Small changes to CPVR, few trees destroyed; latest EIPR

Freshly posted this morning on the European Commission's Official Journal website is news of Council Regulation 15/2008 of 20 December 2007 amending Regulation 2100/94 as regards the entitlement to file an application for a Community plant variety right (or CPVR, as we like to call it).

Right: new varieties of catnip bring untold pleasures to IP bloggers

It's a very short Regulation with only one substantive provision. Article 1 reads:
"Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 is hereby amended as follows:

1. Article 12 shall be replaced by the following:

Article 12

Entitlement to file an application for a Community plant variety right

An application for a Community plant variety right may be filed by any natural or legal person, or any body ranking as a legal person under the law applicable to that body.

An application may be filed jointly by two or more such

2. in Article 41(2), the words ‘12(1)(b),’ shall be deleted;

3. Article 52(4) shall be replaced by the following:

‘4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall also apply in respect of earlier applications that were filed in another State".
The stated reason for these small and subtle changes is that "in the interests of the facilitation of trade it is appropriate to make the CPVR easily accessible. Therefore, the conditions for entitlement to file an application for the CPVR should be simplified and one application system
for all applicants should be introduced".

Please amend your paper copies accordingly.

The January 2008 issue of the monthly European Intellectual Property Review is now out, and the IPKat has been busily perusing it. He notes with alarm that the annual subscription is now a massive £815 (it says even more -- £878 -- on the publisher's website). While no-one expects commercially minded publishers to give away their products for nothing or run at a loss, he can't help wondering if paper-based serial products are now pricing themselves out of the market. Surely there must be a better business model, one which makes quality journals more widely available (which
is what their unpaid contributors want) at an affordable price (which is what their subscribers want), while still providing a mechanism for articles to be properly reviewed, edited and proofed (which is what their readers want), in a market where the content can be profitably sold to customers (which is what the shareholders want).

What's in this issue? Among other things, Dinusha Mendis (University of Central Lancashire) considers the streaming of broadcast events within the context of Second Life, while Jenny Bergquist (V & S Vin & Sprit, makers of Absolut vodka) and Duncan Curley (Innovate Legal) take a fresh look at the impact of the availability of trade mark registrations for shapes upon the fast-moving consumer goods industries.

Above left: the IPKat examines a product container for signs of registrability as a trade mark.
Small changes to CPVR, few trees destroyed; latest EIPR Small changes to CPVR, few trees destroyed; latest EIPR Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, January 11, 2008 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Maybe the time is right for a wiki-based journal. You could have printed versions on an annual basis, and the whole idea of peer review works well - it is in fact real-time review and could present some interesting debates...


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.