Thursday, December 22, 2011

ID filed across the world grew by 13%

In 2010, industrial design applications saw robust growth after slowing during the preceding two years. The number of applications filed across the world grew by 13%, mainly due to high growth in China which accounted for 83% of total growth. The IP office of China received around 70,000 additional applications in 2010 compared to 2009.

The total consists of 637,000 resident and 86,700 non-resident applications. The non-resident share (12% in 2010) has declined over time, due to high growth in China where residents account for the great majority of applications.

The IP office of Canada registered 20% growth in 2010 (as measured by the number of designs contained in applications). The IP offices of China (20%), Australia (14%), Spain (13%) and the US (12.6%) also saw substantial increases in application levels in 2010 . France and the Republic of Korea are the two major offices with slight declines in applications.

The share of China in the world total increased from 54% in 2009 to 58% in 2010, which is more than five times higher than the share of second largest office – OHIM. The IP offices of Japan, the Republic of Korea and the US together accounted for around 16% of the world total. -WIPO

Malaysia filed 35 trademark applications per billion GDP

The estimated total of 3.66 million trademark applications worldwide in 2010 consisted of 2.78 million resident and 0.88 million non-resident applications. The IP office of China accounted for three-fifths of the 11.8% growth in applications worldwide.

Most of the large offices returned to positive growth in applications in 2010, having seen declines the previous year. The IP office of China received around a quarter of a million additional applications in 2010 compared to 2009 – more than the number of total annual applications received by France, Germany, and the UK together. A number of other large offices saw double-digit growth in 2010, notably China Hong Kong (SAR) (18.3%), Mexico (16%), France (13.1%), OHIM (12.2%), Brazil (11.5%) and the Russian Federation (11.4%).

The picture is more mixed for offices in low- and middle -income economies. A number of Eastern European countries such as Estonia (-15.1%), Georgia (-13%) and Lithuania (-14.8%) saw considerable declines in applications, whereas several non-European countries, such as Argentina (17.1%), Madagascar (16%), Panama (24%) and South Africa (13.9%), saw rapid filing growth.

Residents of Germany filed around 1.9 million “equivalent applications” in 2010. Residents of China and the US also filed more than one million applications each. The reason for the high number of applications for German and US residents is their extensive use of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) to seek protection in the EU. Each application at OHIM covers all EU member states, elevating the number of equivalent applications.

The Report shows that middle-income countries filed a higher number of trademark applications per GDP as compared to high-income countries. Chile filed 218 trademark applications per billion GDP in 2010. Bulgaria (166), Ecuador (157) and Viet Nam (128) also show high ratios of trademark filings per GDP, exceeding those for Germany (72), Japan (39) and the US (22). Malaysia filed 35 trademark applications per billion GDP in 2010. - WIPO

Mimos Ranked 11th among Government Research Institutions

The World IP Report provides a list of PCT top applicants among business, universities and government research institutions. Mimos made a surprise entry in government research institution category. According to the report, Mimos, ranked 256th among PCT applicants, manage to rank 11th among government research institutions.

The Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (France) filed the largest number of PCT applications in the government and research institutions category. It is the only applicant with more than 300 applications. The Fraunhofer- Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (Germany) ranks in second position and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) (France) third.

Mimos Berhad is a government research institution set up by the Malaysian government to spear head the country's research in information and communications technology.

Malaysia Ranked 32nd in Patent by Residents of Origin

According to World IP Report 2010, Malaysia ranked 32nd in patent application by residents of origin. Ranking of patent application by residents of origin is a measure to indicate a country's patent activity. Malaysia filed the most patent in South East Asia compared to Thailand (33), Singapore (37), and Vietnam (47).

Fillings by non residents are not considered in this ranking. The top rankings of countries of interest are China (1), Japan (2), USA (3), Republic of Korea (4), Germany (5), UK (8), India (13), and Australia (25).

For trademark fillings by residents of origin, Malaysia ranked 41. Vietnam (23) filed the most trademark in South East Asia compared to Thailand (28) and Singapore (52). The top rankings of countries of interest are China (1), USA (2), Germany (3), Russia (4), India (5), Republic of Korea (6), Japan (11), UK (12), and Australia (16).

For industrial design fillings by residents of origin, Malaysia ranked 41. Thailand (16) filed the most industrial design in South East Asia compared to Vietnam (33) and Singapore (43). The top rankings of countries of interest are China (1), Germany (2), Republic of Korea (3), Italy (4), Japan (5), UK (10), India (12), and Australia (20).

Note that Indonesia did not participate in the 2010 statistic.

China overtook Japan to become the 2nd largest recipient of patent applications in 2010

The World IP Report, which contains detailed statistical information on national and international data up to 2010, shows that China and the US accounted for four-fifths of the 7.2% worldwide growth in patent filings.

The US patent office saw 7.5% growth in 2010 - after two years of near zero growth - and received the largest total number of applications (490,226).

The patent office of China (391,177 filings) overtook the office of Japan (344,598 filings) to become the second largest recipient of patent applications in 2010. This mirrored wider economic trends in a year in which China overtook Japan to become the second largest economy in the world, as measured by GDP.

The majority of the top 20 offices saw growth in applications in 2010, in contrast to 2009. Double digit growth was reached in China (24.3%), the European Patent Office (12.2%), Singapore (11.9%) and the Russian Federation (10.2%).

In the past decade, the patent office of China has seen the most dramatic increases in application levels. Between 2001 and 2010, annual growth averaged 22.6%, with patent filings rising from 63,450 in 2001 to 391,177 in 2010.

Applications at the patent offices of middle and low-income economies also rebounded strongly in 2010 after falling in 2009. Colombia, Malaysia, Philippines, Ukraine and Vietnam saw double-digit growth in applications in 2010.

The Report also analyzes the numbers of filings by resident applicants. These show similar trends, with Chinese residents (293,066 applications) overtaking Japanese residents (290,081 applications) to become the most active patent filers in 2010.

Residents of Japan (172,945 applications) and the US (178,355 applications) filed, by far, the largest number of patent applications outside their own country. However, residents of Canada, Israel, the Netherlands and Switzerland filed more than 80% of their total applications abroad. Residents of China, on the other hand, filed only a small proportion (5%) of applications abroad.

Looking at patenting activity across different technology fields, the Report shows that computer technology, electrical machinery, audio-visual technology and medical technology accounted for the largest shares of patent filings worldwide. However, the relative importance of different technology fields varied substantially across countries. Broadly defined information communications and technologies (ICTs) accounted for the largest share of filings in Finland and Sweden, with pharmaceuticals more prominent in Belgium, India and Switzerland.

Patents granted (as distinct from patent applications filed) have recorded uninterrupted growth since 2000. In 2010, the total number of grants worldwide stood at 909,000 - an additional 100,000 grants over 2009 or growth of 12.4%. Resident grants accounted for two-thirds of the total increase. The patent offices of Japan and the US accounted for around 80% of total growth. The majority of the top 20 offices issued more patents in 2010 than in 2009.

The number of “potentially pending” patent applications across the world totaled 5.17 million in 2010, - a 3.3% reduction over 2009. The world total is based on data from 70 patent offices, which include most of the top 20 offices (with China among the exceptions). The patent office of Japan saw a significant reduction (-20%) in pending applications undergoing examination 2010. The EPO (-6.9%) and the US office (-2.3%) also had fewer pending applications in 2010 compared to 2009. Medium-sized offices, such as Chile (-11.6%), Israel (-8.8%), Mexico (-3.6%), Poland (-14.6%) and Ukraine (-5.9%) also saw considerable reductions in pending applications. -WIPO

IP Filings Worldwide Rebound in 2010 despite Economic Turmoil

A new report published by WIPO today shows that intellectual property (IP) filings worldwide rebounded strongly in 2010 after a considerable decline in 2009.

The recovery in IP filings was stronger than the overall economic recovery. Patent and trademark filings grew by 7.2% and 11.8% respectively in 2010 compared to growth of 5.1% in the global gross domestic product (GDP), with China and the United States (US) accounting for the greatest share of the increased filings.

In Europe, IP filing growth by France, Germany and the UK far exceeded the GDP growth rate of the three largest European economies in 2010.

The 7.2% growth in patent applications in 2010 - the highest growth rate in five years - followed a 3.6% decline in 2009. The total number of 1.98 million patent applications worldwide was an all time high. Similarly, trademark filings rose by 11.8% in 2010 to reach 3.66 million– another all time high – having fallen by 2.6% in 2009.

In his foreword to the 2011 World Intellectual Property Indicators (WIPI) Report, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry notes that the upturn in IP filings shows that companies across the globe have been continuing to innovate. “This can help to create new jobs and generate prosperity once macroeconomic stability is restored,” he writes, while cautioning that “if economic conditions were to deteriorate sharply in the short term – as happened in 2009 – companies might be forced to curtail or abandon their investments in innovation, stifling an essential source of growth.” -WIPO

America Invents Act

On September 16, 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Albert Tramposch, Director of International and Governmental Affairs at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), discusses the implications of this milestone in the history of the U.S. patent system.

The America Invents Act creates an innovation-friendly patent system that will reduce costs, level the playing field for businesses small and large, and spur economic growth. The new law enables a better-resourced USPTO to grant patent rights with greater speed, predictability, clarity, and quality.

Over the decades, patent law harmonization negotiations have contemplated a system with two major elements: (1) first-to-file and (2) a 12-month grace period (e.g., the draft Patent Law Treaty of 1991). On March 16, 2013, the U.S. will transition to a first-to-file (FTF) system to provide the transparency that banks, venture capitalists, and other investors need to invest in new businesses while establishing the stability that companies need to bring new products to globalized markets.

Along with a transition to a first-to-file system, the America Invents Act also provides for an improved grace period, which will help secure investment. Under the current system, an inventor who discloses an invention to a potential buyer or investor without entering into a confidentiality agreement risks losing patent rights. The new provisions allow the inventor to engage in critical negotiations with potential buyers or investors without fear of losing their right to a patent.

Provisional U.S. applications will continue to be available. Since 1995, inventors who wish to preserve their rights in their invention while evaluating its potential can do so by submitting a provisional application and paying a nominal fee, thereby establishing an internationally recognized priority date. The inventor may, within a 12-month period, convert that provisional application into a full U.S. application if the invention is worth pursuing.

The America Invents Act further harmonizes U.S. law by broadening the definition of prior art, eliminating the Hilmer doctrine and virtually eliminating the best mode requirement. The reform provides that prior art under U.S. law includes non-printed disclosures, including oral disclosures, made available to the public anywhere in the world. New provisions also provide an incentive for early disclosure (i.e., one year or less before the effective filing date) by insulating inventors who disclose their inventions against third party disclosures, if the inventor’s disclosure precedes that of a third party. The elimination of the Hilmer doctrine ensures that patents and published applications filed in the U.S. are prior art as of the earliest effective filing date to which they are entitled to claim a right of priority. Additionally, the earliest effective filing date is no longer limited to only U.S. filings; it can now also originate from a foreign filing. The new U.S. law also eliminates the best mode requirement as a defense in infringement actions in court and USPTO post-grant review.

The law supports small businesses and independent inventors by creating a pro bono program in conjunction with intellectual property law associations. The law also requires the USPTO to maintain a Patent Ombudsman Program to provide patent filing services to qualifying small businesses and independent inventors. Additionally, to help foster innovation by independent inventors and universities, various fees are reduced for micro-entities. Transitioning to an FTF system will also support small businesses in attracting the investments they need to startup their operations and bring new products to market. -WIPO Magazine

Apple scores limited victory in smartphone patent war

Apple Inc scored a narrow victory against Taiwan’s HTC Corp in a patent lawsuit over smartphone technology that will set the stage for further battles between the rival makers in the fiercely competitive market.

In a case seen as a proxy for a larger fight between Google Inc’s Android operating system and Apple’s iOS, the US International Trade Commission ruled that HTC infringed on one of four patents Apple had disputed and imposed a sales ban on some of the Taiwan maker’s phones.

While the ruling is unlikely to hurt HTC as much as initially feared because it will have time to work around the offending technology and has until April before the ban becomes effective, it offers Apple ammunition to pursue other makers it believes infringe on its technology.

