header-logo header-logo

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

Relatively speaking

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll