, etc.)
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | 5MB maximum file size |
| AU Australia | Universal 3D (U3D) is IP Australia preferred file type. |
| AZ Azerbaijan | There are currently no specific requirements. |
| BE Belgium | We have a 5 Mb limit for PDF and JPEG files. |
| CA Canada | CIPO has not yet conducted a full assessment of requirements at this time. |
| CH Switzerland | Maximum size of 20 MB. |
| CL Chile | Please see our reply to question 4.2. |
| CR Costa Rica | The office has no experience in this area. |
| CZ Czechia | We would prefer accepting a single file format that could be kept throughout the lifecycle. However given that a wide array of file formats is used within the industry, a need might arise to accept at least a few of the most popular formats during the application step. Consensus among the IP offices and organizations on one exchange format would be welcomed in order to faciliate data exchange. |
| DE Germany | Trademarks: DPMA's trademark system uses the same file requirements throughout all stages of lifecycle. The specifications for accepted 3D file formats are published on the DPMA's home page as follows: File format: OBJ, STL, X3D Maximum file size: 20 MB Designs: it seems reasonable to draft future requirements similar as for 3D trademarks. However, as design applications have the particularity that they can contain several design applications and therefore several representations in one application (multiple application), we would need to investigate the consequences this would have with regards to requirements, especially data volume. Additionally, the reproduction has high significance for the determination of the object of protection, with resulting requirements for the quality of reproduction, which could call for other criteria than for trademarks. |
| DK Denmark | We do not currently have any preference. Generally we would prefer few available formats. |
| EC Ecuador | The files should meet the requirements of each member country, in line with the relevant country regulations. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | - 3D file maximum size: 2MB - Preference ASCII encoding over binary (to specify) |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | Performance, ergonomic, scalability, formats interoperability, future proof (archiving). Any tools chosen must follow the most widely used standard by the relevant industries. |
| ES Spain | The file formats mentioned above for trademark images have the following restrictions: maximum 945 x 1417 pixels, 300 PPI and 24 BPP. As regards files for design images, graphic or photographic reproductions, whether in black and white or in color, dimensions shall not exceed: 26.2 x 17 cm. (3094 x 2008 in pixels) . |
| FR France | The files should be identical in each stage, and the format should be open. No size restriction. |
| GB United Kingdom | To be considered as part of our Transformation Programme. |
| HU Hungary | Currently the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office accepts 3D models and 3D images in the following file formats: .pdf, .tif, .tiff, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mp4, .m4a, .mpeg, .mpg, The allowability of further formats is under consideration. |
| IE Ireland | Not applicable |
| IL Israel | The requriment are: size , resolution They should be the same for all objects and stages |
| IT Italy | At the moment our limit is 20mb |
| JP Japan | First of all, we need to firm up the future vision for the introduction of 3D models/images within JPO. Then, we'll start to consider each specific requirements and limitations for each stage in view of the convenience for both users and JPO. |
| KR Republic of Korea | Under the Design Protection Act in ROK, it is not provided the limitation of the size of the file. |
| MX Mexico | Our national system for electronic processing of the application sets out size limits for the images received. There should be a common standard for all offices, to facilitate the processing of data from different IP offices. |
| NO Norway | For any object: Recommended max size should be 5Mb, due to exchange and publisihing need. |
| PE Peru | |
| RU Russian Federation | We assume that file requirements should be different for different objects and stages |
| SK Slovakia | |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | For 3d images there are no restrictions. The object has to be clearly displayed in three dimensions (length, depth, height). |
| US United States of America | N/A |
| UY Uruguay | Our national system for electronic processing of applications has limits on the size of the images received. A common standard should be established across all offices in order to facilitate the processing of the data among the different IP offices. |
5.2. In your opinion, what would be the main requirements when choosing 3D file formats (open source, wide spread adoption, etc.)