“This is one skirmish in one battle, which is forming a much larger war and each side has got some ammunition left,” said David Wilson, a London-based partner at the intellectual property group with Herbert Smith LLP.

The patent in question, ‘647, relates to technology that helps users clicking on phone numbers and other types of data in a document, such as an email, to either dial directly or click on the data to bring up more information.

As it is widely used in almost all smartphones, industry experts foresee similar rulings should Apple bring other cases. -Reuters

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Notice of Amendment (Industrial Design Regulations 1999)

MyIPO has issued a notice that the Industrial Design Regulations will be amended in January 2012. New scale of fees will be introduced by the amendment. This is not a surprising move; in February 2011, the Patent Regulations and Trade Mark Regulations were amended to accommodate new schedule of official fees (increase of up to 40%). Any design protection may still be initiated this year before the price increase.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

MDeC To Unveil IP Valuation Model In 2012

The Multimedia Development Corporation (MDeC) is striving for Intellectual Property (IP) rights to be accepted as assets or collateral through the IP valuation model which is set to be introduced in the first quarter of next year.

MDeC chief operating officer Ng Wan Peng said currently there is no collectively acceptable IP valuation framework which financial institutions can adhere to when processing applications for financial assistance.

She said financial institutions are reluctant to accept IP as assets or collateral because of the difficulty in determining the value of Intellectual Property.

Ng said the introduction of the IP valuation model is the first step taken in assisting financial institutions to refer to a specific methodology in valuing IP rights.

MDeC, the driver of MSC Malaysia's National ICT Initiative, is working very closely with Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) in getting the necessary approvals for the IP valuation model.

At the 22nd MSC Malaysia Implementation Council Meeting (ICM), organised by MDeC last year and chaired by the Prime Minister, it was decided that MyIPO should formulate an IP valuation model in accordance with the National IP Policy, she said.

Since then MDeC and MyIPO, together with other stakeholders, have been collaborating in preparing an introductory IP valuation framework that looks into the different types of IP rights. MDeC and MyIPO are confident that the framework would be ready and be tested with a few IP owners soon.

"More needs to be done as it is a new area and not many have experience in this. We must start getting the financial institutions to value IP rights as something of high value. Educating and increasing the level of awareness is necessary in order to ensure more people understand and appreciate IP," Ng told Bernama in an interview.

Ng revealed that hundreds of MSC Malaysia-status small-and-medium enterprises (SMEs) that possess IP rights such as patents, copyrights and trademarks are facing difficulties in getting financial assistance to commercialise their products.

"More than 1,000 SMEs with MSC Malaysia status have IP rights which range from patents to trademarks, copyrights and industrial designs. Not all need financial assistance to commercialise their products but most of them will be happy to have some kind of recognition that the IP created by them actually has value," she said.

According to Ng, the IP valuation model could serve as a guide for the financial institutions as well as stakeholders in conducting valuation or use it as a basis to get third party valuators to undertake the valuation process.

Ng said IP owners, financial institutions and Bank Negara have provided input for the valuation initiative for the IP. MyIPO together with MDeC had conducted feedback sessions with some financial institutions, industry players as well as IP owners to make them understand this area better as well as share their concerns in the valuation of IP rights.

"We are happy with the cooperation provided by the parties involved in this IP valuation initiative. MyIPO has been working hard in driving this initiative including looking at the amendments of the IP laws to allow the adoption of IP rights as security," she said.

Although the government has been promoting an innovation and knowledge-based economy, support from financial institutions is not forthcoming as they find it very difficult to accept IP rights as a collateralisable asset.

"I think they are more comfortable in giving out the loan based on business plans on tangible assets or proven business rather than looking at IP as collateral. It's not that they don't want to value the IP, the problem is that they don't know how to value IP rights," she said.

"We do not see financial institutions keen in readily accepting IP as collateral at this moment. We were told by some companies, most of them SMEs, that they have difficulties in getting banks to recognise their IP rights," she added.

Ng said the ultimate goal of the IP valuation initiative is for IP rights to be recognised by financial institutions as an asset that can be put up as collateral.

"These are also opportunities for the banks. Financial institutions have to start developing capability in these areas as more and more companies will have less and less tangible assets. In becoming more competitive, financial institutions would need to know how to value intangible assets and put a defensible value that can mitigate the perceived risk attached to assets such as IP.

"Eventually, we hope that local companies will continue to create IP which will be accepted as an asset that can be transacted and thus help increase our competitiveness as a nation," she said. -Bernama

Friday, October 7, 2011

Steve Job's Patents

An article by New York Times provides a list of 317 patents naming Steve Jobs among a group of inventors. In USA, design patent is considered a patent apart of utility patent (invention). In Malaysia or UK, design is protected by industrial design. Industrial design protects the appearance of a product.

Steve Jobs is considered a genius in design. To view a list of his design contribution, from the early Mac design to the current iPhone, click here.

Steve also contributed a few utility patent (invention). Utility patent may be identified by a set of reference numbers to identify parts of a drawing. The appended patent specification will explain how the invention works. Some of his contribution include G4 iMac screen movement, iPod user interface and how iPod/iPhone touch screen works.

Do you think that any of his patents are similar to Samsung Galaxy Tab?

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Memorable Words from Steve Jobs

“I get asked a lot why Apple’s customers are so loyal. It’s not because they belong to the Church of Mac! That’s ridiculous. It’s because when you buy our products, and three months later you get stuck on something, you quickly figure out [how to get past it]. And you think, “Wow, someone over there at Apple actually thought of this!”

This is a tribute to the man that innovated how computers, media and phones work; some of the priceless words of Steve Jobs:

“Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It’s not about money. It’s about the people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get it.”

“Innovation … comes from saying no to 1,000 things to make sure we don’t get on the wrong track or try to do too much. We’re always thinking about new markets we could enter, but it’s only by saying no that you can concentrate on the things that are really important.”

“Sometimes when you innovate, you make mistakes. It is best to admit them quickly, and get on with improving your other innovations.”

“Be a yardstick of quality. Some people aren’t used to an environment where excellence is expected.”

“My job is to not be easy on people. My job is to make them better.”

“When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You’ll know it’s there, so you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through.”

“People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully.”

“Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it’s really how it works. The design of the Mac wasn’t what it looked like, although that was part of it. Primarily, it was how it worked. To design something really well, you have to get it. You have to really grok what it’s all about.”

“Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.”

“When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Cup noodle museum an instant hit

JAPAN’s Nissin Foods opened a cup noodle museum on Sept 17 charting the history of the speedy snack where visitors even get the chance to create their own tasty version.

“We opened this place ... as a factory that gives children experience and a museum for corporate activities,” says Nissin Foods Holdings president Koki Ando.

Koki, whose late father Momofuku Ando invented instant noodles more than half a century ago, says visitors to the museum in the port city of Yokohama near Tokyo could knead flour, roll out noodles, steam and fry them to make chicken ramen which is then put into bags.

Momofuku Ando, the man credited with inventing instant noodles, took a lower-profile role in the business at the ripe old age of 95 in 2005, the year Nissin supplied vacuum packed instant noodles or “Space Ram” to a Japanese astronaut aboard a US space shuttle.

The businessman, who died of acute heart failure in 2007, was born in 1910 in Taiwan under Japanese occupation.

He entered the food business when Japan was hungry after World War II and invented the world’s first instant noodles – chicken ramen noodles sold in bags – in 1958.

Momofuku launched the cupped version in 1971 with a pre-cooked slab of noodles in a waterproof styrofoam container.

He saw his invention stocked on the shelves of convenience stores around the world. As the products were widely replicated, more than 95 billion servings were consumed around the globe in 2010, according to the Japanese instant noodles manufacturers association.

Momofuku said he was inspired to develop the product when he saw a long line of people waiting to buy soup noodles at a black market stall in post-war Japan.

“Peace prevails when food suffices,” he was quoted as saying. – AFP

Friday, September 23, 2011

DG of WIPO to Visit Malaysia on 17-18 Oct

Dr. Francis Gurry, the Director General of World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and his staffs from WIPO are scheduled to visit Malaysia on 17-18 October 2011. MyIPO will be organising two events for the public:

1. Event : Madrid Protocol Seminar
Speaker(s) : WIPO and IP Offices
Date : 17-18 October 2011
Venue : Renaissance Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

2. Event : Public Lecture
Speaker : Dr. Francis Gurry
Date : 18 October 2011 (9.00 a.m – 11.00 a.m)
Venue : Auditorium Tun Mohamed Suffian, Law Faculty, UM

For registration and details of the above events, kindly contact MYIPO secretariat at: 03-2299 8710/8770/8753 (Madrid Protocol Seminar) or UM secretariat 03-2299 8963/8964/8962 (Public Lecture).

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Maggie Cheung on Copyright

Actress Maggie Cheung explains that copyright is essential to ensure that the work and talents of all authors are recognized. Without copyright, art itself would suffer. -WIPO

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Innovative Products by Steve Jobs

Today is the day after Steve Jobs resign as CEO of Apple. Steve Jobs is credited as an innovator that changed not only the computing industry, but music, video and phone industry. This is a list of his contribution:
- Apple II computer; a computer with a case, keyboard and monitor.
- Macintosh; a computer with graphical user interface.
- Toy Story movie; a computer animated movie.
- iMac computer; a computer and monitor sharing an aesthetic case.
- iPod music player
- iTunes music store; an online store that sells music, video and software
- iPhone cell phone
- iPad tablet computer
The above mentioned brands became best selling products and the mere mention of the brand is enough to identify the products. However, the brand may one day become a generic word if it is not used with the product noun. Remember the fate of sellotape?

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

周派吉:要迈向高收入国 大马须拥更多知识产权














Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Google's patent play: US$12.5bil for Motorola Mobility

Google is spending $12.5 billion to buy Motorola Mobility. But the big prize isn't Motorola's lineup of cellphones, computer tablets and cable set-top boxes.

It is Motorola's more than 17,000 patents - a crucial weapon in an intellectual arms race with Apple, Microsoft and Oracle to gain more control over the increasingly lucrative market for smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices.

If approved by federal regulators, the deal announced Monday could also trigger more multibillion-dollar buyouts. Nokia Corp., another cellphone manufacturer, and Research In Motion Ltd., which makes the BlackBerry, loom as prime targets.

The patents would help Google defend Android, its operating system for mobile devices, against a litany of lawsuits alleging that Google and its partners pilfered the innovations of other companies.

In addition to the existing trove of patents that attracted Google's interest, Motorola, which introduced its first cellphone nearly 30 years ago, has 7,500 others awaiting approval.

Phone makers and software companies are engaged in all-out combat over patents for mobile devices. The tussle has been egged on by the U.S. patent system, which makes it possible to patent any number of phone features.

Patents can cover the smallest detail, such as the way icons are positioned on a smartphone's screen. Companies can own intellectual-property rights to the finger swipes that allow you to switch between applications or scroll through displayed text.

Apple, for example, has patented the way an application expands to fill the screen when its icon is tapped. The maker of the iPhone sued Taiwan's HTC Corp. because it makes Android phones that employ a similar visual gimmick.

The iPhone's success triggered the patent showdown. Apple's handset revolutionized the way people interact with phones and led to copycat attempts, most of which relied on the free Android software that Google introduced in 2008.

Android revolves around open-source coding that can be tweaked to suit the needs of different vendors. That flexibility and Android's growing popularity have fueled the legal attacks. About 550,000 devices running the software are activated each day.

Many upstart manufacturers, like HTC, had only small patent portfolios of their own, leaving them vulnerable to Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp.

Getting Motorola's patents would allow Google to offer legal cover for HTC and dozens of other device makers, including Samsung Electronics Co., that depend on Android.

The deal is by far the largest Google has pursued in its 13-year history. Motorola Mobility's price tag exceeds the combined $10.2 billion that the company has paid for 136 previous acquisitions since going public in 2004, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Buying Motorola also would push Google into phone and computer tablet manufacturing, competing with other device makers who rely on Android. The largest makers of Android devices are all supporting a deal that Google CEO Larry Page said was too tempting to resist.

"With mobility increasingly taking center stage in the computing revolution, the combination with Motorola is an extremely important step in Google's continuing evolution," Page told analysts in a conference call Monday.

