Confused about the effects of IP Translator? The tmdn offers help ...

As many of our readers will recall, about a year ago the CJEU delivered its eagerly awaited ruling in IP Translator (C-307/10, see IPKat reports here), inter alia and most notably calling for convergence on the interpretation of the general indications of the Nice Class Headings. It is a topic that does not seem to go away, having been of interest before and during this Kat’s sabbatical and apparently still being of interest now.

So if you – just like this Kat – have been wondering how each of the national trade mark offices is applying the CJEU’s guidance, there is a document compiled by European Trade Mark and Design Network (in short, the tmdn) that might be of profound help to you.  Who or what is the tmdn?  According to information available on the UK IPO’s website, the tmdn is “.... an initiative to reduce the differences in practices between the national offices and also OHIM” and it also aims to “provide different options for protecting trade mark and design rights within the EU.”

Just 9 pages to read ....
In the words of the tmdm itself:  “Without prejudice to the fact that each Office is bound by its national legislation, national court decisions and, in some cases, previous communications, there is a willingness and a need to collaborate with a view to implementing this Judgment in a harmonised manner in order to provide legal certainty both for the competent authorities and the economic operators.

The tmdn’s document relating to IP Translator includes information and helpful overview tables on how the various offices deal with the following:

·      Trade marks filed before IP Translator containing entire Nice Class Headings; interpretation by the Office of the scope of protection of the class headings of its own trade marks

·      Trade marks filed after IP Translator containing entire Nice Class headings

·      Interpretation by the office(s) of the scope of protection of its own trade marks as well as how those offices reflect the applicant’s intention with respect to the class headings and/or the alphabetical list

·      How the scope of protection of CTMs containing general indications of the Nice Class Headings will be interpreted.

·       OHIM interpretation of the scope of protection of national TMs containing general indications of the Nice Class Headings (Before and After IP Translator)

Most crucially it also includes a table dealing with “Trade marks filed after IP Translator containing the entire class heading: how can the applicant obtain protection for the full alphabetical list?”  This Kat will certainly have a printout of this document on her desk for easy reference and she hopes that the tmdn will issue updated editions as and when national practices will change.

The English language version can be found on the UK IPO’s website and by clicking here.  
The German language version can be found on the DPMA’s website and by clicking here.

If our readers have links to versions in languages other than English and German, please feel free to post these links in the comment box below.  Merpel is of the view that Birgit should perhaps check the tmdn’s website for other language versions.... - but Birgit is already dashing back to her own little kitten.
Confused about the effects of IP Translator? The tmdn offers help ... Confused about the effects of IP Translator? The tmdn offers help ... Reviewed by Birgit Clark on Monday, July 01, 2013 Rating: 5

2 comments:

  1. Portuguese version: http://www.marcasepatentes.pt/files/collections/pt_PT/1/5/209/Comunica%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20comum%20sobre%20a%20implementa%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20do%20acord%C3%A3o%20%C2%ABIP%20Translator%C2%BB.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  2. And the Spanish version here:
    http://www.oepm.es/comun/documentos_relacionados/Noticias/2013/2013_05_06_ComunicacionConjunta.pdf

    ReplyDelete

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

Powered by Blogger.