A notice posted on the UK IPO website mentions that the Trade Marks Rules 2000 have been amended seven times since they came into force, resulting in some unnecessary duplication and possible causes of confusion. The UK IPO plans to produce a new consolidated edition of the Rules, incorporating numerous changes. This consolidation has four purposes:* consolidation of existing changes to the Trade Marks Rules 2000 in order to increase accessibility and remove existing duplication, inconsistency and possible confusion;UK IPO wants to receive the widest possible range of views on the proposals, which you can read as a PDF Modernisation and consolidation of the Trade marks rules (442Kb) or as a Word document Modernisation and consolidation of the Trade marks rules (3.87Mb).
* bringing the UK fully into line with international best practice and enabling ratification of the Singapore Treaty;
* making the tribunal system more flexible, efficient and proportionate;
* introducing business changes so as to increase the speed and efficiency of processes and reduce costs.
The deadline for responses to this consultation is 26 May 2008, by which time any post-INTA Meeting hangovers should have cleared. Comments may be sent by email, fax or post to Trade Mark Rules Consultation, Room 2 R20, UK Intellectual Property Office, Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport NP10 8QQ (email consultation@ipo.gov.uk). The IPKat is sad that there are no prizes for the best responses. Merpel says, I like that bit about the previous changes "resulting in some unnecessary duplication": this is to be contrasted, presumably, with "necessary duplication" ...
Modernisation and consolidation of the UK trade marks rules
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
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
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html