Patents of Invention: How, Why and When?

1991-01-01

PATENTSOFINVENTION:HOW,WHYANDWHERE

by
FrançoisM.Grenier
*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

INTRODUCTION:
Whatisapatentofinvention,whatdifferentsystemsofPatentLawactually
existintheworldandwhataretheiradvantagesanddisavantages?Which
ofthesesystemsdowehaveinCanadaandwhataretherulesofthegame
attheinternationallevel?Lastly,whofilespatentsofinventionandwhy?
Thesearesomeofthequestionswhichwewilltrytoanswer.
WHATISAPATENTOFINVENTION:
Apatentofinventioncouldbedefinedasatemporarytitleofproperty
deliveredbythegovernmentofacountrytoaninventor,orhis
representative,onatechnologydevelopedbythisinventorandwhich
presentstheparticularityofbeinguseful,newandoriginalinviewofwhat
existsinthefield,i.e.thepriorart.
Onceissued,thistitleofpropertygivestoitsowneranexclusiverighttoexploit
thistechnologyinthecountrywherethepatentisissued.Byexclusiveright,is
meanttheexclusiverighttomanufacture,sell,useandevenimport.
Whyshouldthegovernmentofacountrygivesuchaprivilegetooneofthe
memberofthecommunityitrepresents?Thisquestioncouldbeaskedin
capitalistcountrieswherefreetradeandcompetitionaresupposedtobethe
ruleandwhereanyrestrictionsareexceptionalandoftenforbidden.This
questioncouldalsobeaskedincommunistcountries,wherepatentsarealso
delivered,evenifabsoluteequalitybetweenindividualsissupposedtobethe
ruleandwherenobodyisentitledtospecialprivileges.

©LEGERROBICRICHARD,1991.
*Lawyer,FrançoisM.GrenierisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.and
inthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publication47.

Intheworldasweknowit,altruismisararevirtueandnobodylikesto
complicatelifeforthesimplepleasureofbeingofsomeservicetothe
collectivity,unlessapersonfindsinitacertainadvantage.
Howcananinventorbepersuadedtoputinwritinghisideasandtaketherisk
ofdevelopingthemcommerciallyifthestatedoesnotgivesome
compensationinreturn?Thiswasrecognizedmanyyearsagoandjustified
theissuanceofwhatwascalledatthetime”letterspatent”andwhatiscalled
todaya”patentofinvention”.Thiswasalsorecognizedinthecommunist
countries.Therefore,intheSovietUnion,afterhavingabolishedpatentsof
inventionatthesametimeaseveryotherformofproperty,Leninrealizedthat
nobodywasanylongerinterestedininventinganythingandparticularlyin
takingthepainofdescribinganinventioninwriting.Leninre-establisheda
systemof”certificateofauthorship”tomotivateinventors.

Incapitalistcountries,theawardgiventotheinventortakestheformofa
temporaryexclusiverightofexploitation.Incommunistcountries,theaward
takestheformofimmediatematerialadvantages(bonuses,preferential
treatment,favours).Inbothcases,however,theprincipleandtheresultare
thesame.
Byitsnature,thepatentofinventionoritsequivalentincommunistcountries
the”authorshipcertificate”istheequivalentofacontractpassedbetweenan
inventorwhoworkedandparticipatedinthedevelopmentofanewand
usefultechnologyandwhoisnotobligedinanywaytodescribehisinvention
inwritingand,ontheotherhand,thepublicrepresentedbythegovernment
whichisinterestedinusingthistechnologytoimprovestandardsofliving.As
inanyothercontract,bothpartieshaverightsandobligations.The
governmentmustgrantanexclusiverightofmanufacture,saleanduseinthe
wholecountryforarelativelylongperiod(20yearsfromthefilingdatein
CanadaandinEurope,17yearsfromtheissuanceofthepatentintheUnited
States),togetherwiththerighttosueanyinfringerbeforethecourts.In
considerationofthistemporaryexclusiveright,theinventormustdescribehis
inventionindetail,inwriting.Suchadescriptionmustinclude,tothelimitsof
theinventor’sknowledge,indicationsofhowtheinventionfunctionsandhow
itcanbemanufacturedoncethetemporaryexclusiverightisexpired.
IncertaincountriessuchasCanada,theinventormustalsoexploitthe
inventionwithin3yearsfromtheissuanceofthepatent,otherwisehemaybe
forcedtograntlicencestoanypersonaskingandinapositiontoexploitthe
patent.Thisisspecificallycoveredbythelawtopreventanybodyfrom
obtainingapatentofinventionforthesolepurposeofpreventingthe
marketingofhisinventionandthereforedeprivingthepublicofitsbenefit.

Afterhavingestablishedthenecessityandadvantagesforacollectivityto
granttemporaryexclusiverightasarewardtoanypersondescribinganew
technology,weshallnowexaminetheformandconditionsofsuchgrant.In
otherwords,whatformmaytaketherighttoapatent?
THEVARIOUSSYSTEMS:
Duringthelast100years,twosystemsofpatentlawhavedeveloped.
Thefirstsystem,knownas”thefirstinventor”type,isthesystemthatwehad
untilrecentlyinCanada.Underthatsystem,theexclusiverighttoapatentis
grantedtoapersonclaimingtobethefirsttohaveinventedtheinvention.If
twoapplicationsarefiledonthesameinventionbytwodifferentpersons,the
patentwillbegrantedtothepersonwhocanprove,tothesatisfactionofthe
authorities,thathisinventionwasconceivedfirst,evenifhisdateof
applicationissubsequentintime.
Thesecondsystem,knownunderthename”firsttofile”,isasystemrecently
adoptedinCanadaandwhichcameintoforceonOctober1st,1989.Under
thissystem,theexclusiverightgivenbythepatentisgrantedtothefirst
personwhoappliesforit.Iftwoapplicationsarefiledbydifferentpersonson
thesameinvention,thepatentwillbegrantedtothepersonwhofirstfiledan
applicationunlessitisproventhathisinventionwasderivedfromthe
knowledgeofanother.
Evidently,eachofthesystempresentsadvantagesanddisadvantages.
“Thefirsttofile”systemisbyfarthemostcommonlyused.Thissystemisusedin
practicallyallthecountriesoftheworld,includingCanada,andhasthe
advantageofbeingextremelysimpletoapply,especiallybytheauthority
responsibleforpatents(thePatentOffice),sinceitsapplicationisderived
fromtheoldslogan”firstcome,firstserved”.Thissystem,however,giveslittle
chancetotheinventortoreallydevelophisinventionsincehemustalways
beconcernedbyanearlierfilingbyanother.
“Thefirsttoinvent”system,toourknowledge,isusedonlyintwocountries,the
UnitedStatesandthePhilippines.Itisfarmorecomplicatedevenifthe
numberofproblems,thatiscaseswheretheauthoritymustdecidewhichof
twoinventorsinventedfirst,isrelativelysmallwhencomparedtothenumber
ofapplicationsfiledeachyear.
Thissystem,however,hastheadvantageofallowingtheinventor,orhis
representative,sufficienttimetodeveloptheinventionandtestitpublicly,
providedthistestingismadewithinthesocalled”graceperiod”.

Byitsnature,”thefirsttofile”systemdoesnotnecessarilyimplythatthefirstto
filebetheinventororhisrepresentative,evenifthisissometimesrequiredin
certaincountriessuchasCanada.In”thefirsttoinvent”system,itisabsolutely
necessarythattheapplicantbetheinventororoneofhisrepresentatives.
Inotherwords,”thefirsttofile”systemencouragesandrewardsrapidfiling.In
fact,inmostcountries,whofilesisirrelevant,aslongasthecollectivity
benefitsrapidlyfromthenewtechnology.”Thefirsttoinvent”systemwill
rewardthecreativityoftheindividualassuch.Therapiditywithwhichthe
applicationisfiledisofsecondaryimportance.
WhyhasCanadachosentogofrom”thefirsttoinvent”systemto”thefirstto
file”system?Simplybecausethelatterismuchsimplerandthereforeless
expensivetoadministerandbecausethissystemhasbeenadoptedbyall
thecountriesoftheworld,excepttheUnitedStatesandthePhilippines.The
UnitedStateswillsoonreconsideritsownsystem.

Also,thetrendistoworld-wideharmonization.Onthissubject,thepractice
throughouttheworldthatCanadajustadopted,isthegrantofpatentsvalid
for20yearsfromthefilingdateratherthan17yearsfromthedateof
issuance,thepaymentofannualtaxestomaintaintheapplicationsand
patentsinfullforce,theautomaticpublicationofapplications18months
afterthedateoffilingorpriorityandexaminationsdoneuponrequest
togetherwiththepaymentofatax.
Fromthepointofviewoftheusersof”thefirsttofile”systemandparticularly
fromthepointofviewoftheinventorsandCanadianentrepreneurs,the
adoptionofsuchasystempresentsthedisadvantageofcreatingacertain
pressureasregardstherapidfilingofapatentapplication.Thisrapidfiling
wasinanyeventnecessaryiftheapplicantwishedtoextendhisprotectionin
thecountrieswherethesystemswereof”thefirsttofile”type,suchasin
EuropeandinJapan.Ontheotherhand,thissystemhastheadvantageof
leavinglessuncertaintyintheestablishmentofrights,sincetheapplicantno
longerhastheriskthatanotherperson,filingafterhim,begrantedapatent
simplybecausethisotherpersonmayprovepriorinvention.
Wediscussedbeforeworld-wideharmonizationwithrespecttopatents.Butis
therereallyharmonization?
INTERNATIONALTREATIESCONCERCINGPATENTS:

