tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4340974767385503150..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Storage and retrieval -- or removal of a trade mark? A strange tale of the NGRSVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60451351242629085712014-03-20T13:11:10.017+00:002014-03-20T13:11:10.017+00:00Wondering if the three earlier comments have all b...Wondering if the three earlier comments have all been posted by the same Anonymous and whether that person was instructed by the claimant. <br /><br />Bet this decision won't go on appeal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23030268600087650492014-03-20T11:51:15.584+00:002014-03-20T11:51:15.584+00:00Somewhat disappointed that our young commentator i...Somewhat disappointed that our young commentator is so relaxed as to suggest that "the court was correct to take a modern approach". The mark is surely misleading the public as a trademark and should be invalid for that reason. Bad faith was perhaps not spot on as the claimant showed that they had not got the best advice from the IPO, but then the IPO is not there to give advice to applicants so they may have been honestly misguided. If so one would expect to see a new application appearing momentarily on the IPO website. Hopefully there will be an appeal. You can hardly make collective and certification marks redundant just as the European Parliament endorses a package that extends them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48424618295664832652014-03-20T11:22:56.480+00:002014-03-20T11:22:56.480+00:00It's also not part of the ratio of the case......It's also not part of the ratio of the case... look at what the counterclaims were.<br /><br />It seems Mr Hill of Counsel put a spin on the arguments, and the court responded, but it was not an argument pleaded in the counterclaimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10890349370624489162014-03-20T08:39:53.948+00:002014-03-20T08:39:53.948+00:00This seems odd: a court overriding the legislative...This seems odd: a court overriding the legislative intent of parliament on the basis that the legislative intent was unfounded. Surely that is a matter for Parliament to consider, and to amend the legislation appropriately if it concludes that the circumstances with regard to which the earlier legislation was drawn are no longer relevant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com