tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6337380364398375060..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Toy marks under scrutiny: is there a rift between OHIM Appeal Boards?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66812194665289602802014-11-13T15:33:09.922+00:002014-11-13T15:33:09.922+00:00I am puzzled why these were not rejected under Art...I am puzzled why these were not rejected under Art 7(1)(e)(i) or (iii)? Surely it is the shape of these goods that is giving them much of their value (and that the applicant is trying to monopolise).<br /><br />These are classic cases of 3D product designs, for which Reg Des protection is ideal, being touted as trade marks to try to get a longer period of protection. Use of Art 7(1)(b), rather than Art 7(1)(e) which is designed for the case, strikes me as a lazy bit of examining, especially since Art 7(1)(e) would have excluded Art 7(3)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com