tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6433320477986084060..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Over-intellectualisation of European trade mark law -- a fresh exampleVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65425119649429112512011-05-03T09:37:28.086+01:002011-05-03T09:37:28.086+01:00Actually, the Strigl question is a good one to ref...Actually, the Strigl question is a good one to refer. <br /><br />The issue which it addresses happens to be already discussed in the IPO works manual under the M.G.S. MISSILE GUIDANCE SYSTEMS example. However, this IPO practice is one of a large number which are in the practice manual but have no direct foundation in the harmonized EU law. I bet that many other jurisdictions also have a fair proportion of homegrown practices.<br /><br />Questions like the Strigl one are exactly the sort of references we need to pull national practices into greater harmony.<br /><br />I am also not sure that it makes trade mark law more complex in itself since the complexity is already latent in the subjectivity and vague terminology of the tests set out in the primary legislation -- if anything it reduces the complexity by bringing issues out into the open. It does, however, improve harmonization and make it more likely that those doing business across several EU territories will get consistent treatment at the hands of the registries and courts -- which is the point of EU law anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com