"Record year for Community trade marks and designs
OHIM has had another record year for applications for Community trade marks and designs, and 2007 also saw further significant improvements in productivity and timescales for registrations.
Over the past four years, the cumulative change at the Office has been dramatic, with a 50% increase in trade mark and design applications and a rise in productivity of almost 60%. Over the same period the average time to register a trade mark has fallen by one-third to 13 months, and the time taken to register a design has fallen by 60% to six weeks."
"The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has announced a record number of patent filings under its Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) in 2007.
According to a WIPO press release, 4.7% more applications were filed under the PCT compared to 2006, taking the total to 156 100 applications last year.
[...]
Six European countries - Germany (11.6% of all applications), France (4.1%), the United Kingdom (3.6%), the Netherlands (2.7%), Switzerland (2.4%) and Sweden (2.3%) - were among the top ten countries of origin, with Italy (1.9%) and Finland (1.3%) following close behind.
The growth in filing was particularly strong in north east Asia, which accounted for 25.8% of all international applications under the PCT. [...] "
"Der insgesamt positive Trend bei der Anmeldung gewerblicher Schutzrechte hat sich auch 2007 fortgesetzt. Das bereits hohe Niveau bei den Patentanmeldungen wurde mit 60 992 Anmeldungen noch leicht übertroffen. Besonders nennenswert sind hier die 13 139 Patentgesuche von ausländischen Anmeldern. Dies entspricht einer Steigerung von 4,5 %. [...]
Im Markenbereich wurde mit 83 673 angemeldeten Marken (nationale und internationale Registrierung) das Ergebnis des Vorjahres um 4,2% übertroffen, wobei dieser Zuwachs vor allem durch inländische Anmeldungen erreicht wurde.
Bei den Geschmacksmustern verläuft die Entwicklung der angemeldeten Muster weiter positiv. Hier ergibt sich im Vergleich zum Vorjahr ein Plus von 6,4%. [...]"
(In short: German patents plus 4,5%, German Trade Marks plus 4,2%, German Registered Designs plus 6,4%)
Recently I had picked up here and there reports on a debate currently ongoing in France to perform a merger between the profession of the Patent Attorneys ("conseils en Propriété Industrielle") with the profession of the Lawyers ("avocats").
Now it appears as if the project is neither dead nor doomed to be stalled indefinitly but there appear to be many obstacles. According to Mr Breese, on March 18, 2008, the two professions involved chose not to abandon the process. They were, both in favor of two proposed mergers but with significant differences. The project on which the patent attorneys had spoken favourably probably would not have resulted in a favourable vote by lawyers, and vice versa. The problem appears in particular to be related to two aspects:
The status of patent attorneys became lawyers: CNCPI rejects the term integration which would be contrary to the project, while lawyers present a status as a fully integrated profession after the demise of the profession of patent attorneys;
The conditions for access to the occupation: CNCPI presented a draft where the entrance to CRFPA would be neither more nor less than the current EQF and CAPA would be specific to Intellectual Property Law while the lawyers proposed a project where the entrance and exit would be merely to have Intellectual Property Law as an optional subject.
See also other reports from Mr Breese on that subject-matter:
The recent issue 01/2008 is ready for download here (PDF).
From the Table of Contents:
Results of the election to the fifteenth epi Council
epi Tutorials 2008
Accession of Norway to the European Patent Convention
Fall from grace (On Grace Periods in EPC2000) by Pete Pollard (NL) and Cees Mulder (NL)
EPC 2000 from the perspective of EQE candidates by Brian Cronin (CH)
Raising the Bar? by P. Rosenich (LI)
Product-by-Process Claims - A Jurisdictional Comparison by N. Finnie (GB), B. Bennett (AU)
Die Inventivpsychologie und erfinderische Täigkeit by S. V. Kulhavy (CH)
Formular-Kommentar Markenrecht by G. Eisenführ (DE)
Furthermore, this issue brings an interesting piece of statistics titled "List of Professional Representatives as of 29.02.2008". It is essentially a breakdown of epi membership base by country (i.e. place of business or employment; not so much exciting) and by route of admission (quite interesting). There are two routes to go for being entered into the list of professional representatives:
Article 134 EPC 1973, requiring to take a quite difficult European Qualification Examination (EQE), or
Article 163 EPC 1973, requiring entitlement to represent natural or legal persons in patent matters before the central industrial property office of the Contracting State in which he or she has his place of business or employment, during a one-year time window after entering into force of EPC 1973 or of accession of one of the later acceeding countries (so-called "Grandfather's clause")
The statistics is as follows:
What appears to be quite remarkable is that no less than 40% of all epi Members have been entered on the list on the basis of the "Grandfather's Clause". In Germany, one of the founding fathers of the EPC, roughly a quarter of the national chapter are "Grandfathers".
