• Although the Trademark and Design Directorate of DPMA has not made any negative experiences with the similar flexibilities in the definitions of signatures on paper documents contained in the AIs under the Madrid and the Hague, as the proposed amendment relates to paper submissions, the DPMA doubt the practical significance of this proposal in light of an increasing number of electronic filings (DE).
• The Patent and Utility Models questions the need for such new provision, since most applications filed on paper at the DPMA are filed by individuals applicants who sign their applications themselves (DE).
• KIPO thinks further discussions over the printed signature and the typed signature are needed for the following reasons.
1. The meanings and execution methods are not clear.
2. It is difficult to determine whether a signature is authentic or not.
3. The papers with those signatures may be exploited by third parties.
4. Their contents are not limited.
• As Russian Receiving Office, Rospatent believes that a more detailed description of these notions should be given, as well as how such a signature is created. This will allow the applicants better understand the meaning of the newly introduced notions and avoid misunderstandings in the filing of paper documents. The concepts of “printed signature” and “typed signature” are of particular interest.
...
...
...