Fortunately, according to the appended Correlation Table virtually all the Articles of 89/104 retain their numbering in the new version. Any inconvenience experienced by the trade mark professions is nothing compared with what will happen when the Community Trade Mark Regulation is codified (see earlier posts here and here).
Fortunately, according to the appended Correlation Table virtually all the Articles of 89/104 retain their numbering in the new version. Any inconvenience experienced by the trade mark professions is nothing compared with what will happen when the Community Trade Mark Regulation is codified (see earlier posts here and here).
So what (if any) significant changes are there between the old directive and the new one?
ReplyDeleteI noticed that in relation to dilution infringement "not similar" remains (in other words, the Directive does not take account of Adidas v Fitnessworld). One wonders why this could not have be resolved.
ReplyDeleteI think that, to resolve the "not similar" issue, the process would have had to be a truly legislative one rather than a mechanical consolidation/codification exercise. Once that happens, all the other bits of the Directive are presumably up for grabs too.
ReplyDeleteIt's strictly a codification of existing texts (the initial directive and it's later amendments). There is no substantive change in the new text.
ReplyDeleteApparently the Internal Market directorate of the Commission had nothing better to do. There are a couple of other IP texts which have been codified as well or are about to be.