A worldwide linked trademark database for IP research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Researchers and policy makers are concerned with many international issues regarding trademarks, such as trademark squatting, cluttering, and dilution. Trademark application data can provide an evidence base to inform government policy regarding these issues, and can also produce quantitative insights into economic trends and brand dynamics. Currently, national trademark databases can provide insight into economic and brand dynamics at the national level, but gaining such insight at an international level is more difficult due to a lack of internationally linked trademark data. We are in the process of building a harmonised international trademark database (the 'Patstat of trademarks'), in which equivalent trademarks have been identified across national offices. We have developed a pilot database that incorporates 6.4 million U.S., 1.3 million Australian, and 0.5 million New Zealand trademark applications, spanning over 100 years. The database will be extended to incorporate trademark data from other participating intellectual property (IP) offices as they join the project. Confirmed partners include the United Kingdom, Canada, WIPO, and OHIM. We will continue to expand the scope of the project, and intend to include many more IP offices from around the world. In addition to building the pilot database, we have developed a linking algorithm that identifies equivalent trademarks (TMs) across the three jurisdictions. The algorithm can currently be applied to all applications that contain TM text; i.e. around 96% of all applications. In its current state, the algorithm successfully identifies ~ 97% of equivalent TMs that are known to be linked a priori (due to shared international registration number). Current estimates indicate that approximately 40% of candidate positive links identified by the algorithm are false positives. However, we expect the proportion of false positives to become far smaller as we continue to improve the linking algorithm. A major part of improving the linking algorithm will involve combining it with a separate machine learning algorithm that we have recently developed, which exhibits very low false positive and false negative error rates. Briefly, the machine learning algorithm includes an image classification neural network that we adapted to match and disambiguate inventor names in patent records. It uses a novel matching technique whereby each pair of inventor records is compared by firstly converting the two records from raw text into an abstract visual representation, or 'comparison image'. The neural network is able to learn important features within comparison images that indicate whether the two inventor records are likely to be a match (both inventor records refer to the same inventor) or non-match (records refer to different inventors). This is done by training the neural network on data that has been manually labelled as match/non-match. Tests on a sub-sample of the labelled data (withheld from the network during training) indicate error rates as low as ~ 1%. We are currently modifying this machine learning algorithm to match trademarks, rather than inventor names. When complete, the internationally linked trademark database will be a valuable resource for researchers and policy-makers in fields such as econometrics, intellectual property rights, and brand policy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,031 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».