tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8014562065543240935..comments2024-03-19T10:57:44.760+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Acquired distinctiveness of product shape marks: AG Wathelet does not “rely” on the UK approach – but on what else? Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22399376509339535652015-09-03T11:23:25.663+01:002015-09-03T11:23:25.663+01:00IPKat
I love you dearly, of course, and always. N...IPKat<br /><br />I love you dearly, of course, and always. Nobody stands above me when it comes to promoting your corner, cause, beliefs, opinions, statements (and right to purr and, occasionally, scratch) but your analysis is either (1) read wrong by me (a realistic possibility I admit) or (2) the view expressed is unduly technocratic and might lead to courts saying two marks = no right to register either of them. If the latter is the case then ought it not to be toned down?<br /><br />What Wathelet A-G meant (I think) was that the question which must be asked on each occasion is "does the mark in issue and on its own distinguish the marked goods from those of other undertakings?"<br /><br />AshoAshley Roughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11867564640201688641noreply@blogger.com