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Wide spread adoption, availability and affordability |
| AU Australia | Availability to public, compatibility with 3D viewing tools, Size and storage |
| AZ Azerbaijan | Open source, wide spread adoption are important. |
| BE Belgium | / |
| CA Canada | CIPO has not yet conducted a full assessment of options at this time. The tool must be able to display all aspects of the 3D model. The viewer tool must also be available to the general public so that any third party may view the 3D model. A viewer must be readily available and free of charge to the general public. |
| CH Switzerland | Open source, wide spread adoption, tool availability to work with the files. |
| CL Chile | Please see our reply to question 4.2. |
| CR Costa Rica | The office has no experience in this area. |
| CZ Czechia | open source, easily parsed (XML based), platform ambiguous, already in use by the industry |
| DE Germany | Generally: Beside the restrictions of our architectural guidelines and the overall requirement that the format must be able to express models in a complexity suitable for the different IP rights, the following requirements must be fulfilled for the format and the tools necessary to work with these formats: - The format must be open, well documented and standardized - The format and its standard must be stable and well suitable for longtime archiving - The format must be widely adopted by 3D applications, i.e. these applications have to have lossless exporters from the internal, usually proprietary format into these standardized formats - Lightweight and free viewers have to be available to work with these formats. These viewers have to be accessible for the IP offices as well as for public users! Therefore, ease of use and a non-discriminating access to these viewers (e.g. no restriction to a certain operating system) are basic requirements. Typically, these requirements are only fulfilled by browser based tools. - These viewers must be able to show the whole information contained in the model, i.e. no information may be lost due to missing features of the viewer. Otherwise the content of the application may not be disclosed completely. - If formats allowed for application, do not conform to the rules of a certain country, reliable and lossless converters must be available in order to convert these formats to the internally used formats. Trademarks: WIPO should choose the 3D file formats the EUIPO and all the European offices agreed upon in the Common Communications (https://euipo.europa |
| DK Denmark | Wide spread adoption, preferable open source or other non proprietary formats. |
| EC Ecuador | N/A |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Browser support, wide spread adoption, open source (no license), simplicity |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | Wide spread adoption |
| ES Spain | The Patent and Trademark Office of Spain (OEPM) believes it is important to adopt formats that are widely used by IP offices, in order to faciliate the exchange of data and ensure uniform procedures. Also, the use of open source code would facilitate the development and maintenance of systems. |
| FR France | Open source format, for the reasons mentioned above. |
| GB United Kingdom | To be considered as part of our Transformation Programme. |
| HU Hungary | There is no preference. |
| IE Ireland | Not applicable |
| IL Israel | The ability of displaying the image on web browser with HTML5 |
| IT Italy | Open source format |
| JP Japan | Same as above. |
| KR Republic of Korea | This could be varied by the user. |
| MX Mexico | |
| NO Norway | All: ISO standard TM/DS: Wide adoption within field (of design, gaming, or where 3D usage with focus on the human recognizable form/view) PT: Wide adoption within technical design (CAD). |
| PE Peru | Compatibility. |
| RU Russian Federation | In our opinion, basic wide spreaded 3D vector formats are worth considering. |
| SK Slovakia | Compatibility with open standards. |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | No comment at the moment. |
| US United States of America | For TM, In my opinion, the main requirement shall be adaptable and widely supportable |
| UY Uruguay |
5.3. In your opinion, what would be the main requirements when choosing tools for working with 3D files?
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Ease of use, affordability and availability |
| AU Australia | Proper investigation into the use of 3D tools is still required to build out comprehensive requirements. Some high level consideration have included: - Conversation to black/white scale (replicating technical drawings) - 3D to 2D specification/drawing creation - Proprietary vs open - Native vs vendor neutral - Lossy vs non-lossy (Compression) |
| AZ Azerbaijan | It is difficult to answer this question without conducting appropriate tests. |
| BE Belgium | / |
| CA Canada | For Trademarks, CIPO is of the opinion that it is preferred that an open source format be used and at least an open source viewer be available (may be a proprietary software for the creation/editing of the model). The tool must be able to display all aspects of the 3D model. The viewer tool must also be available to the general public so that any third party may view the 3D model. A viewer must be readily available and free of charge to the general public. CIPO has not yet conducted a full assessment of requirements at this time. |
| CH Switzerland | The tools must be available as a service to be able to be integrated in our business processes. |
| CL Chile | Please see our reply to question 4.2. |
| CR Costa Rica | The office has no experience in this area. |
| CZ Czechia | Price and availiability, ease of use |
| DE Germany | Generally Beside the requirements mentioned above, lightweight viewer applications are needed for a tight integration into our IP management applications and our workflows. Our application should be able to control the viewer and ideally embed the viewer into our electronic workbench. This is not true for heavyweight 3D applications that are used to create these models. Users would be forced to open these applications manually as an external application, search and load the models into the application manually, etc. Publication must be possible in DPMA´s electronic register, and the tools used for display need to guarantee that object is represented as it was filed and registered. Representation needs to be unmodifiable, and invariable on all viewers, (particularly for designs). Formats must meet the requirement of clear and distinct representation. Trademark specific: That WIPO chooses the tools which the EUIPO and the member states agreed upon in the Common Communications. |
| DK Denmark | Cost, licensing, low technical requirements. Easy distributable. |
| EC Ecuador | Their compatibility with the most systems. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Same as 5.2 |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | see 5.1 |
| ES Spain | That these be accepted or compatible with all national registration systems. |
| FR France | The main requirement should be to have an open tool, for the reasons mentioned above. |
| GB United Kingdom | To be considered as part of our Transformation Programme. |
| HU Hungary | There is no preference. |
| IE Ireland | Not applicable |
| IL Israel | Convenience of use |
| IT Italy | Open source tools |
| JP Japan | Same as above. |
| KR Republic of Korea | This could be varied by the user. |
| MX Mexico | That they be accepted or compatible with all national registration systems. |
| NO Norway | Price and file coverage, ability to convert between formats, ability to save 2D snaps. Support for web publishing. |
| PE Peru | |
| RU Russian Federation | The tool that IPO will use to view 3D models at the examination stage must be available and support all formats that will be selected by IPO. This question requires further research, as well as what tools should be used at other stages of the life cycle including tools for converting some 3D formats to others, if necessary. |
| SK Slovakia | Open source, easy to use, cost free, compatible with citrix xenapp. |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | Easily accessible, easy to use, object has to be clearly displayed in three dimensions, zoom in and out possibility. |
| US United States of America | For TM, In my opinion, the requirement for tool shall be free for viewing, backward compatible, open source for editing. |
| UY Uruguay | That these be accepted by or compatible with all national registration systems. |
6.1. Which specific advantages and/or drawbacks do you expect from 3D models and 3D images regarding search, for instance prior art search?
