Not content with setting ever-faster standards for processing IP matters on behalf of its users and their representatives, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) is making sure its users move quickly too. Earlier this year a formal consultation was launched on new set of consolidated Trade Mark Rules dealing with proposed changes to opposition periods and making appropriate reference to marks that designate the UK via the Madrid Protocol. In short, a new version of that popular classic, the Trade Marks (International Registration) Order 1996.This time around the UKIPO is taking the opportunity to give a complete overhaul to the old, much-amended Order in order to increase clarity, certainty and completeness. Another aim of this overhaul is to making it easier to incorporate fresh amendments in the future. Consultation on this is informal since it does not involve any policy changes. The new draft, while looking radically different to the old Order, preserves the legal status quo, as an analysis annexed to the consultation paper shows.
The Order is a highly technical piece of legislation and the approach taken in the draft text may well interest users of the Madrid system. UKIPO would appreciate all comments by 30 June [the IPKat says, that's 2008 ...], which should be sent to Edward Smith. Comments may be sent by email, fax or post to Trade Mark Rules Consultation, Room 2R20, UK Intellectual Property Office, Concept House, Cardiff Road, NewportNP10 8QQ, Wales, United Kingdom, Planet Earth ...
The Informal Consultation can be read in pdf format here and in a larger read-only Word document format that nearly destabilised the IPKat's computer here.
How to achieve clarity here
TM rules to get a good spring-clean -- please advise!
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.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