Purpose
The purpose of this page is to engage with the Hague System user community and the IP Offices to modernize the technical requirements of image files that can be submitted through the Hague System.
Context
The user community of the Hague System is increasingly interested in submitting better quality image files.
In the past year (2022-2023), there has been instances where high-resolution images, resized automatically to meet the technical requirements, have noticeably lost in quality.
The current image requirements, named the particulars appear to no longer be fit for purpose and in need of an update. They were established in 2008, later revised in 2010, and are summarized in the table below.
The use of 300 dpi is an interpretation of "printed" and has been crystallized into practice.
An important consideration for this project is ensure that Offices are ready to perform their examination in the best possible image quality. It would be pointless for the IB to accept a certain level of quality that is not the image quality used for the substantive examination (when applicable).
Summary of the change proposed
| Specifications, as of April 2023 | Target specifications | |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel formats | JPG only | JPG or PNG |
| Minimum | None | 400 (3 cm @300 dpi - rounded up) |
| Maximum | 1890 pixels (16 cm @300 dpi) | 3780 pixels (16 cm @600 dpi) |
| Vector formats | None | SVG |
| Other formats | TIFF, converted upfront to JPG | None |
| Maximum File size | 2 MB | 10 MB per image file 100 MB per application |
| Mix formats | N/A | Not accepted. A single file format per application/registration (no mix of JPG, SVG, PNG in the same application) |
ST.88 Considerations
The following guidance from Standard ST.88 is helpful for the endeavor:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC 2D IMAGE FORMAT AND SIZE
11. This Standard recommends JPEG3 and PNG4 as preferred electronic image formats for industrial designs.
12. Where supported by the Office, images may optionally use one of the following alternative formats instead of a preferred format:
(a) SVG format: this format is not preferred because some Offices have uncertainties about integrating SVG with their existing processes and requirements;
(b) TIFF format: this format is not preferred because it is not compressed, leading to very large file sizes; and
(c) GIF format: this format is not preferred because PNG is a newer format with better support for color and transparency features.13. Images should not use PDF format. PDF is designed for complex documents not for storing images, and can contain extraneous information besides the image. Determining the precise boundaries between images and other document elements (such as where the margin begins) may be difficult in PDF. Converting or extracting images from PDF to other formats may introduce errors or unintended changes.
14. Offices should accept at least one of the preferred image formats for filing, and should accept all of the preferred image formats for data exchange. Offices may accept other image formats for filing as w ell, as long as they convert the image to one of the preferred formats for data exchange and publication.
15. Images should be accepted in color, grayscale, and black & white as chosen by the applicant. Files of at least 5 MB in size should be accepted. Images should have a minimum resolution of 300 x 300 pixels and a maximum resolution of 3840 x 2160 pixels (corresponding to 4K UHD). When a design application or submission includes multiple image files, it is recommended that Offices set a limit on the total size of all images in the design application. This limit should not be less than 100MB, and may be higher if the Office wishes to accept larger submissions.
16. Where the recommendation related to suggested sizes is not able to be followed due to the variable nature of the figurative elements, e.g., long and narrow strip or ribbon type figurative elements, it is recommended that in addition to a total view , the complete image also be presented as multiple sections, with each section in a separate file that complies with the requirements above, and textual instructions on how the sections fit together.
Comments on the recommendations
Rec 12 (SVG) - it is understood that many Offices, at the time of drafting the ST.88 standard, were not technically ready to process SVG files. Discussions on the topic can be found on the Task Force Wiki. It was also the case for the IB. This means that this initiative will need to take into account the Offices readiness and offer transition alternatives (i.e. a link to open the SVG file in the browser).
Rec 13 (No PDF) - The IB cannot agree more. The IB has direct experience with the constraints explained in this recommendation and does not wish to publish image files in PDF format.
Rec 14 (Preferred format) - In this proposal, the IB would ensure to enforce the principle of one application one format. However, it would let the applicant chose, based on the time of graphic, what is the most suitable format (i.e. SVG for line drawings; JPG for photograph)
Rec 15 (file and resolution sizes) - The proposed new resolution (3780 x 3780) is higher than the one in the ST.88 recommendation (3840 x 2160). This is due to the fact that the resolution of 4K Ultra HD is a rectangular canvas for cinema and the IB works with a square canvas. If we were to draw a square in 4K Ultra HD, it would be 3840 x 3840, slightly more than the proposed resolution of 3780 x 3780.
Roadmap
- Define a first set of requirements for discussion and engagement
- Prepare test sets
- Define an acceptable file size limit
- Engage with the user community and IP Offices to:
- ensure the requirements are fit for purpose
- identify transition strategies to help offices manage the new image files
- Announce the entry into force of the new particulars
- Apply the strategies with IP Offices to transition to accepting SVG, PNG and High-res JPG formats
Test sets
This section contains test packages that are structured as one folder containing an XML file with bibliographic information, an img folder which contains the image files of a certain type.
This test sets is based on IRN DM/226667, which is an IR that was found to meet a certain number of criteria for this test:
- Published registration
- Initially submitted in vector format (through the USPTO, as a PDF embedded image)
- Fine details in line drawings
Comparison table
The following are thumbnails of the same design reproduction, click on them to see the enlarged view and compare with the JPG baseline on the left.
| JPG Baseline | JPG High-Res | PNG | SVG |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Zoom in and observe the blurry lines | With a higher resolution, it takes much more zooming for the lines to blur | PNG does not "blur" details. After zooming enough, you start to see the pixels. For line drawings and high contrast images, PNG is better than JPG | SVG does not show any pixelation at any zooming level, which makes it the most appropriate format for line drawings. (Depending on the browser you use, you might see some pixelation due to how the browser renders the image) |
Baseline (medium resolution jpg today)
High-resolution JPG
PNG
SVG (Vector)
References and Material
WIPO Standard ST.88: Standard ST.88 (wipo.int)
Task Force on Design Representation (Different Space of this Confluence): Design Representation Task Force Home - Design Representation Task Force - WIPO Wiki