Asearlyastheendofthe19thcentury,therewasaninitialattemptto
establishrulesandtoharmonizethepracticeswithrespecttopatents
throughouttheworld.
Thefirsttreatywhichwassignedandisstillinfullforceisknownasthe
“Conventiondel’Union”(ParisConventionorInternationalUnionforthe
ProtectionofIndustrialProperty).ThistreatywassignedinParisin1883and90
countriesaremembers,includingthequasi-totallyofdevelopedcountries,
whetherfromtheWestoftheEast,withtwomajorexceptions,Venezuelaand
Taiwan.
Thistreatyestablishedtwomajorrulesoflawandpractice.Theruleoflawis
thateachofthesignatories,mustgranttotheresidentsoftheothermember
countriesthesamerightsasgrantedtotheirownresidents,i.e.thesametype
ofpatentwiththesameprotection.Inotherwords,aGermanora
JapaneeseapplicantforapatentofinventioninCanadawillbegrantedthe
samerightsasanyCanadian.Intheotherdirection,aCanadianapplicant
forapatentofinventioninGermanyorinJapanwillbegrantedthesame
rightsthataGermanoraJapanesewouldbegranted.Thesecondrule
establishedisthegrantofaprioritydelayofoneyeartoanyapplicantinany
membercountrytoextenditsprotectionintheothercountries.

Ifthisextensionofprotectionisrequestedwithinthepriorityyearstartingfrom
thefilingdateofthefirstapplicationinthecountryoforigin,theother
membercountrieswillrecognizethefilingdateofthisfirstapplicationinthe
countryoforiginastheofficialdateoffilingintheircountryforthepurposeof
noveltyoftheinvention.Therefore,thereisacertainformofretroactivityof
therightstothedateofthefirstapplicationmade.
Clearly,thissecondruleestablishedbythe”ParisConvention”doesnotgrant
aprotectionin90countries.Itgrantstherighttoextendtheprotectionwithin
oneyearinthe90countriesinquestion.Therefore,thisisnotarightof
propertyontheinventionbutratheranoptionforsucharight:theinventor
musttakethenecessarystepsineachmembercountryinwhichhehasan
interestandmustadapttothelawandlanguageofeach.
Subsequenttreatieshavereducedtheformalitiesrepresentedbythefilingof
applicationforpatents.
ThefollowingtreatywasadoptedmanyyearsagobytheAfricancountries
bornupontheindependanceoftheformerFrenchcolonies.Underthis
treaty,whichcameintoforcein1964,oneapplicationfiledatYaoundé,
Cameroun,establishesarightinallthecountriesthataremembers.

Anothertreatywassignedsoonthereafter,establishingthe”EuropeanPatent
Convention”(E.P.C.),nowsignedby14countriesofWesternEurope.Wemust
notconfusethe14signatorieswiththe”E.E.C.”:Switzerland,Austriaand
Swedenaregovernedbythetreaty;Irelandisnot.
Underthistreaty,inforcesince1979,onemayfileasingleapplicationfor
whatiscalledaEuropeanpatent,inFrench,EnglishorGerman.This
applicationisexaminedonlyonceatthe”EuropeanPatentOffice”(E.P.O.),in
Munich.Onceaccepted,aCertificateofEuropeanPatentwillbeissued
andtheownermayhavethiscertificaterecognizedassuchineachofthe
membercountriesinwhichheisinterested,withoutfurtherexaminationbut
subjecttootherminorformalitiessuchasthefilingofaliteraltranslation,the
nominationofalocalagentandthepaymentofatax.Therefore,oneisno
longerobligedtofileineachcountryanapplicationadaptedtothelocal
practiceandhavingtopassthescrutinyofanexamination.Theso-called
“EuropeanPatent”eliminatesalotofbureaucracy,butapplicantsshouldbe
awarethattheirpatentsarestillvalidonlywhenrecognizedbyeach
jurisdiction.
ThepossibilityofestablishingapatentvalidthroughouttheE.E.C.whichwould
bevalideverywherewithoutnecessityofformalrecognitioncountryby
countrywasdiscussed.Thisishoweverstillonlyaproject.
Thelastdevelopmentwastheestablishmentofatreatyofcooperationwith
respecttopatents,usuallyknownunderthenameof”WashingtonTreaty”or
itsEnglishabreviation”P.C.T.”.Thistreatywithmorethan40membercountries
includingthecountriesmembersofthe”EuropeanPatentConvention”,
Scandinaviancountries,theUnitedStates,Japan,Corea,AustraliaandBrazil,
wasrecognizedandcameintoforceinCanadaonJanuary2,1990.The
goalofthetreatyistomakesurethattheobtentionofpatentsforthesame
inventioninmanycountrieswillbesimplerandlessexpensive,byreducing
themultiplicationoftasksnormallydoneineachcountry(translation,filing,
examination,etc.).
Toachievethisgoal,theP.C.T.requiresthefilingofonlyoneapplication,
calledaninternationalapplication,whichmaybemadeinanymember
country,inonelanguage,withonlyonesetofrequirementsastoform,and
thepaymentofonesetoftaxesthroughonepatentagent.Thisinternational
application,oncefiled,hasthesameeffectasanationalapplicationwhich
wouldhavebeenfiledineachofthesignatorycountries.
Inpractice,therearetwostagesofprocedure.Thefirst,calledthe
internationalstage,includesthefilingoftheinternationalapplicationwhichis
submittedtoapreliminaryexaminationastoformandwhichisgranteda
datebytheauthoritiesofthePatentOfficeofthecountrywherethe

applicationwasfiled.Uponfiling,theapplicantmustindicatetheother
signatorycountrieswhereprotectionisdesired.
Acopyoftheapplicationisthensenttothe”WorldIndustrialProperty
Organization”(W.I.P.O.),inGeneva,toconstituteproofoffiling.Anothercopy
oftheapplicationissimultaneouslysenttoanorganizationinchargeofthe
noveltysearch.ThisorganizationisinpracticeoneofthePatentOfficesof
designatedmembercountriesdescribedas”internationalsearching
authorities”.Amongstthesedesignatedcountries,aretheUnitedStates,the
SovietUnion,Japan,SwedenandtheE.P.O.ThisPatentOfficewillissuea
researchreport,acopyofwhichissenttoW.I.P.O.andtheapplicantwillbe
freetomodifyhisclaims,dependingonthepriorartlocated.Acopyofthese
amendmentsisalsosenttoW.I.P.O.andisvalidinallthecountriesspecified
whentheapplicationwasfiled.
Within20monthsfollowingthedateofpriorityor8monthsfollowingthedate
oftheinternationalfiling,ifthisfilingisdoneatthelimitoftheprioritydelayof
oneyearmentionedabove,theapplicantmustenterintothenationalstage,
i.e.haveitsinternationalapplicationofficiallyrecognizedineachofthe
countriesspecifiedintheapplication,thisrequiringthepaymentoflocal
taxes,providingtranslation,nominatingagentsineachofthecountries,etc.
Alternatively,theapplicantmayrequestaninternationalexamination,where
thepatentabilityofhisinventionwillbeexaminedindetailsinviewoftheprior
artlocatedduringthesearch.Ifsuchexaminationisrequested,the
recognitioninthespecifiedcountriesisdelayedfor10monthstoallow
sufficienttimefortheexamination.
Inallcases,theapplicantisstillfacedwithvariousstepstobefollowed;
translationstoprepareandtaxestopayinthecountriesspecifiedatthe
origin.Weshouldbeawarethatthesecountriesarenotcompelledto
recognizethevalidityofthesearchreportandtheinternationalexamination
andmaythereforere-examinetheapplicationaccordingtolocal
requirements.NotethatEuropeancountriesrecognizetheconceptof
absolutenovelty;therefore,theinventormustnotdivulgehisinventioninany
form,anywhereintheworld,beforefirstfilinghisapplication.
Onemaythereforequestiontheadvantagesofaninternationalfiling
accordingtotheP.C.T.Inmyopinion,theyarethefollowing:

First,thefilingofaninternationalapplicationisnotveryexpensiveandallows
againoftime(8monthsor18monthsdependingiftheexaminationis
requested,whichareaddedtothe12monthsofinternationalpriority).This
gainoftimeisusefulfortworeasons:

Safeguardtherightsofthehystericinventorwhocomesandseeyoutheday
theprioritydelayexpiredandwantstoextendhispatent’sprotectionorwho
isexpectingorlookingforfinancingfortheextensionofthepatent’s
protectioninforeigncountries;ortocompletetrials,testingoranalysisofthe
invention;tobeabletodeterminebeforeinvestingconsiderablefeesifan
extensionofprotectioninforeigncountriesisdesirable.
Secondly,thefilingofaninternationalapplicationautomaticallyleadstoa
noveltysearchandallowsadeterminationorconfirmationiftheinventionis
reallynovelandthereforepatentable.Thisalsoallowsaconsiderationofthe
priorartinthepreparationoftheclaims.Thislastpointisextremelyusefulin
casesofcountrieswherethereisnoexamination.
SinceJanuary2,1990,filinganinternationalapplicationispossibleinCanada.
Also,thismeansthatforeignersmayalsochooseCanadaasadesignated
countrybysimplyputtingacheckonapre-printedformwhenfilingintheir
owncountry.
Arethesesystemsandtreatiesusefulandfunctional,andwhy?

APATENT,POWERFULECONOMICINCENTIVE:
Toanswerthequestionsabove,let’srefertosomestatistics.
Annually,morethanonemillionpatentsarefiledthroughouttheworld,of
which200000arefiledinJapan,100000intheUnitedStatesand40000at
“L’Officeeuropéendesbrevets”.Theinternationalapplicationsmadein
accordancewiththeP.C.T.areunder15000,whichisagoodindicationofits
limitedadvantages.
InCanada,thenumberofpatentapplicationsfiledin1987wasover30000.
Morethan93%ofapplicantswereforeigners,Americansbeingtheleader
withmorethan50%ofallpatentapplicationsfollowedbytheJapanese
(11.2%in1987)andtheGermans(7.3%in1987).TheCanadianswereinfourth
position(6.9%in1987),immediatelybeforetheBristish(4.9%in1987)andthe
French(4.8%in1987).Itshouldbementionedthatthesestatisticsarenot
reallysurprisingandshouldnotbeinterpretedasmeaningthatCanadaisan
under-developpedcountryorthattheCanadiansarenotinventors.As
everybodyknows,theeconomicforceofCanadaresidesessentiallyinthe
primarysector(agriculture,naturalresources)andthetertiarysector
(services).Theeconomicsectorwhichgeneratesmostpatentsisprincipally
thesecondarysector,i.e.industry.

Itisalsointerestingtonotethat10internationalcompanies(includingIBM,
GeneralElectric,Ciba-Geigy,DuPont,Westinghouse,Bayer,A.T.&T.,Sony
andMobilOil)filedmorepatentsinCanadain1987thanAlbertaandBritish
Columbiatogether.
AmongsttheleadingCanadianapplicants,wecanmentionNorthern
Telecom(59applicationsin1987),NationalDefence(26applications),Alcan
(13applications),C.N.(12applications),Hydro-Québec(6applications).
Thesestatisticsshowthatpatentsareappliedformainlybylargeindustries
andthatthemoreindustrializedthecountryis,themorepatentsarefiledby
localapplicants.IntheUnitedStates,morethan50%ofthepatentsare
appliedforbyAmericans.InJapan,70%ofthepatentsareappliedforby
Japanesewhereasonly30%ofthepatentsareappliedforbylocalsinFrance
andEngland.
Whythisinterestonthepartofindustry?Becausethepatentisavery
importanteconomicincentiveforthosewhowishtoinnovateinagiven
technology.Mostoftheinventionsareessentiallytheresultoflongand
expensiveresearch,whichwouldneverhavebeenundertakenwithoutthe
assurancethatoncethegoalisreached,thosewhoparticipatedinthe
researchwouldhavethepossibilityofrecoupingtheircostsbeingtheonly
onesentitledtomanufactureandsellatapricefixedunilaterallytheresultof
thisexpensiveresearch.

Whenwediscussinventions,oftenwethinkofthoseweirdinventorsorcreator
ofspectacularandgeniusinventionssuchastheplane,theautomobile,
television,radio,telephone,etc.Youshouldnotehoweverthatalongside
thesegreatinventions,therearenumeroussmallimprovementsvery
interestinganduseful,whichareaddedeverydaytoourtechnical
knowledge.
Whenaninventordiscoversanewproductoranewprocess,thecompetition
isimmediatelylikelytosufferalossunlessitcanfindabetterprocessora
productatabetterprice.Theinventivegeniusisthereforealertedandtheir
talentisstimulatedtofindevenbetterwithoutinfringingthepatent.Itfollows
thatthepatentisnotonlyamonopolisticinstrumentbutratherisanincentive
tofindbetterandcheaperproductsandprocesses.Inallcases,thepublic
willhaveitsbenefit.Eachoftheimprovementsmaybemodestinitself,but
whenappliedtothousandofobjects,itisinfinitelymultiplied.Ittakesitsplace
intheindustryandconstitutesanimportantstepforwardfortheworldwelive
in.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD