It's faster by CTM -- but should it be?

The IPKat's friend Alfred M. Strahlberg (Strahlberg & Partners, Switzerland) has written to him on an interesting feature of the international trade mark application mechanism:
"Unopposed Madrid Protocol designations of international trade mark applications are granted protection within 11-12 months of the date of notification to the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market, OHIM.

By contrast, many unopposed directly filed Community trade marks (CTMs) are now being registered within 5-6 months of the filing date (I have just searched CTM Online, which listed 318 registrations of CTMs filed between April 1 and April 30, 2009).

This means that CTM proprietors can enforce their rights much earlier than holders of international registrations.

The reason for the discrepancy lies in the fact that the opposition period for designations under the Madrid Protocol commences 6 months after receipt by OHIM, while directly-filed CTMs are published within 2-3 months. In view of the fact that Madrid Protocol designations are neither translated nor classified by OHIM, there is no reason to delay the commencement of the opposition period by 6 months.
I therefore propose an amendment of CTMR Article 156(2) to provide for the commencement of the opposition period within three months instead of six months".
What do the IPKat's trade mark practitioners -- and their clients -- think of this suggestion?
It's faster by CTM -- but should it be? It's faster by CTM -- but should it be? Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, October 07, 2009 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Wow... a country where it is slower to use the Madrid system than a national filing... really? Are you sure? What's that... it's the same in quite a lot of countries? Oh right. What's that about the Pope? I did not know that.... yeah I had heard that about bears.

    Sorry, but not news. Nice way to get some extra exposure, but not news Alfred.

    It is a ridiculous rule, and one that needs changing. Not least because a lot of practitioners get confused by the dates and cannot calculate when the opposition period begins and ends.


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:

Powered by Blogger.