tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8949179213450568522..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: IPKAT v IPAT: your chance to advise!Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91178167087158214932009-12-03T07:53:22.604+00:002009-12-03T07:53:22.604+00:00Drifting a little off-topic, this week's Lawye...Drifting a little off-topic, this week's Lawyer magazine has a full-page advert for a job with the EPO in which one of the skills required is an ability to present cases in a "well-agued manner".<br /><br />A pox on both their houses?Mark Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407839707461689152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81242258832620327122009-12-02T17:11:36.741+00:002009-12-02T17:11:36.741+00:00Please notice the first trade mark judgement from ...Please notice the first trade mark judgement from the General Court this day:<br /><br />'40 Although it is correct, as the Board of Appeal observed, that the beginning of a sign is of importance in the global impression created by that sign, it cannot be denied in the present case that there is a degree of similarity, in view of the identical pronunciation to which a very large part of each of the signs at issue gives rise, namely four of their five letters. <br /><br />41 The Board of Appeal therefore made an error of assessment in not recognising that there is a certain degree of phonetic similarity between the signs at issue.'<br /><br />In the IPKat-case I believe the conceptual dissimilarity is decisive: we all se or her the cat in the IPKat-mark...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87124288575915405972009-12-02T17:11:36.742+00:002009-12-02T17:11:36.742+00:00Surely this is a classic case for a trade mark del...Surely this is a classic case for a trade mark delimitation agreement between the parties whereby the IPKat agrees to registration of IPAT (and possibly to a narrowing of the services for which IPKAT is registered) in return for Ipat's agreement to narrow the services for which IPAT is registered so not to cover the IPKat's patch (and possibly other things as well, such as not to register IPKat's services elsewhere). Come on IPKat, show everyone how these situations should be resolved - by agreement not litigation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86876045284038025542009-12-02T15:58:05.892+00:002009-12-02T15:58:05.892+00:00All this is enough to confuse me. Actual instance...All this is enough to confuse me. Actual instances of confusion; let's oppose!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10713724119374024482009-12-02T15:30:24.084+00:002009-12-02T15:30:24.084+00:00Well.. the point is it is easy to mistype... if I ...Well.. the point is it is easy to mistype... if I were looking for one of your seminars perhaps I would type in ipat by mistake..<br /><br />and of course, you are looking good for 1803 years of blogging!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88862470513180976232009-12-02T15:19:57.582+00:002009-12-02T15:19:57.582+00:00How does anonymous know that, in the post on 31 Ma...How does anonymous know that, in the post on 31 May 2006, he was referring to himself as the IPAT and not referring to the real IPAT?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-52365724172821925442009-12-02T15:13:43.140+00:002009-12-02T15:13:43.140+00:00Anonymous 2:55pm. Quite right! It was a typo, not ...Anonymous 2:55pm. Quite right! It was a typo, not unlike the one which appears in the date you cite in your comment :-)Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64435689428159829882009-12-02T14:55:10.062+00:002009-12-02T14:55:10.062+00:00Hmm... on 31 May 206 you actually referred to your...Hmm... on 31 May 206 you actually referred to yourself as the IPAT on this site....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com