for each design contained in the application there would be no loss of revenue and both the applicant and the Administrator would benefit. We have therefore recommended that multiple design applications be permitted under this title.

Title II requires that the application be accompanied by a statement setting forth facts about the design, and that such statement be un der oath. Similar requirements in title 35, United States Code, covering patent and trademark practices, permit such required statements to be submitted with a written declaration in accordance with 18 US.C. 1001 making a false statement punishable by a fine or imprisonment and jeopardizing the validity of the document. We believe that such a provision should be applicable to the application for design registra tion. Therefore, such declaration should be permitted in lieu of an oath.

The present fee provisions of section 215 of this title are unacceptable to the Department of Commerce. In our opinion, the design registration system should be completely self-supporting because the bene fits of the design registration system only accrue to the individual recipient of the registration. Thus, the public should not be expected to bear any portion of the expense of a design registration system. Their benefits are too remote.

In a study done in 1964, the $15 fee for the design registration under a bill similar to the present one, was found to be inadequate to provide 100-percent cost recovery. The $15 application fee would be even more inadequate today.

Rather than propose different fee levels for each of the functions. specified, the Department of Commerce proposes that section 215 be amended in its entirety to give the Administrator the discretion to establish charges sufficient to recover 100 percent of the cost of operation of the design registration system. A similar approach is currently being considered by Congress in various bills to revise the patent laws. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Mr. Tegtmeyer. Who is the adminis trator under this particular provision?

Mr. TEGTMEYER. The administrator would be designated by the President if the bill were passed in the form it is.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Is it presumed that such an administrator would be separate or part of the Copyright Office or the Patent Office or

what?

Mr. TEGTMEYER. The assumption is that the administrator would be with the Patent and Trademark Office in the Department of Commerce.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Why are we unable to modify the patent laws to otherwise effect more reasonable treatment of design applications o that this whole title would be unnecessary, so it could be handled under the present law?

Mr. TEGIMEYFR. We presently have that objective, to reduce that pendency for utility and design patents to Is months. Even though that time is lagging a little bit we expect that that wait will be reduced to 18 months in the very near future. The reason for requiring that length of time is the fact that we must examine the application to determine if it meets the criteria set forth in the present statute and this cannot be done during the short period in which you can register a design.

Mr. KASTEN METER. Would the administrator be under the Commissioner of Trademarks and Patents for the purpose of direction!

Mr. TOTMEYER. I'm not attempting to presume that the President would in fact designate the Patent and Trademark Oflice as administrator but it would presumably be placed there, under the Commenoner of Patents and Trademarks, if it was placed there at all. Mr. KASTENMEDR. Are you satisfied that title II is to be considered a part of the general revision of the copyright law or do you think it more appropriate that it ought to be considered by itself!

Mr. ToTMEYER. We are satisfied that it is to be considered as a general part of the copyright laws,

Mr. KASTEN METER. Do I understand that the revisions that you suggetare unitke patents in that you would go by first to file criteria rather than a first to invent?

Mr. ToTMEYER. We're talking about a requirement in order to ob fan protection as to origination, the party that originates the design and fled and application therefore could obtain the protection; nothng would prevent someone else from initiating the same design and a so obtaining the same protection.

Mr. KASTES MEIER, I read your statement which says that instead protection should commence on the day that the registration is published as a deviation from the theory that a copyright patent protection is other than the rest of the world, it is in essence a first to file protecton or, in this situation, publication rather than the first use of a ter

Mr. TILTMEYER. Yer, in some respects.

Mr KAN MYDR. This is a matter of understanding, I guess. You state that the designs to be eligible would have to be original, however, Pere are no requirements that the dean be new. What is the distinebon, the practical distinction, for our purpose!

Mr. TroTMEYER. The distinction would be that if you originated a design tunt somebody else originated in the past or created in the past, từn you may still obtain protection so long as you were not copying the former individual's design and you developed it totally inde poly through your own origin.lity.

Mr. KARTENMER I see. The other part of your testimony, do I **derstand, that unlike others who have testified, you support retentom of the manufacturing clause basically so it can be used essentially as a nemot ating factor?

Mr. TryMEYER. I think our views are very semilar to those of the Department of State. There is an opportunity here to use except ons to the manufacturing clause for the purposes of negotiation in mn'ti"ateral trade negotiations when they take place. Such negot at onse gre begu nog to take piace now and will begin on a more formal basis

Later in te year.

Mr. KARTENMETER Maybe I misunderstood. I understood them to smr pod that the existence of the manufacturing clause cuises us a great deal of d “culty. I did not understand t! at they wanted it retained to fran qa leverage for f ture negotiations

Mr. THYMEYER. We would agree with the elimination of the manfacturing clane over possibly a period of time as they inhisted m response to your question. Our point shout negrotist ons was pri mat 'y that, if the manufacturing clause was to stay and if Caneda was to be placed in it, we ought to obtýn some cor per at on for aid ing the exemption for Canada in mu.t.iateral trade negotiations,

for each design contained revenue and both the app We have therefore recom permitted under this title.

Title II requires that t setting forth facts about t der oath. Similar requiren ing patent and trademark: to be submitted with a writt 1001 making a false statem and jeopardizing the valid a provision should be applica tion. Therefore, such declar oath.

The present fee provisions o able to the Department of Con istration system should be comp fits of the design registration recipient of the registration. I to bear any portion of the exp Their benefits are too remote.

In a study done in 1964, the i a bill similar to the present one, 100-percent cost recovery. The .. inadequate today.

