tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4009015310155345769..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The slow disappearance of disclaimers: the CJEU decision in Hansson, C-705/17Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60090679092486182472019-06-20T20:26:13.684+01:002019-06-20T20:26:13.684+01:00Thank you for your observations PeterThank you for your observations PeterAntonella Gentilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13300233634830770757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32575483310422681362019-06-18T09:48:06.021+01:002019-06-18T09:48:06.021+01:00(1) The UK also has disclaimers under section 13 o...(1) The UK also has disclaimers under section 13 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. They are rarely, if ever, demanded by examiners today but they used to be a frequent requirement and there must be many old registrations that continue to be subject to them.<br /><br />(2) The Court seems to assume that the disclaimed element must be descriptive. However, disclaimers can also be requested voluntarily, e.g. in settlement of a dispute, and in those circumstances the disclaimed element can be inherently distinctive. The disclaimer is effectively a public promise not to enforce the trade mark against users of the earlier right.Peter Smithnoreply@blogger.com