Why at all has the EQE been installed from the outset? I don't know. When the OHIM (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market) was created, a political decision had been taken not to install any kind of additional qualification exam. Instead, there is something like an eternal Grandfather's Clause in place, saying that a candidate must be entitled to represent natural or legal persons in trade mark matters before the central industrial property office of a Member State Where, in that State, the entitlement is not conditional upon the requirement of special professional qualifications, persons applying to be entered on the list who act in trade mark matters before the central industrial property office of the said State must have habitually so acted for at least five years. However, persons whose professional qualification to represent natural or legal persons in trade mark matters before the central industrial property office of one of the Member States is officially recognized in accordance with the regulations laid down by such State shall not be subject to the condition of having exercised the profession. (Article 89 CTMR).
Did anybody seriously complain that the Professional Representatives enroled with OHIM without sitting another exam are less qualified for their job compared to the European Patent Attorneys admitted to represent before the EPO who took the EQE?
BTW, deadline for the next issue of epi Information is May 19, 2008. Documents for publication should have reached the epi Secretariat by this date.
German Government Unable to Correct London Agreement Implementation Law In Due Time.
As I had reported earlier, the German Act amending the national German translation requirements in accordance with the London Agreement as passed by German Parliament is seriously flawed because of its discrepancy with regard to the deadline for abandonment of the requirement of a full German translation for European Patents designating Germany which appears to be later than that fixed by the London Agreement itself.
According to a letter originating from the German Ministry of Justice and circulated by the German Institute of Patent Attorneys (Patentanwaltskammer), German Government has abandoned all hope to get this problem fixed before the entry into force of the London Agreement, i.e. May 01, 2008.
Despite the fact that a political consensus has been reached within Government, including a clause to the effect that the new Bill will properly drop the translation requirement for all European Patents designating Germany which are advertised in the Official Gazette after April 30, 2008, there appears to be absolutely no chance to rush such a Bill through Parliament before May 01.
It is now expected that the new Bill will be published in the Bundesgesetzblatt not earlier than June 2008. Its effects with regard to London Agreement and concerning European Patents having their grant mentioned in the Official Gazette after April 30, 2008, will then be of a retroactive nature.
"[...] As in other areas of the economy, without demand, there would be no market to supply. All too often, consumers knowingly buy faked high street products, thinking that no harm will come from such venial behaviour. As long as they think they are getting a good deal, the trade in fake goods will continue.
So let's be frank. Previous campaigns that have tried to frighten consumers by simply focusing on the illegal nature of buying counterfeit goods are not sufficient. The only way we will change consumer behaviour is by raising awareness of the hidden costs of fake goods.
And here, the expansion of counterfeiting from a cottage industry to a global business, making forgeries of virtually anything, can help us.
Now, we are no longer just talking about poor quality fake T-shirts. We are talking about fake toasters that pose a serious risk of electric shock or fire.
We are talking about fake tubes of a major brand of toothpaste which contain high levels of potentially dangerous micro-organisms.
We are talking about fake mobile phone toys for infants that contain more than 20 times the maximum limit of 'migratable' lead, which can leach out when the product is sucked or chewed.
If anyone thinks I am just scaremongering, this is only a small selection of the products actually seized by EU customs over the last 12 months...
IP protection is no longer just a question of safeguarding an economy that relies on quality and innovation. It is no longer just a question of clamping down on crime.
It has become a question of consumer health and safety. Of tackling the dark side of product safety. There are no accidents or negligence here, but well calculated criminal strategies with devastating effects on our economies, on our health and environment, on our safety and security.
