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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll