tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8305752057882445750..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Tinkering with IP threats: Commission consults, Parliament proposes and Robin roarsVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3672631904736692172015-08-18T15:05:54.048+01:002015-08-18T15:05:54.048+01:00Dear Kats
Just a couple of points we would like ...Dear Kats<br /> <br />Just a couple of points we would like to pick up on regarding this post. <br /> <br />This project has been running for three years and you have very kindly carried pieces for us and links to all our previous publications. The consultation paper piece (http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/monday-miscellany.html) described the two possible approaches to reform on which we sought views. <br /><br />The one on the report (http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/threateners-dont-fret-your-concerns-may.html) explained that there was not enough consultee support to introduce the wider reform we had proposed and set out instead what had been supported. As with all our law reform projects, consultees' responses helped to shape our policy.<br /> <br />Sir Robin has always been very clear and consistent about his preference for wider reform to replace the current law. We quoted him in the report (http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/patents-trade-marks-and-design-rights-groundless-threats/#patents-trade-marks-and-design-rights-groundless-threats) and put his full consultation response on our website, along with all the others (http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/patents-trade-marks-and-design-rights-groundless-threats/#patents-trade-marks-and-design-rights-groundless-threats-3). We have already assured him that we will publish his most recent comments, in full, in the final report.<br /> <br />The draft of the bill your correspondent saw, and that you now have, is an early version of a work that is still in progress. “Test driving” early versions of a bill in confidence for comment like this is something we often do. We find it very helpful to have the major issues pointed out to us early on so we can redraft. <br /> <br />The bill has gone through at least five significant redrafts as we have responded to feedback from stakeholders, who were not limited to the professions but covered a wide range of interests. When we were asked if the early draft could be published we explained that we had already started making changes and that releasing it would just confuse things. The same goes for the explanatory notes.<br /> <br />We had intended to ask if IPKat would carry a piece and a link to the final report and the bill, which we will be publishing in a few weeks. We very much hope that is still possible as we greatly value the assistance we have been given with this project so far.<br /><br />Julia Jarzabkowski<br />Law CommissionAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12273530162224822536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37272947447905710002015-08-15T08:45:36.779+01:002015-08-15T08:45:36.779+01:00Vexed,
When the choice is between getting some co...Vexed,<br /><br />When the choice is between getting some consultation on the understanding that the document being consulted on is to be kept confidential, or no consultation, I hope that CIPA will always take the former route. What is perplexing is that CIPA seem to have been told a document is confidential whereas other organisations appear to have received, or have taken, a different message.<br /><br />As for CIPA knowledgeability, perhaps they are knowledgeable because they know how to keep secret that which is imparted in confidence: rather like a patent attorney.<br /><br />Perhaps working on a CIPA committee might be a way to assuage your curiosity?Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52560517656866651962015-08-14T14:27:53.790+01:002015-08-14T14:27:53.790+01:00In addition to my previous comment, I was surprise...In addition to my previous comment, I was surprised that the UK mediation service appear to acknowledge the part legal costs serve in trademark disputes. When legal costs are limited to just £2000 one might reasonably conclude that a smaller party holding a trademark was acting irrationally if they defended their trademark against a much larger party, a party who repeatedly referred to the substantial legal burden the smaller party would have to carry if they defended the trademark. In my instance, the UK mediation service pursued a pragmatic outcome which consequently protected me from the legal expense but deprived me of a functional trademark! T.C. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63320234412589541712015-08-14T12:01:53.303+01:002015-08-14T12:01:53.303+01:00You state the intention is to deter IP rights-hold...You state the intention is to deter IP rights-holders from issuing unjustified threats to sue people for infringing their IP rights.<br /><br />Lets not forget the small. A fledgling company, holder of a legitimate well promoted and well regarded trademark, may be faced by an aggressive competitor who disregards repeated warnings of a likelihood of confusion and sets about using threats of high legal cost to hijack a trademark. The cost of law alone can be used to deprive an IP rights holder of their IP rights. T.C. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29028118269229802272015-08-14T11:32:45.882+01:002015-08-14T11:32:45.882+01:00We have to be impressed by the knowledgeability of...We have to be impressed by the knowledgeability of CIPA on this- In the latest journal they also comment on reform of appeal routes in IPEC - a plan of which ordinary mortals are not privy. If CIPA know these things they should publish at least to their members.<br />VexedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com