U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART V— THE HAGUE AGREEMENT CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS › Chapter CHAPTER 38— INTERNATIONAL DESIGN APPLICATIONS

35 U.S.C. § 384

Filing date

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—Subject to subsection (b), the filing date of an international design application in the United States shall be the effective registration date. Notwithstanding the provisions of this part, any international design application designating the United States that otherwise meets the requirements of chapter 16 may be treated as a design application under chapter 16.(b)Review.—An applicant may request review by the Director of the filing date of the international design application in the United States. The Director may determine that the filing date of the international design application in the United States is a date other than the effective registration date. The Director may establish procedures, including the payment of a surcharge, to review the filing date under this section. Such review may result in a determination that the application has a filing date in the United States other than the effective registration date.(Added Pub. L. 112–211, title I, § 101(a), Dec. 18, 2012, 126 Stat. 1529.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective on the later of the date that is 1 year after Dec. 18, 2012, or the date that the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs enters into force with respect to the United States (May 13, 2015), and applicable only to certain applications filed on and after that effective date and patents issuing thereon, see section 103 of Pub. L. 112–211, set out as an Effective Date of 2012 Amendment note under section 100 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2009–2013 · leading case: Telcordia Tech., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 727 (D. Del. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Telcordia Tech., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 727 (D. Del. 2009). “In the absence of an agreement, the court will permit the parties to file competing proposals.”
Rembrandt Soc. Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d 585 (E.D. Va. 2013). “Rembrandt seeks a decree that Facebook has willfully infringed both patents; an award of damages for past infringement; an award of treble damages for past willful infringement; either an award of a permanent injunction to prevent Facebook from infringing the patents, or damages…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.