Google pounced on Motorola less than two months after a group including Apple and Microsoft paid $4.5 billion for 6,000 patents owned by Nortel, a bankrupt Canadian maker of telecommunications equipment. -AP

Friday, August 5, 2011

Invitation to Wealth Creation

Received an invitation from AIM (Agensi Inovasi Malaysia):


Dear Sir/Ms/Mdm,
We would like to invite you to join our next Wealth Creation Factory by registering at

What is the Wealth Creation Factory?

• It's about finding innovations that you can benefit from and helping you commercialise them

• A process for helping you overcome commercialisation obstacles and bring new products to market

• A way for you to make money from university and research institute innovations

• A fast-track approach to get things moving

• It’s free and open to all companies, entrepreneurs and organisations


• The commercialisation process is tough:

– It takes time

– It takes money

– It takes patience

• The Wealth Creation Factory can

– Speed up the process

– Clear up the regulatory and structural issues

– Help you access funding

– Find the innovations that can help your business grow

The Process

Registration of Interest
• Browse to find innovations that interest you

• Click the “I’m interested” tab to register your interest

• Wait to receive an invitation to Stage 1

• Remember, it is completely free to participate in the Wealth Creation Factory

Wealth Creation Team
Agensi Inovasi Malaysia (AIM)
Office of the Prime Minister

Friday, July 22, 2011

Icahn pushes Motorola to turn patents into cash

Shares of cellphone maker Motorola Mobility Holdings jumped to a four-month high Thursday after activist investor Carl Icahn disclosed that he's pushing the company to squeeze profits from its vast patent portfolio.

Icahn said there could be several ways to capitalize on patents belonging to the company. Icahn was the single largest shareholder of the company as of March 31, owning 11.4 percent.

Motorola said Thursday that it continues to review its options and that the turnaround of its cellphone sales is in part due to its 17,000 patents.

There's a scramble for patents by technology companies as they seek to shore up their litigation defenses. Nearly every maker of smartphones is suing another manufacturer over patents.

Three weeks ago, a consortium that included Apple Inc., Research In Motion Ltd., Microsoft Corp. and Sony Corp. pledged to pay $4.5 billion for a collection of patents from Nortel Networks, a bankrupt Canadian maker of telecommunications equipment. Google Inc., which provides Motorola with the software for its smartphones, was a counterbidder.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Icahn said Motorola's patent portfolio is "substantially larger than Nortel Networks' and includes numerous patents concerning 4G technologies."

On Wednesday, photography company Eastman Kodak Co. said it's looking for ways to turn its collection of 1,100 patents on digital imaging into money, perhaps through a sale. It hired investment bank Lazard to shop it around. It has sued Apple and RIM, the maker of the BlackBerry phones, saying the cameras in their phones infringe on Kodak patents.

Though Motorola is now only small player in the global cellphone market, it was a pioneer of the technology and was the second-largest phone maker in the world just five years ago. That means it has far more phone patents than its size suggests.

Icahn has successfully prodded Motorola before. He pushed the original Motorola Inc. to split up, figuring that investors would find its parts more valuable than the whole. Motorola split into two companies in January. Motorola Mobility consists of the consumer-focused cellphone and cable set-top box operations. Motorola Solutions Inc. sells products like police radios and bar-code scanners to government and corporate customers. - AP

BAM says SMEs should build their own IP to boost product awareness

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) should invest in “intangible” aspects of their businesses such as intellectual property (IP) to boost awareness, said Branding Association of Malaysia (BAM) president Datuk Lewre Lew.

“Malaysian SMEs are very fond of investing in tangible things such as buildings, plants and machinery. But they hardly invest in IP, which is something intangible,” he said at the launch of the Branding Entrepreneurs Conference (BEC) 2011 yesterday.

Lew said many small businesses in other Asian countries had started venturing into building their own IP. “It saddens me that many business owners, especially SMEs, in Malaysia are still laid-back and do not realise the importance of branding. It's about changing the mindset,” he said.

Now in its third year, the BEC, which was jointly organised by SME Corp Malaysia and the BAM, aims to promote the development of SMEs especially in building and developing their brands of products and services. -The Star

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Coming soon to the Internet: The .whatever address

Under guidelines approved Monday, Apple could register addresses ending in ".ipad," Citi and Chase could share ".bank" and environmental groups could go after ".eco." Japan could have ".com" in Japanese.

It's the biggest change to the system of Internet addresses since it was created in 1984.

More than 300 suffixes are available today, but only a handful, such as the familiar ".net" and ".com," are open for general use worldwide. Hundreds of new suffixes could be established by late next year, thousands in years to come.

"This is the start of a whole new phase for the Internet," said Peter Dengate Thrush, chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the California nonprofit organization in charge of Internet addresses.

The novelty addresses will be costly - $185,000 to apply and $25,000 a year to maintain one. A personal address with a common suffix such as ".com" usually costs less than $10 a year.

ICANN says it costs tens of millions of dollars to write the guidelines for suffixes, review applications and resolve any disputes. Even with the hefty fees, the organization says it plans only to break even. It's also setting aside up to $2 million to subsidize applications from developing countries.

The expansion plan, which runs about 350 pages, took six years to develop.

Before 1998, the United States, which paid for most of the early Internet, was in charge of handing out Internet suffixes. ICANN, which has board members from every inhabited continent, was a way to take the administrative burden off the U.S. government.

ICANN was always supposed to expand the number of available Web suffixes. But the progress was slow because of concerns that new ones could infringe on trademarks, be obscene or give a platform to hate groups. Competing interests wrestled with ICANN over guidelines.

ICANN has come up with procedures for any party to object to applications for trademark, or other reasons.

Internet addresses, technically known as domain names, tell computers where to find a website or send an email message. Without them, people would have to remember clunky strings of numbers such as "" instead of ""

But the addresses have grown to mean much more. has built its brand on one, and bloggers take pride in running sites with their own domain names, uncluttered by the names of hosting services.

The address expansion could create new opportunities for companies to promote their brands and allow all sorts of niche communities to thrive online. But they could create confusion, too.

And they might not make much difference. More and more people online find what they're looking for by typing a term into a search engine, not tapping out a full address. Or they use an app and don't type anything.

