 |
| Merpel usually prefers to have a kiss on her lips, rather than comments on AGCOM Regulation |
Further to this Katscoop, the EU Commission’s [and Merpel’s] comments
on the Regulation have been on everyone’s lips [here, here, here].
"Why has the letter remained unpublished for such a long time?", some people asked, while others wondered whether the final text of the Regulation complies with the points that the Commission raised in its letter, notably ensuring that the right of defence is duly safeguarded.
"Why has the letter remained unpublished for such a long time?", some people asked, while others wondered whether the final text of the Regulation complies with the points that the Commission raised in its letter, notably ensuring that the right of defence is duly safeguarded.
A few
hours ago, Mr Michel Barnier, EU Commissioner for the Internal Market
and Services, took position in relation to the letter exposed by IPKat these
points.
 |
| Looking forward to a new version of AGCOM Regulation? |
Merpel
thought that the Regulation AGCOM enacted on 12 December last was the final
version, also considering that Article 18 of the Regulation itself states
that amendments are possible, but only after its entry into force, ie “on
the basis of the experience that has resulted from its application, as well as
technological development and market evolution”.
Hence,
she innocently wonders whether Commissioner Barnier's statement means that the
last word on AGCOM Regulation has not been spoken yet ... and AGCOM and the Commission are (already) working to revise the Regulation ... even before it enters into force [that should be on 31 March
2014]?
Is a revision of AGCOM Copyright Regulation on the agenda? Commissioner Barnier speaks
Reviewed by Unknown
on
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Rating:
Reviewed by Unknown
on
Thursday, January 16, 2014
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
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