 |
| Option 1: the Slovakians learn to speak Cat Option 2: the Kat learns to speak Slovakian Option 3: use that translation program! |
"Huťko is very happy about this not only because of endless research material that will be now online, but also because the strict anonymisation rules (critised also by IPKat here) seems to be eventually abandoned. Moreover, non-binding decisions, which are e.g. under appeal will be available upon the individual request based on Information Freedom Act. The system thus provides very good start for participation of civil society within the court system. Something the European Information Society Institute is already building with its amicus curiae briefs in the field of intellectual property and information technology law".Even more gratifying than the conceit that the Slovak Ministry of Justice listens to the IPKat's every mew is the news of yet another small step towards the desired goal of being able to access IP case law wherever it might be, at no additional cost and armed only with a search engine and a translation program. Merpel is thrilled to see the phasing out of the anonymisation rules, which may make sense in litigation over delicate personal and family issues such as the custody of children following a family breakdown but which seem pretty pointless in commercial disputes involving owners of registered IP rights whose identity is a matter of public record.
Slovak rulings go online -- with no hiding place for litigants
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
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
Good news. If their cousins next door in Prague would do the same thing then that would also be a great step forward. From experience, trying to find out what has been going on in front of the Czech patent office in patent revocation actions concerning pharmaceutical products has been an utter nightmare. The rules about "standing" (meaning that information about a revocation action can only be provided to someone with an interest in the proceedings) are, dare I say, Kafka-esque. Come on Prague, if Bratislava can do it, so can you.
ReplyDelete