![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdekXQHjdMus896puIFlD29R8Ds_LRGjt0j2U7TZvfKH5KI72CwttboPyV5VnKTw1izO1IB2JmmOJhSolqw3Bfsf8Tq2mdO9_KQkeWd88hokwqlyfuXK_z8rSO4o8eHC6ZD7Y/s200/numbers.bmp)
According to the correlation table at the back of the document, Articles 1 to 36 are more or less the same, following which things get more confusing.
Connoisseurs of logical stupidity will note with undiluted admiration that Article 8(5) -- the bit that doesn't mean what it says after the Court of Justice made nonsense of its phraseology -- remains untouched and unamended since this thunderingly inconvenient piece of legislative tidying up is a codification, not a reform.
![Major renumbering inconvenience ahead for European trade mark practitioners](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdekXQHjdMus896puIFlD29R8Ds_LRGjt0j2U7TZvfKH5KI72CwttboPyV5VnKTw1izO1IB2JmmOJhSolqw3Bfsf8Tq2mdO9_KQkeWd88hokwqlyfuXK_z8rSO4o8eHC6ZD7Y/s72-c/numbers.bmp)
The date of publication is 26 February 2009, shouldn't you have to add 20 days to that date?
ReplyDelete