Several responses have been received to this Kat's request for assistance (here) in relation to the differences between EU national marks and a Community trade mark, mainly relating to the UK. The majority relate to geographic differences, which tend to have been well covered in various blogs, including Daniel Smart's, The Smart Trade Mark Blog here.
Good points have also been raised about specifications, the mechanisms for conversion back to a national mark and the recordal of third party interests. Much less is known about non-UK marks.
Am I really that different? |
Is a UK registration really a snowy dove trooping with crows? Or do other EU marks have similar escutcheons hidden in the depths of national legislation and custom? If you think you know or know someone who might, please get in touch!
On a related note, this Kat has also had the pleasure of speaking with Jacqueline Winkelmolen, Project Manager at OHIM who was tasked with the 'Creation and harmonization of seniority databases' back in 2011. The project seeks to address the issue that a user may conduct a search of a national trade mark database, see that the status of a mark is indicated as "abandoned", "not renewed" or "expired" and, because there is no indication that seniority has been claimed, believe it is ok to use or file the mark in that country.
OHIM's efforts therefore focused on working with the national offices to harmonise the vocabulary used and ensure that a 'flag' would indicate that seniority has been claimed. Ideally, the user can then click on the link and see the seniority right embodied within the CTM. OHIM's flashy new website which is due in the next few months will link directly from a CTM to the national record from which seniority has been claimed.
No, not that type of flag. |
The new system will certainly make matters more straightforward and reduce the likelihood of stumbling into an Article 34 abyss. This Kat hopes that the offices in Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Spain will see the benefit to be gained by all users of the system and also look to harmonise their databases.
Seniority: an update and database harmonisation
Reviewed by Robert Cumming
on
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Rating:
No comments:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html