header-logo header-logo

Relatively speaking

04 October 2007 / Shlomi Isaacson
Issue: 7291 / Categories: Features , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

Shlomi Isaacson explains the new regime for the examination of UK trade mark applications

Practitioners and UK trade mark owners are having to adapt to significant changes in the examination procedure for new trade mark applications which came into effect on 1 October 2007.

In February 2006, the Patent Office—re-branded as the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) after the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property —began a consultation process to assess whether the practice of examining new trade mark applications for conflict with earlier and similar registered marks should continue (see Relative Grounds for Refusal—The Way Forward).

RELATIVE GROUNDS

The refusal of an application on what are known as the relative grounds following scrutiny by a Trade Marks Registry examiner, is a feature of the existing statutory framework that intellectual property (IP) practitioners across the UK have come to know intimately.

Refusal on “relative grounds”, however, is often by no means the sounding of the death knell for a new application or the harbinger of wasted fees. Obtaining a letter of consent from the owner of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll