Hello, my name is Philip Fran Cap. I am a member of the fifth Ward of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, E I P O. And you are listening to IP Fridays. Hello and welcome to this episode of IP Fridays. Our names are Ken, Suzanne and Ralph Clayson, and this is the podcast dedicated to intellectual property. It does not matter where you are from in house or private practice, novice or expert.
We will help you stay up to date with current topics in the fields of trademarks, patents, design, and copyright, discover useful tools and much more. Welcome to episode hundred 33 of IP Fridays, my cohost Ken Zen and I are glad that you tuned in. I have to apologize for last month we didn't post an episode. We had a last minute difficulty with scheduling an interview.
Today's interview guest is Philip , who has been a longstanding member of the boards of appeal of the E O I P O. So we will talk about trademarks today. We talk about Metaverse trademarks, about evergreening of trademarks and much more. But before we jump into the interview, I have news for you, a blockchain based software company. Varied Sale Capital, has filed, uh, patent infringement lawsuit against Coin base at the federal court in Delaware.
And they are asking for damages in the order of 350 million US dollars. Coca-Cola had to change the design of their bottles in the UK after passing away of Elizabeth the second because of the Royal Warrant seal on the bots. Coca-Cola is one of about 800 companies that have to change their design. The companies now have two years to remove the seal from the packaging and to apply for a new seal with King Charles ii, the Swiss Competition Commission.
C O C O has opened an investigation of Novartis over a possible unlawful use of a patent to reduce competitive pressure. The Swiss Competition Commission conducted in early morning rate on the company on September 13. The E O I P O has published the third edition of the Intellectual Property SME Scoreboard and they show that 93% of small and medium sized companies see a positive impact when they own IP rights.
So now let's jump into the interview with Phillip Font cup of the Board of Appeal of the E O I P O. Today's interview guest is Philip pka. If you don't know Philip, he is a member of the Board of Appeal of the E O I P O. Before that, he became a licensed attorney in Germany and France and he has been joining the E I P O in 1998 and he joined the uh, Boards of peer in 2001 and became a member in 2006. So thank you very much for being on the show Philip. Thank you very much for inviting.
Me. So you are the one of the longest serving members of the Boards of Appeal at the U I P O, and you have been following and influencing the case law for long time now. Mm-hmm , the U I P O and especially the Bots of Appeal, started a new effort for consistency of the case law and at the same time preserving the independence of the bots of Appeal. Today we'll talk about lots of different topics like evergreening of trademarks, proof of use, the scope of appeals, the metaverse trademarks,
and much more. However. First, let's talk about how the Boards of Appeal plan to strive for consistency of the case law while preserving the independence of the boards. What is your take? Thank you for Disinteresting question. We are independent, the members of the boards, we are independent and their decisions and they're not bound by any instructions. Uh, and therefore as well today I will only express my own personal view. I may not bind the boards of appeal and not the office.
Obviously in my opinions, coherence is not incompatible with independence and we know that our user wants us to be coherent. Uh, not always possible to be coherent, but we have come up with different instruments to strive for coherence. One of the instruments is the grand board.
We try to take decisions to the grand board, which uh, show where in which we try to solve a case law that might be, that may be incoherent within the boards or even within the general code or with respect to decisions of the Code of justice. We have thousands of decisions every year and other further problem. So the grant boards there is there to help us to settle, uh, different opinions about, for example, procedural questions or asked to the substance.
My myself have been in a number of cases before the brand board, which are part still ongoing. We may come back to them later. We have further, uh, working groups in the office and the board's appeal where we try to reflect the different tendencies which may exist for certain questions, I dunno how to act, how to assess, uh, public policy and principles of morality, how to act with respect to distinctiveness of slogans. We call this consistency reports.
You may find them on the website of the office. If you go to boards, if you go to the website of the office, you will see on the right side an image where um, you can look for the structure of the office. Uh, there you can go to the Boards of Appeal or as well and the practice of the office, uh, boards of Appeal. You may find a list of the ongoing and closed grant board cases.
I think these reports in these cases are interesting. The grand board obviously, uh, manages to harmonize the case flow of the boards norm. It's not easy to work in a grand board because the grand board only, uh, consists of nine members or the chairpersons plus uh, members to have a total number of nine. And you can imagine there is this old saying no, nine lawyers, 20 opinions.
And this we see in the grant board as well because obviously we don't take the easy cases to the grant board and we have an ambition ambitious action plan.
