tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8634535864626118319..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Are you ready to boost your EU trademark portfolio? You will only have one chanceVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89627150358552080012016-01-25T13:37:52.012+00:002016-01-25T13:37:52.012+00:00Very interesting, thank you! As I understand it, w...Very interesting, thank you! As I understand it, we as legal advisers are then expected to GUESS what the literal meaning of the class heading is as well as what goods or services might not be covered by the literal meaning of the words of that class heading? <br />If that is truly so, I think the risk of professional liability for a wrong guess is particularly unattractive. For this reason I would rather favour the Article 50 method and have the client confirm a draft list of goods they really want to have in the respective class. Just to be on the safe side.Eva N. Dzepinahttp://www.borgelt.de/de/eva-dzepina-llm.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51673105943270190012016-01-24T23:24:26.596+00:002016-01-24T23:24:26.596+00:00Excellent proposal. The declaration under Article ...Excellent proposal. The declaration under Article 50 CTMR partial surrender is one of the incognita, compared to the declaration under Article 28 CTMR. <br />One should not forget that the declaration under Article 28 CTMR will only concentrate on the "orphans" in the lists proposed by the President, whereas the declaration under Article 50 CTMR will always be possible, as long as it does not expand the list (i.e. not for orphans). So they should be perfectly complementary. <br />Even more, it would appear that the Commission considered that it needed a specific legal basis and a limited period in time to allow the inclusion of orphans into the list of goods and services. This necessarily implies that there is none at the moment ant that the President's 2012 communication in the present interpretation was not on solid grounds. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com