CLASS 99
The blog for design law, in Europe and worldwide. This weblog is written by a team of design experts and fans. To contribute, or join us, or for any other reason, email class99@marques.org.
Want to receive Class 99 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
TUESDAY, 28 JULY 2009
New UK design practice note on priority
The UK IPO has today posted a new practice notice, Designs Practice Notice DPN 1/09, on a simplified priority claim procedure. Here are CIPA's Designs and Copyright Committee comments on a draft version, by way of background.
Essentially, where you're just filing the identical design in the UK, you can so declare on a special form and thus avoid the need to file a certified copy. Interesting issues arise in relation to the difference (if there is one) between identical representations and an identical design, which the IPO discuss in their DPN. There may also be unresolved questions about the effect of other elements of a design application, such as the identified goods/title.
By way of background, courtesy of the IPO, of UK designs filed in Q1 2009, only 4.1% had convention claims (of these 40% were filed by unrepresented applicants and 60% through agents) as opposed to more than 50% before the introduction of the Community design system. Thus, though a welcome simplification, this measure is unlikely to have major impact on most design system users. Posted by: David Musker @ 12.27
Tags: priority, uk,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA24
New UK design practice note on priority
The UK IPO has today posted a new practice notice, Designs Practice Notice DPN 1/09, on a simplified priority claim procedure. Here are CIPA's Designs and Copyright Committee comments on a draft version, by way of background.
Essentially, where you're just filing the identical design in the UK, you can so declare on a special form and thus avoid the need to file a certified copy. Interesting issues arise in relation to the difference (if there is one) between identical representations and an identical design, which the IPO discuss in their DPN. There may also be unresolved questions about the effect of other elements of a design application, such as the identified goods/title.
By way of background, courtesy of the IPO, of UK designs filed in Q1 2009, only 4.1% had convention claims (of these 40% were filed by unrepresented applicants and 60% through agents) as opposed to more than 50% before the introduction of the Community design system. Thus, though a welcome simplification, this measure is unlikely to have major impact on most design system users. Posted by: David Musker @ 12.27
Tags: priority, uk,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA24
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 99 Archive
