|IP TRANSLATOR: the fire rages --|
help the Kats to put it out
- (i) when you want a trade mark for goods or services, how do you describe what you want it for?
- (ii) how do trade mark-granting offices balance the demands of truth, accuracy, predictability, the need to protect marks only to the extent that they are going to be (a) used or (b) confused with marks that are already protected, cost-effectiveness and administrative convenience?
- (iii) once you've got that trade mark, what have you got it for?
Not only does the IP TRANSLATOR ruling cause a lot of anxiety to businesses that are trying to get their marks registered or to block potentially confusingly registrations by others, but it is also uncertain how it will affect trade marks that have already been granted. That's why so many people are getting so agitated about it. And now for today's blog ...
guest piece "Classes, Clarity and Confusion: the legacy of IP TRANSLATOR" continues to roll. First, in "Why Not Everyone is Happy to Tick the Box" (here), Claire Lazenby and Ben Mooneapillay articulated their concerns. Now, spurred by publication of the details of the forthcoming ECTA Workshop, "Brand Owners Life Before and After IP TRANSLATOR" (details here) in Alicante on 21 February, Claire has gone one step further and has kindly agreed to allow the IPKat and Merpel to make the full text of her paper "IP TRANSLATOR and OHIM's reaction to it" --the source from which her earlier comments were drawn -- available to their readers, who can read it in full here. Thanks, Claire, we do appreciate this, and we hope that our readers will do so too.