ICANN will start taking applications for new suffixes Jan. 12. Approval of individual applications is expected to be quick if there are no challenges for trademark, morality or other reasons. Proposals that are challenged would have to undergo more thorough reviews, including possible arbitration to decide on the merits of claims.

High-profile entertainment, consumer-goods and financial-services companies will likely be among the first to apply for the new suffixes to protect their brands.

Canon Inc., the camera and printer company, already plans to apply for ".canon." And Apple could go after not just ".apple," but also ".ipad" and ".iphone." Apple had no comment Monday.

Groups have already formed to back ".sport" for sporting sites, and two conservationist groups separately are seeking the right to operate an ".eco" suffix. Trade groups for bankers and financial-services companies are jointly exploring applications for ".bank," ''.insure" and ".invest" for their member companies.

Smaller companies stand to benefit, too. A florist called Apple can't use "" because the computer company has it. Previously, the shop might have registered a longer, clunky address. Now it can just be ""

Of course, a small florist might not be able to afford an expensive suffix. But an entrepreneur or a trade group might, and it could sell individual addresses ending in ".flowers" for $10 or $100 a pop. A successful suffix owner could make millions, much more than what it pays in application and annual fees.

When two or more groups have a legitimate claim to an address, ICANN expects them to work it out on their own. If they can't, the nonprofit will auction the suffixes. - AP

Monday, June 6, 2011

President of MIPA in BFM

Chew Phye Keat, President of the Malaysian Intellectual Property Association, says Malaysia's IP laws are robust but there's a perception that enforcement is lax, and awareness is still low.

In another BFM interview, he uses examples to explain the practical aspects of the Competition Act. While the Act is meant to encourage competition and prevent abuse of position by dominant player like government-linked companies, government policy can still over ride the Act.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Renault Lotus and Team Lotus to continue Racing

The British High Court has declared that Group Lotus has the right to use 'Lotus' in F1. Group Lotus is the sponsor of Renault Lotus GP.

Justice Peter Smith found that the Proton subsidiary has goodwill associated with the name 'Lotus' in F1 and is free to compete in the sport under that name using the Lotus roundel. Also, Group Lotus trade mark registrations are unaffected and Group Lotus has the right to use the Lotus marque on cars for road use.

The judge also decided that 1Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd, the owners of Team Lotus, is in breach of the Licence granted to them by Group Lotus to race in F1 under the name Lotus Racing (the name it used last year) and has awarded Group Lotus damages in respect of that breach.

However, the above concerns the name 'Lotus'. Team Lotus has the right to continue to race in F1 under the name 'Team Lotus' with the 'Team' in it.

Team Lotus would be able to continue using the Lotus name in F1 and confirmed Fernandes as the owner of the Team Lotus name having bought the rights to the name from Hunt; they also have the right to call their cars "Lotus", under the terms of a 1985 agreement between Group Lotus and Team Lotus.

Fernandes is happy that he can continue to race his cars under 'Team Lotus'. “Now our main aim is to build on the solid foundations that has made Caterham Cars the model for how to run a profitable contemporary car company and add more history to the incredible story of Team Lotus over the coming months and years and with the people, spirit, passion and determination we have in both businesses we know that marks the next stage in our incredible story,” Fernandes said.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

China's National Patent Development Strategy

My client has set up a company in China to take advantage of various incentives offered for patent fillings in China and a number of foreign countries. China wishes to increase the number of companies based in China with patent filings.

China, through the State Intellectual Property Office, revealed its ten year master plan, National Patent Development Strategy 2011-2020 to realize its dream to be an innovation based country.

China has set a target to achieve two million annual patent filings by 2015. At the same time, the number of registered patent agent is envisioned to reach 10,000. To support that ambition, China will roughly double its current examiners to 9,000 by 2015. The average period for patent examination will be shortened to 22 months, and utility model or design application to 3 months.

To be a patent power house, China also intends to double the number of patents its residents and companies file in other countries.

Patent transaction services and market environment will be established in ten model cities. Support will be given to foster exports of patented products and increase the proportion of exported patent-intensive commodities.

Some of the incentives offered include patent subsidy in the form of cash bonuses, and tax breaks for companies that continuously file patents. It does not matter if the company is fully owned by foreign individuals.

Friday, May 6, 2011

MIPA IP Conference

The road to becoming an IP nation is a path that Malaysia wishes to walk to become a high income nation. What are the challenges to increasing innovation in Malaysia? What we can learn from the American and Japanese experience?

The Malaysian Intellectual Property Association (MIPA) is proud to host an Intellectual Property conference to present the latest issues and development of IP.

How to create and build a strong brand? Malaysia may join Madrid Protocol this year. What are the implication of Madrid Protocol to trademark owners?

Technology search, green technology, investing in IP and other informative intellectual property matters which creates an impact in Malaysia's innovation landscape are presented in this two day event on 22 & 23 June 2011, Empire Hotel, Subang Jaya.

Come listen to experts from USA, Japan, academicians, IP practitioners, MyIPO board member and representative from the newly formed UNIK corporation. It is a not to be missed event for business leaders, intellectual property owners, corporate counsel & lawyers interested in one of Asia's most dynamic countries.

Register before 31.05.2011 for early bird rate. For more information, visit

Monday, April 11, 2011

Patenting Nanotechnology: Exploring the Challenges

Size is everything in the world of nanotechnology. It also raises a number of interesting questions when it comes to determining the validity and enforceability of nanotechnology patents. Is “nanoscale” a sufficiently precise term to include in a patent claim? Are current patent examination practices – to determine the patentability of a claimed invention - sufficient to effectively scrutinize nanoscale inventions? What are the difficulties in assessing the novelty of an invention in this emerging area where, in general, extensive prior art is considered to be lacking. What are the difficulties associated with enforcing nanotechnology patents? What happens if the size range mentioned in a nanoscale patent application overlaps with that featured in the prior art? Is downsizing in itself obvious for the person skilled in the art? Although, case law on these issues is not unique to nanotechnology there is an emerging consensus about how to address these issues under existing patent laws.

A precise and uniform definition of the terms nanotechnology and nano-scale has long eluded scientists and patent offices. Lack of a standardized definition has implications for patent search and classification, and for tracking patenting trends. It magnifies the risk that relevant prior art remains undetected and creates uncertainty about how an ordinary person skilled in the art – one of the yardsticks against which patentability is established - might interpret “nanoscale”. It heightens the risk of a nanotechnology patent being invalidated and of overlapping or conflicting patents being granted.

The three key nanotechnology patent powerhouses – the USPTO, EPO and JPO – have each sought to resolve this issue by respectively adopting definitions that generally speaking restrict nanotechnology inventions to a length scale of less than 100 nms. This effectively excludes applications that claim nanoscale measures according to different nanomeasures. But the situation is further compounded by the use in patent applications of ambiguous or undefined terms, such as “nanoagglomerates,” creating uncertainty and making it difficult for patent examiners to assess how an invention differs from the prior art.

The inherently multidisciplinary nature of nanotechnology presents significant challenges for patent granting authorities. In practice, applications are assigned to examiners with the expertise most relevant to an invention. As nanotechnology patent applications typically span multiple scientific and engineering fields, it is unlikely that any single examiner has the required expertise to appropriately assess the patentability of such an application.

This heightens the risk of overlooking relevant prior art and inaccurately assessing an invention’s novelty or inventiveness. It also increases the chances of granting substandard patents that may not stand up in court.

Amid the rising number of nanotechnology patent applications, the EPO, JPO and USPTO are exploring ways to address the problem - for example, by placing greater emphasis on training examiners to carry out more specialized prior art searches for nanotechnology applications. The introduction of new nanotechnology tags in patent classification systems - “Y01N” (EPO), “ZNM” (Japan) and “977” (USPTO) - is also helping to enrich and improve the quality of these searches.

Full article in WIPO Magazine

Global Brand Database

In March 2011, WIPO launched its Global Brand Database, a new free, online tool that allows simultaneous brand-related searches of over 640,000 records relating to internationally protected trademarks, appellations of origin and armorial bearings, flags and other state emblems as well as the names, abbreviations and emblems of intergovernmental organizations. Additional national collections are expected to be added in the future.

Commenting on the launch, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said, “This is an important part of WIPO’s efforts to facilitate access to such valuable assets and reflects the Organization’s commitment to narrowing the global knowledge gap by improving access to, and use of, IP information.”

The Global Brand Database builds on existing brand-related search resources by providing a centralized platform to search multiple sources. A novelty is the addition of an advanced function that allows searching for fuzzy and phonetic terms.

The service will be integrated into WIPO GOLD, which provides quick and easy online access to a broad collection of searchable IP data and tools relating to, for example, technology, brands, designs, statistics, WIPO standards, and international classification systems. -WIPO Magazine

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Patent Information Service in Upcoming Patent (Amendment) Act

In the New Straits Time article on 27/03/2011 entitled 'So Where Are These Inventions Now', it was disclosed that Malaysian invention have won numerous award but falls short in commercialization.

What is every inventors most pressing problem? We promote R&D culture, but commercialization rate is still low. Exposure is important, don't you agree?

All advanced nation including some developing countries offer their national patent information database for free. It allows potential investors to quickly gauge the technicalities of the invention involved. Now the following countries provide complimentary online patent database information: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan, Uruguay, USA, Vietnam, and Europe.

Does MyIPO need the RM40 fee for every patent document? Our government is willing to spend billions on R&D. Our government also spent millions for invention and IP exhibition (There are 4 a year in Malaysia and others abroad). Why can't we spare some funds to provide free access to national patent database?

Our local university rating is low in the world. Is it a wonder why Malaysian universities fare lowly in international citations? If the patent database will increase their exposure, wouldn't it benefit Malaysia?

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Trade Marks (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Highlight of Trade Marks (Amendment) Regulations 2011
Enforcement date: 15 Feb 2011.

* Expedited examination
A means to expedite trademark examination is introduced. A request for expedited examination can be made within 4 months of the filling date if the Registrar is satisfied if the application is involved in one of the following criteria:
1. National or public interest
2. Infringement proceedings
3. Commercialized invention
4. Monetary benefits from the Government or recognized institutions

* Revised and new official fee
The official fees are revised upwards 40-50%. The new schedule of fees are available at

The amendment is only applicable for newly filed trademark and all registered trademarks.

Patents (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Highlight of Patents (Amendment) Regulations 2011
Enforcement date: 15 Feb 2011

* Substantive examination request
A request for substantive examination shall be made within 18 months of the filling date (formerly 24 months).

* Expedited examination
A means to expedite patent examination is introduced. A request for expedited examination can be made after 18 months of the application if the Registrar is satisfied if the application is involved in one of the following criteria:
1. National or public interest
2. Infringement proceedings
3. Commercialized invention
4. Monetary benefits from the Government or recognized institutions
5. Green technology

* Revised and new official fee
The official fees are revised upwards 40-50%. The new schedule of fees are available at

The regulations are applicable for granted patents, newly filed patent applications, including pending applications prior to substantive examination request.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Ford sues Ferrari over use of F150 name for racing

Ford Motor Co. has sued Ferrari in Detroit federal court, saying the sports car maker has violated its trademark over the pickup truck name F-150.

The suit is based on Ferrari's naming of its new Formula 1 racing car the "F150," and its creation of the website

Dearborn-based Ford says in Wednesday's filing that its trademark is being harmed, and the suit asks a judge to block Ferrari from using the trademark in the U.S.

Ford also seeks unspecified damages from Ferrari.

A message seeking comment was left for Ferrari officials at the company's Modena, Italy headquarters through U.S. spokesman Matteo Sardi.

Ferrari's website says the "F150" marks the 150th anniversary of the unification of Italy. -The Star

Monday, January 31, 2011

MIT Technology Licensing Office

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a private research institute in USA, is regarded as one of the most active technology transfer office in USA and possibly the world. The Institute shares their success story with an faq located here.

Excerpts of the FAQ

What was your revenue for FY 2010?
Gross Revenue $76.2 M
Royalties $60.1 M
Patent Reimbursement $8.8 M
Equity Cash-In $1.1 M

Do you file foreign patents?
We attempt to preserve foreign filing rights by filing the initial U.S. patent, whenever possible, before the first public disclosure. More than half of our U.S. filings are followed up with an international PCT filing. Later foreign patent prosecution is dependent upon the licensing situation.

