The European Commission proposed abolishing the costly and unnecessary requirement for Community trade mark (CTM) applicants to conduct national prior art searches as part of the CTM application process under Article 39 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation 40/94). Some national governments however want to keep the Article 39 searches since, though they serve no useful purpose, they are a useful source of income.
UNICE (the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe), AIM (the European Brands Association) and MARQUES (the Association of European Trade Mark Owners) have already registered their full support for the Commission's proposal to amend the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR) by abolishing the search system under Article 39. In a statement issued yesterday the three organisations propose that, if abolition cannot be achieved, the Article 39 searches should at least be made optional.
Says the IPKat: "Trade mark owners have an interest in the protection of their national as well as their pan-European interests. If they are convinced that national searches are not for their benefit, it would be good to hear from those governments which purport to speak for them to explain why they think the opposite is true".
Twenty manifestations of bureaucracy here
Trade mark searchers here
Other Searchers here
UNICE (the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe), AIM (the European Brands Association) and MARQUES (the Association of European Trade Mark Owners) have already registered their full support for the Commission's proposal to amend the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR) by abolishing the search system under Article 39. In a statement issued yesterday the three organisations propose that, if abolition cannot be achieved, the Article 39 searches should at least be made optional.
Says the IPKat: "Trade mark owners have an interest in the protection of their national as well as their pan-European interests. If they are convinced that national searches are not for their benefit, it would be good to hear from those governments which purport to speak for them to explain why they think the opposite is true".
Twenty manifestations of bureaucracy here
Trade mark searchers here
Other Searchers here
ABOLITION OF CTM NATIONAL SEARCHES: NEW COMPROMISE PROPOSED
![<strong>ABOLITION OF CTM NATIONAL SEARCHES: NEW COMPROMISE PROPOSED</strong>]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Asking ourselves ‘Y’ – Are shape marks shaping complex products’ aftermarkets?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHwE0es_m0lzJpedp0KFtKOYBne_M3YPJ-qwQxiY_YMkHffLAAXkSW9F-pjQFKsy5kJJ-VWScQQkuEVb5-BxnDv10XIMAbYhvgzBSQadD1gdTiIjg9-Oj9Iekll-C3Ca9I76uI3Hh5nCI4QyLosLSNev9VzLq9lF1jM86ungheEDOBKLzGTbE3yw/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Flat rates supported by clauses on universality of repertoire in contracts between CMOs and users are anti-competitive, says Spanish Competition Authority](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBg7o3d7DPzH4YqNz3DUV5J5_sS4P7X7ZznFNETyQlLe0gonaSi3eE_jdjHD_aIjbPKhgpvUrkg6tPprYQYdwDGiyuWIXty9BOUlc07wUVbjDxI1bHoVxZA0ZCC9HBPjLXQwUioBSd9e9n-Z3uCeJ9UUgEvtJHLo1AllR20HGJETFdKoovxLBMw/s72-c/images.png)
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.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