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | It can slow down the system, it might not be very accurate and retrieval of applications filed before implementation would be difficult. |
| AU Australia | - Increase standard for inventive step. - Encourage technological innovation. - 3D files remove ambiguity existing in 2D images. - Higher legal certainty. - Better customer searching tools from publishing 3D images. |
| AZ Azerbaijan | Application of the 3D models and 3D images may facilitate more detailed information during the examination. |
| BE Belgium | / |
| CA Canada | CIPO has not evaluated the use of 3D models and 3D images regarding search. |
| CH Switzerland | The 3D models or 3D images should be classified in order to enable a search. |
| CL Chile | As this is new territory for INAPI, our opinion on the matter is based on expectations rather than on experience. We hope that 3D models can help to facilitate the IPR search, provide a perspective about the prior art, provide more and better information for trademark registration cases and that they can be useful as means of evidence. |
| CR Costa Rica | The office has no experience in this area. However, the 3D images and models of the application should be compared with conventional 2D images available in the prior art. |
| CZ Czechia | Advantages: unambiguity, potential to employ advanced statistical methods within prior art search (e.g. machine learning), future proofing Drawbacks: complexity, difficult implementation, cost |
| DE Germany | Trademarks: There is no such thing as prior art search in the German Trademark law. But 3D models and 3D image can help to determine the scope of protection of a trademark or improve the assessment of similarity of trademarks. Designs: no search on designs at DPMA. |
| DK Denmark | In relation to prior art search the advantages/drawbacks widely depend on the search tools. If 3 models/images comply with common standards it is expected that search tools based on these common standards will be available. This will make it possible to do very precise prior art searches. On the other hand if such standards is not available it will not bring advantages to the same extent. |
| EC Ecuador | Advantages: great clarity in design perspective, which would facilitate search and examination processes. Drawback: lack of infrastructure and training to complement this and ensure proper analysis. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | No search based on 3D files yet but only on JPEG images and coding. Specific advantages and/or drawbacks will be seen when evaluating search on 3D files. |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | |
| ES Spain | |
| FR France | Advantage: Inventions are more easily visualized. Drawback: relevant information can be hidden in a 3D model (whereas it is clearly shown in 2D), meaning examiners have to spend additional time manipulating 3D models to find relevant information. |
| GB United Kingdom | No specific comments. |
| HU Hungary | Not yet explored. |
| IE Ireland | Not applicable |
| IL Israel | The advantages is easier for exmaning and understanding the product. |
| IT Italy | |
| JP Japan | Not Sure. |
| KR Republic of Korea | KIPO currently uses snapshots of the 3D models for the prior art search. This means that we need to do additional processes to create thumbnails and several views of the 3D models, which cases time and cost consumption since we make those snapshots by internal staff. |
| MX Mexico | In terms of advantages, it is hoped that examination time can be reduced and resources optimized. |
| NO Norway | There is a demand to create - at least semi automated - 2D-representations from filed 3D object files. TM: Our image recognition search based on ML will not cover 3D objects. Instad we will generate up to four representatble 2D- images that can be individually search and be search. Automation of 2D-representation may be useless, hence may need additional resources for manual rendering assitance. TM & DS: 2D representations will be used for manual search. Traditional CAD images in 3D may not be accepted since they do not represent the human vision of the object. |
| PE Peru | We believe that this type of format would facilitate the searches of examiners of the INDECOPI Office of Inventions and New Technologies. |
| RU Russian Federation | We expect that the use of 3D models will make the description of the object for IPR more clear for an examiner. |
| SK Slovakia | |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | It may be challenging to find similar objects or models due to it being 3D. But with the dynamics in innovation, it is something that could be regulated. |
| US United States of America | N/A |
| UY Uruguay | In terms of advantages, it is hoped that this would reduce examination time and optimize resources. |
6.2. Do you expect that applicants will comply to provide 3D models which fulfill the defined standards?
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | Yes |
| AU Australia | IP Australia has received 200 (from Jul 2017 - Nov 2019) 3D design submissions (195 new applications, 5 requests to amend) in our 'optional' filing service. We suspect applicants will comply if filing requirements are made mandatory as long as standards are non-restrictive. |
| AZ Azerbaijan | In the early stages, certain difficulties are possible, but over time, applicants will have a more accurate picture on defined standards. |
| BE Belgium | / |
| CA Canada | CIPO has not yet consulted with applicants on this topic. |
| CH Switzerland | We are not in a position to make a prediction on this. |
| CL Chile | This will be determined through implementation of the regulation under the new industrial property law, with which IPR applicants will have to comply. |
| CR Costa Rica | The office does not currently have specific standards on this, but the models received need to be adjusted to the available means. In the future, the office will look into possible adjustments to its systems and equipment to match current trends. |
| CZ Czechia | Industry leaders might adopt well to the new practice, but overall we don't expect fast adoption. |
| DE Germany | Trademark specific: Yes, because 3D trademark applications that do not comply with the accepted file formats will be rejected. For certain areas of expertise, i.e. flow visualization or advanced engineering purposes etc., the commonly used formats seem to be too low level to contain those types of information needed for expressing certain information. High level models are commonly used, but are proprietary and do not lend themselves to lossless conversion into common models. For certain areas, therefore, we do not expect that applicants would make use of the possibility of providing 3D models. |
| DK Denmark | Based on prior experience with implementing formats/standards it will take some time to get full compliance. Especially from private applicants/unrepresented SMEs |
| EC Ecuador | yes. |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | Yes |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | |
| ES Spain | |
| FR France | No. We are not sure that applicants will be able to do this. |
| GB United Kingdom | We would require them to comply with the defined standards. |
| HU Hungary | No. |
| IE Ireland | Not applicable |
| IL Israel | Of course If it will be a easy and convenint option |
| IT Italy | |
| JP Japan | Not Sure. |
| KR Republic of Korea | Mostly yes, but not always. Sometimes when applicants use the old version of the 3D software and it occurs errors. We experienced 2 cases out of 3,824 in 2018. |
| MX Mexico | Yes |
| NO Norway | Yes, otherwise more costly duration of application processing time. We will refuse applications based on non-reproducable file formats. |
| PE Peru | No. |
| RU Russian Federation | Yes. Besides we've sent the questionnaire to the top 20 applicants for each of objects for IPR in order to get their opinions about preferable formats and tools. Their answers will be taken into account. |
| SK Slovakia | |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | Yes. To register their model and have protection to the fullest extend, applicants are usually well aware that they should register and/or fulfill the standards to receive said protection. |
| US United States of America | N/A |
| UY Uruguay | yes |
7.1. Do you have any other comments?
| ST.3 Code | Response |
|---|---|
| AP African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) | No. |
| AU Australia | |
| AZ Azerbaijan | No other comments |
| BE Belgium | As for trademarks and designs, the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property would be open to, for example, European initiatives which explore the possibilities of using 3D images or models. |
| CA Canada | CIPO is seeking to learn from other IPOs on options for formats and tools as we hope to standardize. |
| CH Switzerland | none. |
| CL Chile | INAPI is very interested in the questionnaire results, which will be very helpful when the time comes to implement the new regulations governing 3D trademarks; we hope these will be adopted this year. Since we have yet to develop the regulations we will be applying domestically, it will be very useful to see what other offices are doing. |
| CR Costa Rica | |
| CZ Czechia | Unless 3D models are required when submitting an application (such a requirement is not realistic in our opinion), the advantages described in 6.1. might have limited impact. |
| DE Germany | |
| DK Denmark | |
| EC Ecuador | |
| EM European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) | It would be useful to create a reference database of 3D models for the evaluation of tools/algorithms, test, training (AI), etc. |
| EP European Patent Office (EPO) | |
| ES Spain | |
| FR France | Images and videos appear to be sufficient for our users, there should not be a specific format requirement. |
| GB United Kingdom | |
| HU Hungary | N/A |
| IE Ireland | None |
| IL Israel | |
| IT Italy | |
| JP Japan | No comments. |
| KR Republic of Korea | |
| MX Mexico | |
| NO Norway | |
| PE Peru | none. |
| RU Russian Federation | |
| SK Slovakia | |
| SX Sint Maarten (Dutch part) | No other comments. |
| US United States of America | None |
| UY Uruguay |