This is the message we have to start sending to our citizens.
The role of consumer education is paramount. From early years and throughout their adulthood, consumers should become aware that the choices they make every day shape the world, for better or for worse.
Confident and empowered consumers will increasingly demand safe products for themselves and their families, and will eventually start to turn away from fakes.
The Commission has made a start. Last summer, nearly 2.5 million diaries were distributed to schools across the EU, with information about what the union can offer young people. It contains a whole section on brands and the dangers of fake goods.
We have also developed, in co-operation with institutions of higher education, web-based consumer education tools for citizens in all 27 Member States. These are targeted at consumers in general or trainers. They go beyond the simple provision of general information, to include learning exercises and other interactive material.
They tackle basic consumer rights, the advantages of the internal market, and possibilities of redress in case of problems. Again, the risks of counterfeit goods feature prominently.
But more needs to be done, and organisations like the Authentics Foundation have a crucial contribution to make.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The time has come to educate consumers about the true cost of counterfeit products: the damage to our economy and our future; the organised crime; the child labour and appalling work conditions that often lie behind such products, the risk to consumers' own health and safety.
In the end, the message is clear: fakes cost more. [...]"
The host of the event, the Authentics Foundation is, according to their own mission statement, an international nongovernmental organization dedicated to raising public awareness of counterfeits. Its primary goal is to educate consumers about the negative aspects of the counterfeit market, including money laundering, drug cartels, paramilitary involvement, organized criminal gang associations, child labor, and risks to one's safety. The website says the Authentics Foundation was started by Mr Frederick Mostert, Ms Princess Corinna Sayn Wittgenstein, Mr Timothy Trainer and Mr Chen Xuemin, who are also involved in the Confucius Foundation.
Breaking News fom EU Deliberations on EU Patent Jurisdiction.
Something like a common EU position on a EU Patent Jurisdiction appears to be visibly emerging.
On February 04, 2008, the Slovenian EU Presidency had issuedDocument 5954/08 addressed to the Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents). The paper had been titled "EU Patent Jurisdiction - Main features of the Court system (first part); Remedies, procedures and other measures (second part)". The first part contains a revised version of Document 14492/07 and takes into account remarks made by delegations at the meeting of the Working Party on 07 November 2007, whereas the second part contains a revised version of Document 5245/08 and takes into account remarks made by delegations at the meeting of the Working Party on 25 January 2008.
Now, another version of the same project has surfaced in Document 7001/2008. As usual, there is no redlining; hence, it is a bit difficult to find out the amendments.
However, one big news is that apparently EU Member States are ready to agree on a modified regime of representation according to which any European Patent Attorney with EU certificate should be allowed to solely represent a party. Specific training for European Patent Attorneys and lawyers could be envisaged in order to promote efficient and sound litigation proceedings.
The language of the previous version had been more reluctant, i.e. any European Patent Attorney should be allowed to speak at hearings. It should be explored to what extent, and under which circumstances, European Patent Attorneys with proven legal knowledge and experience could solely represent a party.
But what the heck is meant by "EU certificate"? Was it intended to say that a European Patent Attorney entitled to represent must be seated in a EU Member State, discriminating Swiss and Norwegian members of the profession, or is that certificate some sort of addtitional professional qualification?
Other points of interest might, inter alia, include:
The ECJ would be able to ensure the uniformity of the Community legal order. For this reason a reference on points of law (cassation) to the ECJ should be foreseen. In order to avoid that parties systematically refer appeals to the ECJ, extending the length of the procedure unnecessarily, the ECJ should be entitled to grant the leave to appeal (certiorari).
In the absence of a local or regional division with territorial competence for the MS where the plaintiff could bring an action the case could be brought before the central division.
The parties should, before all divisions and at their request, be provided by the division concerned with interpretation to assist them in presenting and defending their case to the extent necessary. The creation of a European list of specialised patent interpreters and of a separate training framework financed by the Community could be explored.
The central division should be composed of panels consisting of three judges. The previous version had provided for five judges.
