Update 16 March 2012: The Handbook is now back online, having reappeared as silently as it disappeared. Thanks to the anonymous commenter below and to Fiona Mercey for letting the IPKat know.
On Friday, the IPKat welcomed the appearance of a new EPO publication - the Handbook of Quality Procedures before the EPO.
On Friday, the IPKat welcomed the appearance of a new EPO publication - the Handbook of Quality Procedures before the EPO.
 |
| Let us know if you spot the Handbook |
The "Handbook of quality procedures before the EPO" has been temporarily removed but will be re-published soon. We would like to ask for your patience and will inform you about the status of the publication as soon as possible.
If any readers can tell the IPKat, officially or otherwise, about the reasons for the withdrawal of this useful publication, or the likely date of its reappearance, readers will no doubt be grateful.
Not a Whistleblowers' Charter
Still on the subject of the EPO's Handbook, the IPKat's previous post triggered the following amusing observation from Gareth Probert, of Potter Clarkson. Gareth says:
I thought the most interesting part of the Handbook was section 8 and Flowchart X concerning the filing of Complaints. There is little (no?) other information from the EPO about how to make a complaint, or how the EPO handles complaints so this section is very helpful.
The Handbook tries to assure users that “There will be no negative consequences for the complainant merely because he files a complaint”, but I would feel more confident about filing a complaint if the Handbook did not have the caveat that “This document is not binding either on the EPO or on users and their representatives”…
Whizzkid's Handbook temporarily confiscated
Reviewed by David Brophy
on
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Rating:
Reviewed by David Brophy
on
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
I like the lack of an insincere and unnecessary apology that you would get if this message had come from a UK institution or company.
ReplyDeleteIt's back: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/handbook.html
ReplyDelete