What share of royalties do inventors get? How much money was distributed to inventors last year?
Inventors share one-third of royalties after deduction of a 15% administration fee and any unreimbursed patent expenses. Over 19 million dollars were distributed to inventors.

What is the background of your licensing officers?
Most have technical backgrounds (often engineering) and have spent a dozen or more years in industry. Most have worked in product development, marketing and/or business development and understand the process of bringing new technology to market. Some also have Ph.D.'s, some M.B.A.'s, and some legal backgrounds. All are problem solvers with excellent communication skills and are good negotiators.

What functions are performed by your licensing officers?
Each officer manages individual "cases" from beginning to end, including: evaluation of invention disclosures, management of literature searches, market assessment, decisions on patent filing, managing of outside attorneys on patent prosecution, marketing of the technology to potential licensees, negotiation of license agreements, and monitoring of licensee performance.

Can any university do it?
Yes. Start with outstanding people; clear, articulated policies; and a streamlined process. To get started, however, you will also need a sum of money to invest in filing patents and building a portfolio. Do not expect to break even for five years or more.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Thomson Reuters IP analysis projects China annual patent volume to surpass Japan and U.S. by 2011

China is projected to lead in patent activity by 2011, according to a detailed intellectual property analysis published today by the IP Solutions business of Thomson Reuters. The study, Patented in China II: The Present and Future State of Innovation in China, tracks global patent activity as a barometer for innovation across dozens of metrics to provide a view into China’s innovation economy.

This second edition of the Thomson Reuters study suggests that patent filings in China will outpace Japan and the U.S. in 2011, one year earlier than was forecast when the first edition of the study was published in 2008. The projected growth in Chinese patent activity is based on analysis of the total volume of first-patent filings in China, Europe, Japan, Korea and the U.S. China experienced an annual growth rate of 26.1 percent in total patent volume from 2003-2009, as compared to its closest rival, the U.S., with a 5.5 percent growth rate.

Beyond projected patent growth, the study also examines the composition of patents from China relative to its peer group globally, domestic vs. foreign patent applications, patent technology areas, government/policy implications, and patent quality vs. quantity. Following are some of the key observations in the analysis:

* Expansion through Patents: While innovation by domestic entities is driving China’s patent boom, China is also expanding its IP protection overseas. From 2007-2008, the growth rate of China’s overseas patent fillings in Europe, Japan and the U.S. were 33.5 percent, 15.9 percent and 14.1 percent, respectively.
* Chinese Government Is Driving Innovation: Government innovation incentives, R&D tax deductions, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao’s commitment to make China an innovation-centered economy, and unique patent types (such as utility models) contribute to China’s acceleration to the top innovator spot.
* Shift from Agriculture to High Tech: As the Chinese economic landscape changes, a major shift is occurring in patent filings: agri-centered innovation related to food production is growing much more slowly than high-technology innovation. There was a 4,861 percent increase in domestic Chinese patent applications in digital computers in the decade from 1998 to 2008, versus a much more modest increase of 552 percent in natural products and polymers for that same period.
* Alternative IP Rights in China – Utility Model Patents: Approximately half of all Chinese patents filed in 2009 were utility models, which are less-rigorous, more-affordable forms of patents that provide 10 years of protection (versus 20 years for invention patents). The use of utility model patents in China has grown at a rate of 18 percent per annum since 2001. Utility models are also a potentially valuable strategy for foreign filings in China.
* Patent Quality Improving: Despite the growing use of utility model patents, Chinese patent quality is slowly improving based on the Thomson Reuters analysis. By tracking the ratio of patent applications to granted patents among full invention patents in China, the analysis finds that patent quality is trending up.

The data in this report was compiled using the Thomson Reuters Derwent World Patents Index® (DWPISM) database, the most trusted source of global patent information with expertly-indexed records, enhanced titles and comprehensive abstracts, enabling deeper insight into patent research. - Thomson Reuters

Monday, January 10, 2011

Microsoft Loses in Uniloc Appeal, Gets Reappraisal For Damages

Microsoft Corp. has lost in an appeal against the overturning of a $388 million verdict in a patent case filed by Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Singapore Private Ltd.
The appeals court reinstated the decision in favor of the companies.

However, it called for new trials to assess the amount of damages that the software giant will have to pay for the patent infringement.

The court said that the $388 million verdict was “fundamentally tainted by the use of a legally inadequate methodology.”

Uniloc has accused Microsoft of infringing its intellectual property concerning technology used in Microsoft’s Windows XP operating system and some programs in its Microsoft Office suite used to deter piracy.

The patent that the companies allege Microsoft of infringing belongs to Uniloc Singapore Private Ltd. and is exclusively licensed to Uniloc USA Inc.

The case, which says that Microsoft infringed on a patent filed by Uniloc’s Ric Richardson, has been first filed by Uniloc on 2003. - Social Barrel

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Top 7 Luxury Brands

For 2010, there are 7 luxury brands that make it to the top 100 brands, evaluated by Interbrand. The rankings sorted according to brand value (USD billion):

1. Louis Vutton (21.9)
2. Gucci (8.3)
3. Hermes (4.8)
4. Tiffany & Co (4.1)
5. Cartier (4.1)
6. Georgio Armani (3.4)
7. Burberry (3.1)

Brand evaluation is based on earnings forecast. I was in Paris last October, and queued for 40 minutes to get into LV boutique. I was told that tourist can only make a single purchase as there are limited stocks available so that every visitor can leave Paris with a souvenir of LV.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Top 10 Automotive Brands

For 2010, there are 10 automotive brands that make it to the top 100 brands, evaluated by Interbrand. The rankings sorted according to brand value (USD billion):

1. Toyota (26.2)
2. Mercedes-Benz (25.2)
3. BMW (22.3)
4. Honda (18.5)
5. Ford (7.2)
6. Volkswagon (6.9)
7. Audi (5.5)
8. Hyundai (5.0)
9. Porsche (4.4)
10. Ferrari (3.6)

No surprise that the number one and number two luxury car in Malaysia is Mercedes-Benz and BMW. The top selling non-national brand is Toyota and Honda. Brand evaluation is based on earnings forecast.