The transitional period as such should be kept short for reasons relating to the efficiency of the system which relies on a critical mass of cases being processed. However, it could be explored whether patentees should be given, for European patents granted prior to the date the EU patent jurisdiction has become operational, the possibility to opt out of the system. Such derogation from the exclusive nature of the jurisdiction would require that opt-outs are notified to and published by the Registry before expiry of a cut-off date.
It could be also explored whether during the transitional period local divisions in those MS having hitherto little experience in patent litigation should in all cases involving parties from more than one MS or affecting the territories of more than one MS be composed of one national judge and two judges from the European pool of patent judges (one technically and one legally qualified). This would further increase trust of the users, encourage them to bring cases before local divisions and help to enhance spreading of experience with patent litigation across Europe.
The parties are dominus litis of the procedure; however, the Court has an active role in conducting the procedures. The Court should be free to disregard any statement of fact for which no proof is offered.
The Court should be able, if necessary, to order a party to offer a proof. In infringement cases, the evidence is usually to be found under the control of the infringer (manufacturer or distributor). The main rule should therefore be that the Court may order the production of specified evidence which lies in the control of the alleged infringer. Such orders should not result in an obligation of selfincrimination. Under certain conditions it should even be possible for the Court to order a third party to produce specified and relevant evidence. When there are good reasons to expect that evidence would be destroyed, the Court should be able to order the preservation of evidence.
It has been emphasized that Judges should for example be able to take into account the prejudice of the defendant if the products in question are removed from the market as well as the fact that the applicant does not manufacture or commercialize competing products, but is only looking for royalties.
New EU Proposal on the EU Community Patent: "Translation of Claims and Distribution of Revenue From Fees".
The EU Council just has published Document 6985/08 authored by the Slovenian EU Presidency and addressed to the Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents). The title of that Document is "Community patent: translation of claims and distribution of revenue from fees". From the introductory portion thereof:
"[...] The Presidency wishes to relaunch efforts to create a Community patent, building on previous work with the goal of fulfilling the long-awaited expectations of patent users in Europe.
To reach a global agreement on the Community patent, the Presidency intends to focus the Council discussion on two major subjects:
the question of translation of patent claims and
the distribution of revenue from fees paid to maintain the Community patent in force. [...]"
Starting with two Common principles, namely Accessibility of the Community patent and Legal certainty of the Community patent, the Document unfolds two proposed alternatives:
"[...] Option 1: the 'flexible' Community patent.
The revised proposal for a Regulation on the Community patent (document 7119/04 PI 28) provides that when the patent is granted, the applicant must submit a translation of the claims in all official EU languages, unless a Member State waives the requirement for a translation into its official language(s). One option could be to provide flexibility in this respect and to allow the patent holder to submit only a limited number of translations. However, this would result in the Community patent only being enforceable against third parties in the territories of those Member States where a translation of the claims into the relevant official language has been supplied. If a translation were submitted at a later stage, the patent holder could only be awarded damages with effect from the date on which this translation was filed.
This option could greatly reduce the cost of the Community patent for businesses by instituting a 'flexible' Community patent. Holders would have the right to decide, on a patent-by-patent basis, the extent of desired geographical coverage of protection and the translation costs they are willing to incur.
In addition, costs could be further reduced by providing financial incentives for those Member States who do not require a translation in their official language(s) in order to increase the number of patents for which protection is sought in their territory. In practice, translation costs are in fact high at present and in some Member States the translations themselves are rarely consulted by businesses especially since they are available only after the patent is granted. [...]"
The other alternative reads as follows:
"[...] Option 2: the Community patent with translation performed by a central service
While the first option would allow a reduction in translation costs by limiting the number of languages for which translations need to be provided, a second option should seek to simplify translation procedures and reduce costs and complexity in a way which would make it affordable to have translations available in all official EU languages.
This could be achieved by establishing a central service to carry out translations for all required languages. Applicants would no longer have to deal with translations, which would be taken care of by the system. At the same time, they would have protection throughout the Community without having to take decisions on the extent of geographical coverage. The central service would make use of existing technical expertise and work already performed in automated technical translation, such as that at the European Patent Office (EPO). The system developed there currently functions with certain language pairs and would be extended to include all official EU languages before the Community patent comes into operation. Some additional human support may, however, be necessary for certain language pairs during a transitional period.
