tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1189822200893676079..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: TRADE MARK ATTORNEY application withdrawnVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84491383223391959422008-01-10T17:29:00.000+00:002008-01-10T17:29:00.000+00:00Legislation would certainly be required to achieve...Legislation would certainly be required to achieve the result ITMA want. <BR/><BR/>s.82 TMA 1994 makes it clear that agents may act for others in obtaining trade marks, and s.83 makes it clear that a Register may exist, but there is no obligation for agents to register.<BR/><BR/>Only registration gives access to the protected title of "Registered Trade Mark Agent" and the consequent legal privilege.<BR/><BR/>Indeed Tom Dick and Harry are currently entitled to use the title "Trade Mark Attorney", but that appears to be what government wanted [at least in 1994]. <BR/><BR/>As for the suggestion that a certification mark can certify that persons act as agents but are not on the register, is this any useful form of certification? <BR/><BR/>A certification mark is supposed to distinguish goods or services which are certified from those which are not. I am not aware of any certification mark which in effect says "The persons certified are persons who supply a service but are not qualified to provide that service". <BR/><BR/>Negative certification marks have a certain attraction as a means of blackballing rogues but the ITMA certification mark did not achieve even this. <BR/><BR/>The ITMA certification mark attempted to say that it would certify those not qualified for entry on the Register of Trade Mark Agents, but those who were so qualified were not affected by the certification mark and could use it regardless. This would provide no useful information to the public and would fail in the sheep/goat sorting test.<BR/><BR/>By the way, for those who beleive that "Agent" and "Attorney" mean something different, at least one dictionary definition of Attorney reads "An agent or representative authorized to act on someone else's behalf". The Compact OED has the definitions:-<BR/><BR/>1 a person appointed to act for another in legal matters. <BR/><BR/>2 chiefly US a lawyer<BR/><BR/>Attorney may sound grander than agent, and may be a good word to bamboozle Americans with, but in UK English at least it has a more restricted meaning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74104582703421466922008-01-09T12:27:00.000+00:002008-01-09T12:27:00.000+00:00ITMA’s press release – see this link - http://www....ITMA’s press release – see this link - http://www.itma.org.uk/news-events/press-releases/press-view.php?id=178&date=15%20Oct sheds more light on the reasons behind the withdrawal of the CTM application – it would seem that the Law Society will now support ITMA in obtaining legislation to put the title TRADE MARK ATTORNEY in exactly the position you envisaged.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25070621428139230692008-01-07T20:04:00.000+00:002008-01-07T20:04:00.000+00:00I think the previous commenter may have it the wro...I think the previous commenter may have it the wrong way round. As I understand it, at present any Tom, Dick or Harry can call him/herself a Trade Mark Attorney. (At least, the part of the CDP Act which refers to such things forbids the use of the term *registered* trade mark agent.) So by getting a trade mark for "trade mark attorney", you are not saying that those certified to use the trade mark are better than your average trade mark agents, you are saying that they really are trade mark agents in the first place.<BR/><BR/>But I'm not an expert, so I await corrections with interest...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51910729759728964222008-01-07T13:20:00.000+00:002008-01-07T13:20:00.000+00:00The disclaimer was indeed significant. It appeared...The disclaimer was indeed significant. It appeared that the mark did not affect those who were Registered Trade Mark Attorneys. <BR/><BR/>Who exactly was the mark supposed to be certifying? <BR/><BR/>Who of those not qualified as Registered Trade Mark Attorneys could be certified, and for what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com