The IPKat is not sure whether this is a joke, so he will let his readers figure it out for themselves. According to an anonymous tip-off, the UK-IPO (the IPKat still prefers its proper title of 'The Patent Office') is to change its name again. This is, as readers will know, the second name change in just over a year.
The current logo.
The new logo.
Some may think the new logo is quite pretty. Others might even think that the change is in the logo only, and the name remains the same. The IPKat, however, agrees with the tipper-off that something appears to be fundamentally wrong with it. The new logo appears to suggest that they (the patent office, that is) are the property office for intellectuals, rather than the office for intellectual property. The IPKat is now confused. Merpel, however, is more concerned with that crown mark, which looks vaguely like the Office is getting royal pretensions. What does it all mean?
UPDATE (28/11/08): It's true! See here (before it all disappears to be replaced with something even more incomprehensible).
Hello? Is that the Property Office for Intellectuals?
Reviewed by David Pearce
on
Friday, November 21, 2008
Rating:
Reviewed by David Pearce
on
Friday, November 21, 2008
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[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
if you 'join the dots' it looks like a cupcake with a cherry on top - or perhaps these are rising bubbles in tribute to the O2 v 3trade mark case?
ReplyDeleteeither way this is a bad thing as I will want a cake and/or a G&T whenever I see this logo
I'm appalled that HMG sees fit to set up a "Property Office" for Intellectuals.
ReplyDeleteMany intellectuals of a more Marxist bent reject the concept of "property" altogether. It is utterly discriminatory and demeaning to force such intellectuals to use a "Property Office".
I propose a picket line...
At least it's not a light bulb.
ReplyDelete"Hello, is that the Intellectual Property Office? I'd like to buy an intellectual..."
ReplyDeleteUK Trade Mark Application No. 2501853 would appear to confirm that this is the new logo.
ReplyDeleteEven more confusing than the bubbles is the lack of the "UK".
Is it like a lost property office? Will there be umbrellas and stuff?
ReplyDeleteThe logo looks like bubbles coming up from the bottom of the sea, as if the new UKIPO headquarters were some underwater refuge in a science fiction movie. Perhaps with global warming...
Is appears to be the mark of a property office that operates on an “intellectual” basis, in contrast, let’s say, to a “Joe Six Pack" property office. Therefore, it’s either descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive.
ReplyDeleteOne detail that I find notable is that Application No 2501853 is for a series of 4 marks (the mark as shown by the IPKat, both in colour and monochrome; and the bubble/crown design on its own, ditto).
ReplyDeleteThe Registry regularly rejects "series" applications comprising a logo with and without words, as not being within the terms of S41(2). I will be very interested to see if this series is allowed unamended...
PS I'd also like to see which marks they cite in the relative grounds search. I would hope that they would start with the old UNITED KINGDOM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE registration, which is still in the name of the DTI (RIP)...
This reminds me: I once had a client come to me via a lawyer in our firm's (corporeal) property department. He had an intellectual property question, and was put through to our property lawyer with an assurance from the switchboard operator that he was a very clever man.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the packaging of a combined ant-acid & headache remedy
ReplyDeleteThey seemed to have borrowed one from here:
ReplyDeletewww.sciencedirect.com