An automated translation system would involve the creation of databases of electronic dictionaries of technical terms directly linked to the International Patent Classification system. This would ensure a highly precise translation of technical vocabulary, avoiding ambiguities where the same word has a different meaning according to the field of technology. The creation of these databases could benefit the European patent system as a whole and enhance the dissemination of patent information in general. Not only would they improve the provision of information to the public at large in all official EU languages, but they could also be used by national offices and the EPO for searching prior art in different languages.
Automated translation would be available to any interested party by a simple click via the website of the central service concerned. The use of a central service combined with the electronic dictionaries would ensure coherence of translations and use of terminology and contribute to their informative value for third parties. Translations would be available at an early stage from the moment of the publication of the patent application, whereas one of the reasons why traditional translations of claims are rarely consulted is that they are available very late, only months after the patent has been granted. Furthermore, an automated translation system would make it possible to process not only translations of the claims but also other parts of the patent, or of the patent in its entirety, as well as of the supporting documentation at the request of interested parties. [...]"
I surely would prefer option 1 over option 2 because I am not much inclined to buy that during any foreseeable future a highly automated translation system could be made fit enough to adequately cope with the relative complex language of patent documents. Machine translations for patent documents, in particular from Japanese to English, are well known since years, and all who have made use of them know that having a bumpy and/or inaccurate translation from such foreign language might, under the given circumstances, be better than nothing but does not provide a full substitute for a human-made translation by some expert. What is needed is to set English as a truly pan-European relay language for all business and technical matters, not limited to patent matters. It should be demanded each and every European having, in a few centuries, sufficient command of English (at least) as a second language. The number of language pairs for which translation is needed would simply be unbearable otherwise. Option 1 as outlined above could advantageously be implemented in a compatible way with such a second-language culture.
According to the recent Document, a second question which requires consideration is that of the distribution of revenue received from the renewal fees for the Community Patent. The Slovenian EU Presidency now appears to be willing to stick to some earlier proposal studied by the Competitiveness Council in the context of adoption of the common political approach on the Community Patent on 3 March 2003:
The renewal fees should be equivalent to the fees paid on an average European Patent, i.e. one which covers about 8 Member States. In this way, the renewal fees for a Community Patent offering protection over all the EU territory would be lower than for an average current European Patent.
The fees would be directly payable to the European Patent Office (EPO), which would be responsible for granting the Community Patent. The EPO would keep 50% of renewal fees to cover the costs it incurs in processing the Community Patent.
The remaining 50% of renewal fees would be distributed to National Patent Offices (NPOs) of Member States. A distribution key would determine the allocation of these fees.
In the common political approach of 2003, it was agreed that the distribution key should be based on a basket of fair, equitable and relevant criteria, which should reflect patent activities and the size of the market. They should also apply a balancing factor to be applied where Member States currently have a disproportionately low level of patent activities. In the light of this assumption, the Slovenian EU Presidency now proposes the following procedure:
The Council should agree, as part of the package concerning the Community Patent, on the relevant criteria for the level of renewal fees and for the allocation of the 50% share being distributed among NPOs.
A Select Committee comprising the European Community and all EU Member States would be established. This committee shall, once the Community patent enters into force, implement these criteria and fix both the level of the renewal fees and the precise distribution key for their allocation.
The Select Committee shall periodically review its decisions, taking into account economic development and changes in patenting activity.
According to the Document, the distribution of fees should be based on an appropriate mix of different economic criteria such as population and the evolution of patent activity in Member States. Some of these elements were already included as criteria when the Luxembourg Agreement relating to Community Patents was adopted in 1989. Although the current partition of fees and level of patent activity has to be taken as a starting point, the distribution key should take into account the fact that patent activity in those Member States that currently have the lowest levels is expected to increase over time. Moreover, the current distribution of renewal fees in Member States reflects the limited geographical coverage of patents, given that the bulk of European patents cover a limited number of Member States. Considering that the future Community patent will, in principle, cover the entire EU territory, the distribution of fees should be balanced towards Member States which currently have the lowest levels of validations. In addition to this balancing factor, these criteria could include variables concerning the stimulation and promotion of innovation.