Rather than propose different 1 specified, the Department of Com amended in its entirety to give t establish charges sufficient to recov tion of the design registration sys: being considered by Congress in var

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Thank you, Mi trator under this particular provision

Mr. TEGTMEYER. The administrat President if the bill were passed 11 Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Is it presumed be separate or part of the Copyrig what?

Mr. TEGTMEYER. The assumption with the Patent and Trademark Commerce.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Why are we una otherwise effect more reasonable trea that this whole title would be unnecess the present law?

Mr. TEGTMEYER. We presently have. pendency for utility and design patents to time is lagging a little bit we expect that 18 months in the very near future. The reas of time is the fact that we must examine the it meets the criteria set forth in the pre done during the short period in which Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Would the admi sioner of Trademarks and Patents f

171

you appeared to indicate primary concern, about the inclusion of Canana but, you don't favor a manufacturing clause, or do you!

Mr. TTMEYER. We do not favor a manufacturing clause aside from the question as to whether or not Canada should be exempted.

Mr. RAILSBACK. So in that respect your testimony is not at variance with the other agencies!

Mr. TEGTMEYER. No.

Mr. RAILSBACK. If you can keep track of all of that differing

testimony.

Mr. TIMFYFR. We did make the additional point of saying that if Cda was to be included as an exception in the manufacturing clause that it be done by the use of its exception in negotiations with other Contries as leverage to get something in return.

Mr. RATISBACK. You do favor, do you not, the prepared expansion of t: duration of a copyright!

Mr. TEMEYER. Yes; we do. In that respect, I might point out that me Lave reviewed the reasons for extending the copyright term that ere set forth in one of the earlier reports on copyright revision legis aton. I might note, in particular, Report No. 83 from the 90th Con

irst session. It is a report of the chairman, Mr. Kastenmeier, the Committee on the Jetary On pages 100 through 103 there are a number of what we feel are well justified reasons for extending the term of copyright to life of the author plus 50 years. In the report, there are some seven such reasons listed. The committee at that time stated, and I quote from page 102 of the report, "The committee concluded that the need for a longer total term of copyright had been conclusively demonstrated."

Later in the report it stated, "The committee has concluded that an author's copyright should extend beyond his lifetime and, judged by this standard, the present term of 56 years is too short." There are some seven reasons set forth which we feel are consistent with the purpose of the copyright law, that is to further creativity in writings and so forth under the Constitution.

Mr. RAILSBACK. I think you've been very helpful.

Mr. KASTENMEIER, Mr. Danielson.

Mr. DANTELSON. Do you know whether foreign states have a com parable provision to our title II to protect original ornamental designs! Mr. TEOTMEYER. Most foreign countries have a provision similar erally, at least, to title II and there is an international convention, The Hague Agreement for the International Deposit of Industrial gns. I am not sure of the number of countries involved.

TOTMEYER. No. I am not sure whether we would want to be betain provisions in the convention.

LON, One problem I have, one of the provision qualifiers

namental; isn't that almost entirely subjective?

Essentially, it is the type of test as applied under

aw presently with respect to designs.

ox. But beauty is still in the eye of the beholder and I with this don't know. I need an answer to this, I Thank

Mr. TEGTMEYER. If I may add one point that may be helpful, one thing you can do is to compare the fact that it must be ornamental as opposed to functional.

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes; but it is also, as I read the Code provisions, I think it relates to prettiness or beauty; I have a problem with this. Mr. TEGTMEYER. That's not the intent of the provision as we under stand it.

Mr. DRINAN. I wonder if I might ask one question. If you would just give us an example. How many of these fundamental things you have described could or would get a copyright or patent?

Mr. TEGTMEYER. That would be difficult to predict because you don't know whether or not they would meet the test of novelty for patend protection.

Mr. DRINAN. In your testimony you suggest only two areas and they are furniture and appliances. But, you give us a for instance on whist type of things might come under title II?

Mr. TEGTMEYER. Linoleum and wall coverings, which I believe are covered under the present copyright law as it is interpreted, as we!! as furniture designs, appliances and other household goods which would have a design, an original design.

Mr. DRINAN. Do you fear any possibility of restraining trade or even monopoly?

Mr. TEGTMEYER. We feel the protection is in the nature of a copy right provision and is only against copying. If you compare it to piracy of tapes and records, we find it very similar. We are talking about someone who has pirated or copied a design, not somebody who has independently originated it himself.

Mr. DRINAN. I tend to agree with Mr. Rail-back that there is too much confusion, but your testimony has been helpful. I wish we had longer.

I

Mr. KASKENMEIER. On behalf of the committee, we appreciate your appearance again before us on a slightly different type of bill than you normally appear before us with and we wish to thank your colleagues. This concludes the testimony this morning on the subject of the revision of copyright laws. We shall next meet as a subcommittee on May 14, Wednesday at 10 a.m. in room 2226 for further hear

ings.

Reports on H.R. 2223 were received by the subcommittee from the Department of State, the Acting Librarian of Congress, an I the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as follows:]

Hon PETER W. Ropino, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
Washington, D.C., May 7, 1975,

DEAR MR. CHATEMAN : The Secretary has asked that I respond to your letter of February 10, 1975, requesting the Department of State's views on HR. 292% for the general revision of the Copyright Law, Title 17 of the United States Code, and for other purposes,

The first copyright law of the United States was enacted by the First Congress in 1790, with comprehensive revisions being enacted at intervals of about 40 years, in 1-31, 1870 and 1909 The present U.S. copyright law, title 17 of the United States Code, is basically the same as the Act of 1909, During the ensuing years tremendous strides have been made in technology and techniques for communicating printed matter, visual images, and recorded sounds. These technical advances have generated new industries and methods for the reproduction