tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post319576470420879434..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: AG Bobek advises CJEU to annul the 'Fack Ju Göhte' decision and distinguish between 'public policy' and 'morality' (and, yes, freedom of expression also matters in trade mark law)Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87553769637101845162020-04-18T01:18:46.925+01:002020-04-18T01:18:46.925+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.dr beautyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990114547937331683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-33560213732808222832019-07-03T16:01:34.325+01:002019-07-03T16:01:34.325+01:00The provision of Art. 53a EPC is in no way special...The provision of Art. 53a EPC is in no way special for the European patent System. It corresponds to Art. 4 quater of the Paris Convention and it is identical to Art. 27 (2) of the TRIPs Agreement. It is intended to cover situations in which inventions made in one country may be exploited only for export purposes. The Convention watchdognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25699083704249136102019-07-02T14:47:36.530+01:002019-07-02T14:47:36.530+01:00When I read dusty old GRUR bound in volumes I woul...When I read dusty old GRUR bound in volumes I would occasionally come across reports on trade mark decisions. The outcome at German national courts generally seemed to hinge on whether the alleged profanity is in a foreign language (e.g., English), in which case it could be registered, as the average person wouldn't necessarily understand it, IIRC. <br /><br />Regarding the reference to "national bodies" in the opinion: There are two DE trade marks in the DPMA database, but these appear to be spurious applications made by squatters, and they have been withdrawn. I don't believe that it's possible to see whether any morality objection was raised, as, IIRC, third parties must demonstrate a "legitimate interest" ("berechtigtes Interesse") to gain access to trade mark files, and these are usually destroyed some time after the extinction of rights.<br /><br />For patent law, Art. 53a EPC as revised in 2000 specifically disconnects European patents from national law or practice:<br /><br /><i>European patents shall not be granted in respect of: inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to "ordre public" or morality; such exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary <b>merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation in some or all of the Contracting States;</b></i><br /><br />Morals and patents are two different things anyway...Roufousse T. Fairflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52730301903730234832019-07-02T13:49:56.859+01:002019-07-02T13:49:56.859+01:00This case reminds me of the "fuckingmachines&...This case reminds me of the "fuckingmachines" trademark application, where the attorney filed some quite interesting arguments in what is sometimes referred to as "the fuck brief", here:<br />https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archivo%3AThe_Fuck_Brief.pdf&page=1 <br />I must say that personally I find it difficult to understand a rejection against "fack ju göthe" on the basis of contravention of "accepted principles of morality"... <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04624423148142165158noreply@blogger.com