It looks as if the EU Community Patent is creeping in, slowly but steadily. As it appears now, the fate of all such proposals will depend of the fortune of the French EU Presidency coning in the second half of 2008.
Prospects of U.S. Politics on Intellectual Property.
Usually, the United States have been a stronghold of IP protection. Will this change after the next presidential elections later this year? From the recent issue of London-based The Economist:
"[...] There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence.
It is not fair, moreover, to blame Mr Obama exclusively. His rival, Hillary Clinton, is no less responsible for the Democratic Party's wholesale descent into economic miserabilism. Both candidates have threatened to pull America out of NAFTA, the free-trade deal with Mexico and Canada, unless it is rewritten. Both rail against oil companies, drug companies, credit-card companies - the usual suspects. Both want more government spending and regulation to protect individuals against predatory companies. Indeed, in some ways, Mrs Clinton is worse. She appears to be sceptical of all trade deals, including the multilateral Doha round which would produce big benefits for the world's poorest countries. Unlike Mr Obama, she has proposed a deeply unsound five-year freeze on interest payments for subprime borrowers, which would surely result in higher rates and scarcer credit for future borrowers. [...]"
"[...] Protect American Intellectual Property Abroad: The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that in 2005, more than nine of every 10 DVDs sold in China were illegal copies. The U.S. Trade Representative said 80 percent of all counterfeit products seized at U.S. borders still come from China. Barack Obama will work to ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards that allow our technologies to compete everywhere.
Protect Intellectual Property at Home: Intellectual property is to the digital age what physical goods were to the industrial age. Barack Obama believes we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.
Reform the Patent System: A system that produces timely, high-quality patents is essential for global competitiveness in the 21st century. By improving predictability and clarity in our patent system, we will help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the Patent and Trademark Office could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a 'gold-plated' patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the PTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration. [...]"
Hard to tell what exactly this might mean after a won presidential election. As Mr Crouch points out, Mr Obama is a former law professor, probably which some great knowledge of how to run a Government in the age of the Internet. Will he take a different attitude to IP in our globalised economy if he gets into White House by listening to IP sceptics e.g. in the ICT industries? For now nobody knows, I suppose.
And then there is Mr Ben Klemens, Executive Director of endsoftpatents.org, an initiative aiming to do, in the U.S., plainly what its name says. This organisation is supported by
The effectiveness of their anti-patent lobbying efforts to be expected during the coming years obviously is another unknown in the big equation on the future of IP in the U.S. See also Mr. Joff Wild's comments here and there on the activities of this organisation.
By no means all of the above should be construed that, from a European perspective, a Republican U.S. President would be more desirable than a Democrat one. However, there should be no illusions: Even with a Democrat residing in the White House there might be rough times ahead.
A few weeks ago, Appelfeld Zer Fisher, an Israeli Law Firm specialising in Intellectual Property law, has launched a new community website project called Relatip.com. Their creators say that Relatip.com is the first and only online community tailored exclusively to the unique requirements of intellectual property (IP) attorneys, or, with other words, Relatip.com was created by IP attorneys for IP attorneys. The services provided by Relatip are currently free to all members. The purpose of the new community website is described with a list of activities as follows:
Build and maintain professional relationships with other attorneys;
Stay up to date with the latest IP news;
Generate new work;
Find your next workplace, or find candidates for IP positions;
Plan your next trip to INTA, AIPPI, AIPLA, LESI, and other IP conferences; and
List your firm in our exclusive directory.
The website currently is still in the Beta stage with 67 members registered. Have a try.
Feel free to contact PA Axel H Horns via e-mail
horns@ipjur.com. BEWARE: DO NOT SEND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNENCRYPTED VIA E-MAIL. USE OF ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. PA AXEL H HORNS IS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ENCRYPTED E-MAIL MESSAGES USING PGP OR PGP COMPATIBLE FORMATS. THE PGP PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE. THE GnuPG PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE.
Dipl.-Phys. Axel H Horns is Patentanwalt (German Patent Attorney),
European Patent Attorney as well as European Trade Mark Attorney. In particular, he is Member of:
OHIM website:
IP
here and 
Patent Attorney
Patents
