tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1193295236013477783..comments2024-03-19T08:36:55.274+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The Locarno System and reform -- MARQUES' HallmarksVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43270310763470190512008-10-24T10:38:00.000+01:002008-10-24T10:38:00.000+01:00PS In the statement I'm talking about in my previo...PS In the statement I'm talking about in my previous comment, I've just noticed that there's also a spelling error: "effect" the scope of protection rather than "affect" the scope of protection.<BR/><BR/>Was this entire bit put in as an afterthought, perhaps?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8735242696254813242008-10-24T10:35:00.000+01:002008-10-24T10:35:00.000+01:00Constructive as this piece of work may be, I'm afr...Constructive as this piece of work may be, I'm afraid I gave up reading it when I got to the bit that says:<BR/><BR/>"Hence the Locarno Classification, which is used to classify the product specified, could, at least within the European Union, have an impact on the scope of protection of RCDs."<BR/><BR/>and went to re-read Jacob's fascinating discussion of this question in Green Lane v PMS (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/358.html) instead.<BR/><BR/>It's unfortunate that Marques preface their work with statements that attempt to beef up the importance of the Locarno but instead make people think about checking the veracity of those statements. <BR/><BR/>I suggest losing this statement entirely in subsequent versions and just focus on (much needed!) improvements to the Locarno. Improvements do not need to be earth-shattering to be useful and productive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com