The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Thursday, 21 April 2005


The IPKat has received this notification from a reliable source:

You wrote [on Tuesday, 19 April] that the Pan Case was boring. However, this is not the case. It is of utmost importance for users of the CTM system. The TPI for the first time had accepted the interpretation of the OHIM that it can send out any decision by fax (despite unclear wording of Rule 62(1) of the Implementing Regulation). Moreover, it accepted OHIM's evidence of computer fax reports without any further technical expertise if OHIM's automated fax sending system is really reliable. Important part of CFI's reasoning was that the lawyer was not able to provide a list of incoming faxes of that day. As a consequence, representatives should be extremely careful to keep the lists of incoming faxes of the fax machine which was indicated to OHIM, in order to prove that no fax had been received at a certain moment.

1 comment:

Jeremy said...

No, my friend, the Pan case is deeply, profoundly and seriously boring. That is not to say that it is not of importance. It might have been fun to work on it, but have you tried reading it as a piece of literature?

In any event, I genuinely doubt that the case is "of the utmost importance". It deals with communication by fax, a medium which may have been important once upon a time, towards the end of the previous century, but which is an increasingly obsolete piece of equipment in this day and age. Within ten years, I bet the only faxes you ever see will be in musuems.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':