And then there were two ...

Although his only contact so far with Singapore has been the very pleasurable hours he has spent at Changi airport, having a relaxing shower between flights and being spellbound by the electronic toys on offer there, IPKat team blogger Jeremy has taken a keen interest in the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks - for which this small and prosperous state is justly famous.

Right: Switzerland's instrument of ratification

The IPKat has now learned from his high-up contacts at WIPO, who kindly sent him a press release, that the Swiss Confederation has deposited its instrument of ratification of the Singapore Treaty. The date of entry into force of that Treaty, says the press release, will be notified when the required number of ratifications or accessions is reached in accordance with Article 28(2) of the Treaty.

Left: Culture shock -- Swiss chocolate meets Singapore weather

Switzerland now joins Singapore as the only other nation to have signed up. This Article 28(2) reference, says Merpel, is just a tediously uninformative way of saying "This Treaty shall enter into force three months after ten States or intergovernmental organizations ... have deposited their instruments of ratification or accession". Why doesn't the press release just say that instead giving us all that pompous diplomatic claptrap about "The Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) presents his compliments to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and has the honor to notify him of the deposit by the Government of the Republic of Singapore"? Just give us the information we poor mortals need to know ...

Other countries beginning with "S" and whose instruments of ratification are awaited include the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, São Tomé and Príncipe and Somaliland.
And then there were two ... And then there were two ... Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, July 24, 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.