이
5/20
370/20
RECEIVEN BEGISTRY
05 JAN 1994
DESK
INDEX
Ms Bouch HKD
PA
21
FROM:
REGISTRY
PA
Action Taken
Jill Barrett
Assistant Legal Adviser K174 270 3381
DATE:
22 December 1993
CC.
Mrs Sullivan, DTI
(20
LOCALISATION OF HONG KONG'S PATENT SYSTEM
201 1. I refer to Mrs Sullivan's fax of 17 Décember and the attached draft reply to HKG which you copied to me.
2. I would have appreciated more specific answers to the queries I raised about the practicalities of Hong Kong's proposals in my minute of 30 July, which I understand Mr Bunten copied to the DTI. However, since the DTI draft reply says in para 10 that we do not anticipate any particular administrative difficulties, I assume that the DTI have considered the points I raised and that the answers are clear and satisfactory to them. On that assumption, I am content not to pursue these questions further with HKG, but would prefer to amplify paras 9 and 10 so as to reflect the position under the Patents Cooperation Treaty more fully.
3. I would suggest rewording as follows:
119.
It is unclear whether the Patents Cooperation Treaty (PCT) allows Contracting States to nominate more than one receiving office. The wording of the Treaty does not expressly rule this out. The practice of the parties is relevant to the interpretation of the Treaty. If, for example, another party had already nominated more than one receiving office and this had been accepted by the other parties, this would provide a helpful precedent. It is also relevant to consider the administrative practicality of operating two receiving offices and the consistency of such an arrangement with the overall structure of the Treaty.
10. We do not anticipate any particular adminstrative difficulties in the Hong Kong Patents Registry (HKPR) becoming a receiving office, and would not, in principle, be opposed to the idea. Clearly, before proceeding internationally, it will be necessary to consult the Chinese to obtain their agreement to the continuation of the HKPR as a separate receiving office after 1997. If and when we obtain their agreement, it would then be wise to ensure that WIPO have no objection to the arrangement. Our understanding is that they are not likely to object. Since the legal position under the Treaty is not absolutely clear, it is possible that an objection might be raised by another Treaty party after notice of the new arrangement has been circulated. However, the chance of there being any such objection seems to us to be remote. If no