It really is a good time to apply for non-distinctive or descriptive marks in the UK. At present we all enjoy the benefit of the ECJ's BABY-DRY ruling, which enables us to register many trade marks of breathtaking descriptiveness that we never thought we see registered a couple of years ago. And now, for those who don't like having to wait around, the UK Registry is accelerating the procedure for rejecting applications for those marks which don't even reach the minimal level of distinctiveness to qualify under BABY-DRY. The Registry is doing this by cutting from six months to three months the time for applicants to respond to official objections based on absolute grounds of invalidity. Says the Registry: "Such applications have the greatest capacity to create uncertainty in the market place about whether (and how) descriptive and non-distinctive signs may freely be used in trade. The changes therefore pursue an aim which is in the public interest".
The IPKat says: "The time given by OHIM for applicants to respond to objections based on absolute grounds is only two months. It seems strange that a national granting authority should be so much more generous with its applicants".
Time given by OHIM for applicants to respond to "absolute grounds" objections: two months.
Click here, here or here to see how you can pass three months if you're not busily responding to official objections.
The IPKat says: "The time given by OHIM for applicants to respond to objections based on absolute grounds is only two months. It seems strange that a national granting authority should be so much more generous with its applicants".
Time given by OHIM for applicants to respond to "absolute grounds" objections: two months.
Click here, here or here to see how you can pass three months if you're not busily responding to official objections.
GOOD NEWS FOR BAD MARKS
![<strong>GOOD NEWS FOR BAD MARKS</strong>]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, August 11, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html