New Zealand accedes to Madrid Protocol (minus Tokelau)

Avid IPKat readers will be aware of New Zealand's imminent accession to the Madrid Protocol (see post here) but the actual date has long been the subject of speculation.  Now though, via a triple announcement of WIPO Information Notices, we know that 10 December 2012 is the all important date when owners of international trade marks may designate the Land of the Long White Cloud or Aotearoa.

But it looks nothing like a flightless bird?

Much like the UK, New Zealand designations must be accompanied by a declaration of an intention to use the mark in relation to the goods and/or services specified. The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand will also have up to 18 months to notify applicants of a provisional refusal of protection and may still refuse protection after the 18 month period following an opposition (though this Kat hopes the majority of applications will be processed well before this). 

Curiously [but crucially for those brands seeking protection in all jurisdictions - Merpel], the tiny island of Tokelau will not be covered by an international designation of New Zealand.  Fortunately however, the island with 1,411 occupants (in October 2011) is still covered by a domestic New Zealand application.  This Kat has no doubt that there is currently fierce debate in Tokelau as to whether it should join the international trade mark registration system.
New Zealand accedes to Madrid Protocol (minus Tokelau) New Zealand accedes to Madrid Protocol (minus Tokelau) Reviewed by Robert Cumming on Wednesday, October 10, 2012 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. They are better off if they are left off the insanity called IP.


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.