New corporate structure for CPAOn Wednesday IP support services provider Computer Patent Annuities Limited (CPA) announced that, after 37 years in business, it had opted for a new corporate structure. First formed in 1969, CPA traded as a partnership under the ownership of over 300 patent and trade mark attorneys based in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. But since the beginning of this month CPA has become an incorporated company. The IPKat will watch carefully to see what difference this makes ...
Deferral of CallThe Bar Standards Board (England and Wales) has initiated a consultation over Deferral of Call. This is a euphemism for the rule that no-one could acquire the title "barrister" - even after passing the relevant examinations - until he or she had done a pupillage (a form of apprenticeship). A lot of prospective barristers will be affected by this, since the number of successful candidates greatly exceeds the pupillages available (around 70% are disappointed).
The policy of Deferral of Call dates back to the 1960s, but has not yet been implemented. However, it now now under review and is unlikely to be implemented before 2009. Former Patents Court judge and IP specialist Lord Justice Jacob has urged anyone interested to participate in the consultation, whatever their views, so that the final decision on Deferral of Call is more likely to be an informed one.
Responses should be posted to the Bar Standards Board, 289-293 High Holborn, London WC1V 7HZ, or by email, to Jennifer Sauboorah. Don't forget the deadline: 14 November 2006.
CPA CHANGES; CALLS FOR DEFERRAL
![CPA CHANGES; CALLS FOR DEFERRAL]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, August 04, 2006
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
Doesn't the policy sound like a classic 'closed shop' system? It sounds archaic and unsuitable for a modern competitive society, and has the ring of the classic double bind situation of being unable to get a job because of lack of experience, and unable to get experience through being unable to get a job. It's time that the normal laws of the market were properly put into play, and scrapping of any rules other than being able to pass the exams.
ReplyDeleteI think this should also apply to the rules about patent and trade mark attorneys, but that's a different matter.