WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION /
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE
NICE CLASSIFICATION /
CLASSIFICATION DE NICE
Project / Projet:
CL001 Anx 5
Rapporteur: IB
COMPILATION OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 4 & 5 IN THE IB’s
EMAIL DATED JUNE 24
Rapporteur Proposal /
Proposition du rapporteur
Date: July 7, 2015 /
7 juillet 2015
Should the objective of the project be the preparation of a comprehensive proposal for the revision of
all class headings (and their explanatory notes) for the next CE session? Or would you rather prefer
to extend the project over a longer period?
JP: JPO does not intend the objective for this project to change the Class Headings and their
Explanatory Notes substantively over a longer period. Basically, it is not the objective to change the
classification of the goods which belongs currently in the Alphabetical list. JPO thinks that it is
beneficial to review for formally consistency of each Class Heading and Explanatory Notes. JPO
prefers necessary changes therefor would be proposed in next CE session.
CH: we are not sure that we will manage to do all the work for the next CE, if those proposals have to
be on the forum by Oct. 31st. We might therefore want to consider extend the project over a longer
period.
OHIM: In our opinion, the initial focus of the project should be to revise the class headings included in
the OHIM proposal CE252 Annex 2, for the last CoE in order to remove any inconsistencies. As a
second step we would propose revising the class heading of classes 7, 37, 40 and 45. Finally the
project could be extended to a comprehensive review of all class headings. It is our view, therefore,
that for the next CE session a partial proposal could be prepared (revision of last year’s proposal +
classes 7, 37, 40 and 45, time permitting) and the following session could look at the remaining
classes.
Are there any classes or groups of classes that you would like to consider first?
JP: JPO would like to propose for considering changes of the Explanatory Notes for Class 14 and
Class 18 first. Namely, we mentioned at the 25th session as below.
First, as to the Explanatory Note for Class 14, we would like to suggest that the wording "or coated
therewith" be included just after "certain goods in precious metals" in the sentence that begins: "This
Class does not include···". This is because "goods coated with precious metal" are included in other
class. For instance, we believe that "bowls coated with precious metal", "candle holders coated with
precious metal", and "coffee services coated with precious metal [tableware]" are in class 21.
Next, as to Class 18, we would like to suggest changing "travel goods" to "trunks and travelling bags"
in the Explanatory Note, in the same way as it is written in the Class Heading. Because the wording
"travel goods" in the Explanatory Note is too broad a description. For instance, "travel goods"
includes goods such as "travelling rugs [lap robes]" in Class 24 and "neck pillows" in Class 20, which
are in other Classes.
US: USPTO will consider which classes or groups of classes to be considered as the most in need of
attention, but we would also suggest that an inventory of all the Class Heading changes for the 11th
edition accepted over the past four NCE meetings be compiled and compared with the Class Heading
changes to take effect with NCL 10-2016. From there, we will see which classes shall be impacted
Compilation of answers to questions 4 & 5
page 2
by 11th edition transfers, which changes for NCL 10-2016 may need to be updated or further defined,
and which Class Headings remain “sparse” in their content.
My initial thoughts on the scope of the project would be to address those classes that are in need of
repair due to “holes” created by the recently adopted changes for NCL 10-2016 as well as classes
that need to be brought up to date to reflect their current content (such as the need for a “Sexual
Apparatus” general indication in Class 10). Once that is accomplished in time for NCL 11-2017, then
the NCE can turn to revamping (if necessary) the overall structure and analysis of the content of
individual classes and comparison with general indications to ensure accuracy.
CH: We didn’t have time to think about it. We could first concentrate on the classes that have just
been changed (OHMI proposal from this year) but are open to other proposals.
OHIM: Yes, as mentioned above we propose starting with classes 6, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24,
28 and 31, continuing with classes 7, 37, 40 and 45 and finishing with the remaining classes.
Conclusion
IB: According to the answers , it seems that there is an interest for dealing first with classes 6, 14, 16,
17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 28 and 31.
Once a final version of the guidelines is agreed on, the IB will study the possibility of proposing
changes to other classes in order to harmonise format consistency throughout all classes.
[End of document]