Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / / REFERRED QUESTION IN ANIMAL v OAKLEY

REFERRED QUESTION IN ANIMAL v OAKLEY

The UK Patent Office confirms that a reference has been made to the ECJ in the Oakley v Animal design case (here and here). The reference concerns the question of whether Member States can rely on derogations in directives when they are implementing those directives out of time and the referred question is available here.



The IPKat awaits the ECJ’s decision with baited breath and waxed whiskers.
REFERRED QUESTION IN ANIMAL v OAKLEY REFERRED QUESTION IN <i>ANIMAL v OAKLEY</i> Reviewed by Anonymous on Thursday, August 18, 2005 Rating: 5

3 comments:

  1. JeremyThursday, 18 August 2005 at 22:39:00 GMT+1

    Not wishing to be a pedant, I think you'll find it's "bated breath": see the discussion at http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousThursday, 18 August 2005 at 22:44:00 GMT+1

    Yeah, right. Of course you wish to be a pedant!

    ReplyDelete
  3. JeremyThursday, 18 August 2005 at 22:47:00 GMT+1

    No, in point of fact. Some are born pedants, others achieve pedantry ... but there are also people called co-bloggers, who have pedantry thrust upon them.

    ReplyDelete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.