STOP PRESS: that Relative Grounds draft order

In response to his earlier post (immediately below) the IPKat has just heard from David Stone (Howrey) and Felicity Hide (Boult Wade Tennant), more or less simultaneously, that the Registry has indeed addressed the issue. Says David:
"The Registry has acknowledged that the new practice is coming into force in October and, for any current applications where prior rights have been cited, is allowing applicants to apply to have the application stayed until October. If the stay application is made, the mark will proceed to publication in October (ie, the prior objections will "go away"), but the Registry will notify the earlier right holder/s of the new application.

So, better to file now and get the earlier priority date than to wait until October - the effect (other than the filing date) will be the same".
And Felicity says:
"The Registry is already offering suspension of pending applications facing S5 citations, so that they can go forward to acceptance in October 2007 under the new legislation. Indeed, the Registry is wording its letters so that if the applicant/agent doesn't respond, the application will automatically be suspended".
The IPKat says many thanks, to you both and to all those people who may be writing along much the same lines while this note is being posted!
STOP PRESS: that Relative Grounds draft order STOP PRESS: that Relative Grounds draft order Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.