tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2035276970794162564..comments2024-03-29T11:10:02.290+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Eyeing up the Patent OfficeVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91999904684114323022007-05-27T17:25:00.000+01:002007-05-27T17:25:00.000+01:00I noticed just now that the Joshi & Welch applicat...I noticed just now that the Joshi & Welch application was witdrawn on 15 May. What a shame!Peter Groveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05020506617934637856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47505874455662893642007-03-19T21:07:00.000+00:002007-03-19T21:07:00.000+00:00That's really disturbing, Gerontius. There are som...That's really disturbing, Gerontius. There are some seriously weird people out there.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56193631584438685262007-03-19T15:37:00.000+00:002007-03-19T15:37:00.000+00:00Here's another all seeing eye in IP...http://v3.es...Here's another all seeing eye in IP...<BR/><BR/>http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2007011108Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12424257512957515766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26108669155845635392007-03-19T10:09:00.000+00:002007-03-19T10:09:00.000+00:00Come now, there's no reason to suspect that UKIPO ...Come now, there's no reason to suspect that UKIPO would be anything less than fair and balanced in assessing its own application! Word on the Australasian IP street a couple of years back was that IPONZ had rejected its own application for its name on the basis that it had no intention to use the mark as a trade mark (probably one of the few occasions where lack of intention to use could have been authoritatively demonstrated, given that IPONZ presumably knows its own mind). Of course, it could have been vicious trans-Tasman rumour.Lozhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03023393577677706794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57928566288855858062007-03-18T17:20:00.000+00:002007-03-18T17:20:00.000+00:00Potentially more problematic is Section 64(1) of t...Potentially more problematic is Section 64(1) of the 1907 Patents and Designs Act (which is one of the few provisions still to be in force.<BR/><BR/>Under Section 64(1), "The Treasury may continue to provide for the purposes of the Patents Act 1977, the Registered Designs Act 1949 and the Trade Marks Act 1994, an office with all requisite buildings and conveniences, which shall be called, and is in this Act referred to as, the Patent Office."<BR/><BR/>As it is a statutory requirement that the office "shall be called ... the Patent Office," there is obviously quite a lot in a name. In all likelihood this will be amended, but how that might be possible in 3 weeks is the question.Johanna Gibsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11167747296059368251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86105031716132562952007-03-18T09:21:00.000+00:002007-03-18T09:21:00.000+00:00The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only...The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only just beat the Gowers publication date when applying for his trade mark; application date 1st December 2006, Gowers publication 6th December 2006. There was probably insider knowledge. Section 112 prevents confusion. In Germany there is no equivalent legal provision. A few doors away from the European Patent Office branch in Berlin there is a popular bar called "Patentampt".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com