www.global.branddb.wipo.int

                                                                   

The COCOO CaseLink Doctrine: Standard Model for the WIPO Global Brand Database

Full URL: https://branddb.wipo.int/branddb/en/

Strategic Imperative

The WIPO Global Brand Database is our primary tool for conducting international trademark searches. It allows us to see which brands a company is protecting and, crucially, in which countries they are protecting them. This intelligence is fundamental for understanding a company’s global ambitions, identifying market conflicts, and assessing brand value.

This platform is mission-critical for:

  • Competitor Analysis and “Benchmarking”: A company’s trademark portfolio is a direct map of its current and future markets. By analyzing where a competitor is filing trademarks, we can predict their international expansion plans long before they are announced. 1111
  • Informing “MATOIPO Analysis”: In any merger or acquisition, the brand portfolio is a key asset. 2 We must use this database to conduct due diligence on the ownership and geographic scope of the trademarks involved in any transaction to assess their true value and identify any risks (e.g., conflicts with existing marks in key markets).
  • Identifying “Litigation-Dependent Assets”: Trademark disputes are a significant area of litigation. We can use this database to identify companies that may be “squatting” on valuable trademarks or infringing on the brands of others, presenting opportunities for us to facilitate litigation or a settlement.
  • Supporting the “USP-to-WTO” Pipeline: If a company from Country A is being blocked from entering Country B due to a discriminatory rule, evidence that they have already invested in protecting their brand in Country B (via a trademark filing) strengthens our argument that they have a genuine commercial interest and are suffering direct harm. 3333

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules & Functionality

The Global Brand Database is a sophisticated search engine with multiple search fields and powerful filtering options.

  • Primary Search Fields:
    • Brand: Keyword search for the brand name itself.
    • Name: Search for the name of the owner/holder of the trademark.
    • Number: Search by specific application or registration number.
  • Key Filters and Advanced Options:
    • Image: A powerful feature that allows searching for visually similar logos.
    • Status: Filter by the legal status of the trademark (e.g., Active, Expired).
    • Origin: Filter by the country/organization where the trademark was filed (e.g., GB for United Kingdom, US for United States, EM for European Union).
    • Designation: For international marks, this shows the specific countries in which protection is sought. This is crucial for mapping global strategy.
    • Nice Classification: This is the most important filter for thematic searching. It uses the standardized Nice Classification system to find brands within specific classes of goods and services (e.g., Class 9 for software, Class 36 for financial services).
  • Search Syntax:
    • The search supports Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT).
    • It allows for phrase searching using double quotation marks (" ").

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model for the Global Brand Database

This protocol provides a workflow for any investigation involving brand assets.

Phase 1: Adversary & Sectoral Profiling

  • Step 1.1: Adversary Brand Audit: For any target company, conduct a search using their name in the Name field (for the owner). This will generate a complete list of all trademarks they own across all jurisdictions covered by the database.
  • Step 1.2: Thematic Brand Search: This is our key proactive protocol. To understand a specific market, use the Nice Classification filter to search for all trademarks within the relevant class. For example, to map the fintech market, we would search in Class 36 (Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs).
  • Step 1.3: Analyze Geographic Ambitions: For a target company’s key trademarks, carefully review the Designation filter. Where are they seeking protection? A UK-based company suddenly filing for trademark protection in Southeast Asia is a clear “Simple Indicator” of its expansion plans. 4444

Phase 2: The “Brand Conflict” Analysis Protocol

  • Step 2.1: Identify Similar Marks: When analyzing a key brand, use the platform’s text and image search capabilities to find confusingly similar trademarks owned by other entities in the same Nice Classification.
  • Step 2.2: Check for “Bad Faith” Filings: Look for entities that have registered trademarks that are very similar to well-known brands, but have no apparent business activity related to that brand. This can be an indicator of trademark “squatting” – registering a mark with the intent to sell it back to the rightful owner at an inflated price.
  • Step 2.3: Cross-Reference with Company Registries: If a conflicting mark is found, take the owner’s name and run it through our corporate intelligence tools (like OpenCorporates) to investigate who they are and if they have a legitimate business.

Phase 3: Intelligence Synthesis & Strategic Action

  • Step 3.1: Originate Trademark Dispute Cases: Where a clear case of infringement or a “bad faith” filing is identified, we can approach the legitimate brand owner with a USP. The proposal would be to facilitate funding for a legal challenge to cancel the conflicting mark and seek damages.
  • Step 3.2: Inform M&A Due Diligence: The brand audit is a critical part of any MATOIPO analysis. The discovery of a major trademark conflict in a key expansion market can significantly reduce the value of a target company and provide leverage in negotiations.
  • Step 3.3: Challenge a Competitor’s Market Entry: If a competitor is entering a new market where their chosen brand name infringes on a local, pre-existing trademark, we can potentially support the local trademark owner in a legal challenge to disrupt the competitor’s launch.

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model is designed to provide intelligence on a company’s most public-facing assets—its brands.

Mind Map Doctrine Application of the WIPO Global Brand Database Model
Benchmarking / Competitor Analysis The Adversary Brand Audit (Step 1.1) and Thematic Brand Search (Step 1.2) provide a clear benchmark of a competitor’s brand strategy, market presence, and global ambitions. 55
MATOIPO Analysis An audit on this platform is a non-negotiable part of due diligence for any MATOIPO event, allowing us to assess the value and legal risks associated with the brand portfolios being acquired. 6
Noisefilter A company’s press releases about “building a global brand” are noise. 7 The list of countries in which they have filed for trademark protection on the WIPO database is the verifiable signal of their actual global strategy.
USP (Unsolicited Proposal) The model is a direct engine for originating USPs by identifying trademark infringement or bad faith filings and approaching the legitimate owners with a plan to fund and manage the legal action. 8
Simple Indicators A company suddenly abandoning a long-held trademark or filing a large number of new trademarks in a different class is a “Simple Indicator” of a major strategic pivot or rebranding effort that warrants further investigation. 9999

Leave a Reply