The president of the board of has a very ambitious action plan in which he wants to harmonize and to be consistent due to strive for consistency, not only within the boards of appeal, but also in respect to the first instance and then if possible as well to try to harmonize, uh, to have an agreement with other bodies that are similar to us like boards of appeal of national offices. And we have a whole lot of initiatives in that area.
We are working for the U I P O and working on the boards appeal is something dynamic and I'm very proud of that. So these are three initiatives that we have taken with respect to the consistency there others, but these three are already quite impressive. These are the most important, let's say. So let's, uh, talk about one topic that a lot of people are interested in proof of use. Um, proof of use, uh, for trademarks is one of the most, uh,
important and discussed topics for trademark practitioners. Um, and the ecj has, the European Court of Justice has recently ruled in the test Aosa case that sports cars are not valid subcategory of the good land vehicles and parts, they're off. And what do you think about this decision and can you briefly explain how this decision differs from the previous case law of the board of a peer?
You understand this test also case was a preliminary ruling, a question asked by the, uh, peer code of Thisor, uh, who asked, who had a case on the famous trademark test, which has not been produced since 1990 anymore, which is only on the market for um, use cars second in cars. There were a number of interesting questions, uh, that were raised and that, uh, by the court, which were addressed to the Court of Justice and um,
which to court of justice in more, more or less. Uh, great detail, uh, solved in its judgment. There's another parallel case pending before the Grand Board of Appeal, now campaigning before the fifth Board of Appeal of which I'm a hypothe, so I will not be able to discuss any issues which may relate to the individual case, but obviously can talk about certain aspects of the reasoning of the court of justice.
In particular with respect to the question of subcategories of broad notions, improve views, which in my opinion is something of the most complex we have to do. We don't have so many oral hearing we don't need with the part part with the uh, parties. Um, we don't know the marketplace and we need to decide about proof of use for specifications which may be very broad
and where we may not know the market. Um, so this is quite a challenging, uh, in this test also case the, uh, the German appeal code asked whether land vehicles could be reduced to high price luxury sports cars. And the methodology chosen by the general code that means to put the purpose and the aim of the product first was somehow near by the of, in fact the general code. Since Alaine has developed the case about subcategories and they have, uh, managed to have a quite consistent case.
We had one case before the grant board as well, of which I was the, the case reflects the trademark about the question whether women choose would be a subcategory of footwear. And we said yes and we developed a bit of criteria to apply now the code of justice in this interesting testo officer case added, uh, that it would not be the market segment that would count the market segment well adding because of the
function of origin. Um, and he uh, concluded that since cars are there to transport persons, uh, sports car is a car, uh, the fact that it's luxury does not change and the fact that it's high, that it's high price expensive would not change it either.
So the code of justice, which obviously mainly gave criteria without solving the A case, but showed a tendency to say that there would not be a clear subcategory within the broad notion of land vehicles, at least high price luxury sports cars would not be a good subcategory. Now up to us to apply these findings and to see whether we should not still make a difference between, I dunno, trucks and personal vehicles or motorbikes or bicycles. I dunno, huh. Let's see how to interpret this judgment.
But it was an interesting judgment because it was only the second judgment by the Court of justice on the question of subcategories. Mm-hmm. . Okay, let's see how this develops. Uh, let's, uh, watch your case that is still pending and see what, yeah. We may have some procedural issues there as well, but it has the, the case is really interesting case because it involves a lot of questions of
proof of use. Now the first question is, is the use of used cars, secondhand cars, use of cars is the use of spare parts, use of the product. You may remember that the famous mini max case, which gave us guidance in so many cases foresees that you know, but this was fire extinguisher that the supplies well to cars, oh, sorry, to uh, other types of products which are more complex than fire extinguishers on a
modern level. So very interesting. So we, we still wait as way what the, this would, I think that this would of appeal code has not rendered it judgment yet. At least I'm not away. Okay. Um, but let's stick to the um, grouping of goods and the subcategories and um,
broader terms. So, um, what would be your personal opinion or your advice to trademark practitioners should trademark applicants only use the most general broad terms like land vehicles and parts thereof in the future, uh, following this test Aosa decision? Or should they also include more concrete terms like sports cars, uh, which would lead to longer lists of goods and services?
I think, um, good lawyer will always try to specify in quite specific terms what his clients actually is doing, what is his actual uh, uh, product and tried to specify this in clear terms. He made an add further more general terms, but at least he covers his interest of the clients. People who think that yeah, it's for free and we may just add the class setting of the misclassification, then we cover everything. This is not the practice anymore.
No. Um, and it's not recommended. Yes, you can be broad, but if you are too broad you will have a lot of oppositions and you will have to fight for, um, products in which your client has no interest.
So personally, I'm a fan of reducing the, the, and to be clear in the list of goods and of services, I know it's not always easy, particularly in the field of services and I know that as well when I try to reduce the scope of protection of these for the subcategories and particularly for services can be quite challenging, but at least as well you've suggested to the um, opposition decision or cancellation division cons, opposition division or cancellation division already, uh,
as well the subcategory, no, that we do not start to reinvent the wheel in maybe a market where not so secure, you know, Cause in the end as well, it's the parties who must show us the categories and sub categories, right? So I'm a fan of being more precise in order to avoid conflicts and to protect well your interests.
You remember as well that we had the recent judgment by the court of justice about, um, the intention of about invalidity proceedings when the goods and service were not clear enough for me, A bit surprising the court of justice said that in this sky kick case, sky, sky kick case, that it would not against the public order, uh, not to be clean, precise and it would as well not fall under the function of the trademark to distinguish goods and serves that are clear and precise.
Now, um, there would be no absolute ground for in to challenge list of goods and services which are not clear and precise. But on the other side, the code of trust said as well can be bad faith. If you ask for a trademark, which you do not want to use in its function of origin where you infect intend to do something else, then using the trademark as a trademark.
But sometimes, sometimes the applicants don't know, uh, where they will go with uh, um, with a trademark for example, they ask for a trademark for clothing and then maybe they also decide in five years from now that they also want to show a sales shoes. So then I would always try to preserve the interest of the client and also claim at least the broader general terms. Um, like footwear also.
Yes, uh, fine. Uh, obviously if you want to have, you have clothing you may add, want to add shoes, you made to want to add handbags, uh, which is a different class, uh, um, beds, you may want to add the retail store services for selling shoes, right? Or footwear or, or or clothing. And uh, yes, you can expend no, you would then need always a new if you don't, if you have not thought well at the beginning, you will need a new trademark. Right?
Apply for now in order to have a secure way. However, um, probably you were not, I mean probably you, you, when you can, when you start your business, you will already more or less know in which uh, areas you want to expand know, like, uh, Sky in the Sky Kick case who had the trademark for Mouse. Nobody thinks that Sky will want to uh, use the trademark for mouse traps even as a merchandising product. Right? Just like in Class nine where people usually claim class nine for software or
computer hardware. And then there's also fire extinguishers also . Yeah, yeah. The life saving apparatus. Yes, yes, yes. So when we are talking about, um, protecting trademarks in the right classes, um, I'm just thinking about the Metaverse trademarks, um, these metaverse trademarks, they would typically from my perspective, maybe fall in nine because they're electronic files or so,
but um, other people have other opinions about this. So, uh, let me have your thoughts and maybe you have already, uh, gathered experience with applicants who have uh, even different opinions . So, um, I did not have a case myself, even though, uh, classification issues can be brought to the boards of appeal, if, uh, you do not agree with the classification of the first instance examiner, you may appeal and challenge the classification.
Cause the classification may later narrow the scope of protection of your trademark. If you have a trademark for software and class nine, you don't have it for software as a service in Class 42. Cause these are two different issues. And this is a trap of which you may, if you need to be well aware because if it's about proven views then you may not use your trademark for software if you rent your software or if you render the software as a service if you rent out the software
now. So be vigilant and, uh, the client, your client should be vigilant and revise the list of goods and services from time to time. Good example is the area of metaverse where we ourselves do not know when I'm in a one of these consistency circles within the boards. Discuss issues, goods, services discuss, discussed today. Well, so the practice of the office at the moment seems to be that if you have a perfumery, you do not protect the virtual perfumery, which in its in itself is strange.
No to think of virtual perfumery of perfumer. Virtual of perfumery, but apparently it exists. You will not include that in perfumer in class three, but would be, would be probably in class by depending nine if it is downloadable, if it is not downloadable. But if it is, let's see, in the middle of a only, you don't download anything, then it may be in 41. We would then propose to have it as a part of entertainment service that as part of entertainment service you would have as
well. Then in particular the perfumer, it would not be acceptable for the office to only ask for virtual goods. Would like to know which type of virtual goods and bags of your marine i cars, whatever. Um, if you want to retail these virtual goods would be class 30 if would be renting the software for that. It would be software as a service in 42. So it can be quite complex know and where in the end we will end up at the moment is just the approach the office has taken.
And I think other offices seem to go in the same direction, but it's interesting to see a different blocks that the luxury sector of the market, uh, as well look at this new market now, it's an additional way to protect the brand to have it present in the metaverse. Interesting thought. Uh, I didn't think of class 41 uh, before, but it's a valid argument. Of course, uh, these, uh, the metaverse is more or less, uh, the purpose is the entertainment at the moment, at least .
So it's a very good thought to have, um, to protect or to also protect these trademarks in 41. Yes, cause. Yes, I, I agree. I mean the, I'm not sure if these goods are really download that's in the metaverse somewhere in the virtual world and not download them, but I'm not an expert in these games. I should ask my children, but we try to inform our session. We, we train ourselves as well.
Right? Um, let's talk, um, about the list of goods and services a little more because um, there can be legitimate reasons why lists of goods and services might be quite long. For example, if you have retail services and there's a retailer who wants to say all different kinds of goods like a department store, so, um, then this department store would have to protect the trademark for retail services related to and then all different kinds of goods, like a very long list. And um,
there's another case where there might be reason for long lists. Um, some of the more broader, um, class headings like gardening articles in class 21 or let's stay in 21 for example. Articles for animals are also considered two vague by the U I P O. And so people have to then choose for example, aria bird cages brushes for grooming horses and and so on. So to to have a concrete list of all different kinds of articles
that would fall under these broad terms. Um, so the trademark practitioners would really love to have, um, the class headings more often or to have shorter lists of goods and services. Um, what would be your personal opinion, your advice to trademark practitioners from a perspective of the boards of a peer dealing with cases where the office has decided that certain general terms are maybe accepted or not accepted?
I mean we all understand that the class setting has not, does not have the function to define the scope proof protection of goods. The class setting is a tool to classify certain goods in the next classification at the misclassification, as such is a tool to classify the goods in order to be able to find them eventually as well. To define the fees. No, it's more administrative purpose. Um, to think that the class setting is a good way to define the goods and services.
Mm, I think it was not never a good idea. Um, uh, the office has done quite a considerable effort with taxonomy to offer as well further goods and services. I think we have a pool of terms of something like 60,000, 70,000 indications of goods and services which have been defined and tested and classified and harmonized with other offices. And you find this in our, uh, platforms and to databases in order to help parties to find appropriate term for the business.
Uh, if your and I understand that garden article is very broad and uh, may end up in many products, even in different classes. So, which is not so appropriate, not if you have a general term where the goods that a broad term where the goods, uh, refer to different classes, it's not so appropriate to have it in one class, only because of the it what is included, what is not included and therefore if you does and uh, all the other products you mentioned then is already quite diverse. You know,
like quite varied. Not every um, producer of gardens need such a broad term like garden articles with respect to retail store services still somehow different.
You remember that the retail store service was first accepted by practical Judgment in two six of the Court of Justice and German courts have asked the of justice, uh, the trademark fora, which was the name of, or which is still the name I think of a DIY business, uh, DIY article, uh, store and the Code of Justice thought that this was acceptable. DIY articles, retail store of diy you will not need for the retail store services to exactly then identify every product that is sold.
You can operate with more broader terms. Um, the other day I had a case where it was clear to understand the scope of protection of the retail stores. If we added the class numbers of the goods to which the retail store service referred and the office may still probably often refuse, uh, to mention, uh, the class numbers in the list of the goods in the context of retail store services and the board.
We have accepted it mm-hmm that you can at class because it may be important to render the retail store service more precisely. Uh, my favorite example are the gloves. You can have gloves I think in eight to 10 different classes. . Yes. You know, depending whether it's for clothing, whether it's for security, whether it's for sports, whether it's for a surgery, you can have according to the purpose of the glove. And, and then this may have as well an influence on the type of retail stores.
Not the same to have retail store for motorcycles or for surgery or for during clothing, No. So we accepted them class numbers and I think, I hope this will convince the office further. So let's talk about another topic that we mentioned in the introduction. Evergreening of trademarks. Um, that's always also a hot topic, at least in my opinion. Um, proof of use always is important and evergreening of trademarks is uh, like let's say a subtopic of this more broader topic and is also
quite interesting. Um, if, uh, the listeners don't know what I mean by evergreening of trademarks is to refire mostly identical trademarks, uh, to avoid having to use the trademarks in order to enforce the trademarks. Uh, so for example, filing the same trademark every four years, uh, to avoid the um, novel grace period basically the the the use grace period um,
and to expire. So how do you deal with these kinds of, um, trademarks that are refired the how do you deal with the evergreening of trademarks at the level of the bots of a peer? I think we should have, uh, the legislator look, we the legislator should look into this question because somehow in our impression there's legal situation which we have at the moment is somehow
unsatisfactory. Uh, if we have a normal case, the early trademark is a trademark everybody knows for the last 50 years and we see the defining date is three years old. We think, hmm, what happened here? He did not have a prediction before. But obviously a smart opponent will not base itself on the 50 trademarks of the last 50 years or trademarks of the last 50 years. It will probably only file the trademark of the last, the last trademark he has.
And then we cannot request that the applicant cannot request proof of uses for trademark, which is only registered for the last three years even though we know that it's a refiling. Uh, we had thought at one moment that the notion of uh, trademark in the context of proof of use would be an economic term that we would say that uh, trademark that is registered for more than five years can be open to approve of views that uh, we then take the notion of trademark as an economic term.
If the trademark is in fact refiled several times, then we need to, it is possible to request proof of views. But the general court told us that it's not the correct way to do the general way. Court told us that the correct way to do is a request for of bad faith against the trademark. That means the applicant who wants to challenge the opponent cause his early trademark is a trademark of refining has to attack in separate proceedings, the earlier trademark and bad faith proceedings.
And in the end we see that this is not very frequent and it's then still not automatic. It's not just simply because there is a refiling of a the same you said, the same or similar trademark. If it's a similar trademark maybe modernization, maybe the rest of goods and service is not identical. So it's not so easy to then, it's not automatic at least to come to the result of pet faith. No, not really.
There has been a case like the Pelican case where the logo was changed just a little bit and the cj, the European Court of Justice decided that this little change was actually a modernization of the logo and so it was not um, that faith application. Right. Exactly. Pelican said they needed to uh, modernize uh, the trademark and because with hundred 25 of Pelican and then we said yeah fine every five years they need to refine cause of a modernized trademark.
Right. There's another interesting topic, um, that you have recently dealt with the scope of an appeal. So when somebody files an appeal, what can you actually decide on? So what are the bots of appeal allowed to decide on? You've recently pinned a really long and useful decision in jewel's gens against Jewel and I will put a link to the decision in a show note so people can
read this very long and detailed decision. Um, what are the possible options for the actual scope of an appeal and what did you decide in this decision? Yeah, this is a bit unusual decision. I admit people call, my colleagues call it the book cause so long and we even have added uh, an index. Um, yes it's true, it's an unusual decision because we had uh, an internal debate but not already divergent, but we had an internal debate.
This was my contribution to debate about the scope of in, of Article 22 of the new delegated regulations. And the article is not clear because it says reads that in interpurchase proceedings lack composition, the examination of the appeal or as the case may be, the cross appeal should be restricted to the grounds invoked in the statement of grounds or the cross appeal. Um, this is not clear what does it be restricted to?
The grounds invoked in the statement of matters of law is clarified later need to be raised by an office on initiative when they concern essentially proceed requirements or where it is necessary for the correct application of this is clear but still what is, what are the grounds invo in the statement of grounds in in and the regulation could berated different ways. So in the case at hand, um, the opponent had early trademarks three UK mark two UK marks and won with respect to the first UK mark.
So now when we decided upon the case, UK was out of the European unit and we thought and we we took the decision in line with the caseload, the general court as we understood it at that moment in line with the general approach of the office that if a trademark is not valid at the moment of our board VP decision, there's no confusion and then obviously we reject the opposition at least for this crowd side.
Mark this decision, uh, is Penny before the general court and the question of UK marks is not finally settled yet because there's a divergent case law of the general court. Uh, there are core judgements which take the view that it is for sufficient that the early trademark is valid at the moment of the opposition and does not need to be valid at the moment of the Board of Appeal decision.
And um, the office has filed an appeal with the Court of justice and has managed that the Court of Justice has accepted the appeal to be decide to to decide on the disappear. You know, maybe that the of trust systematically rejects or appeals to the code of justice because um, they have become much more strict. But this is a question which will be dealt by the, so now in this case, as I just said, where not only UK marks but as well European trademarks.
Now the first instance did not decide on the e UTMs now and you had as well like of confusion and repeated marks. Now the first instance had only decided on likelihood of confusion with respect to you reputation was raised only with respect to United Kingdom. So we took the view that in our board that when Article 27 second paragraph says grounds invoked on the statement of grounds, what limit us, then this can only mean that the supplies, if we decide as a board of appeal,
that means as an appeal instance. However, the basic regulation article 71 gives us more options, gives us as well the option to decide in the shoes of the first instance. And obviously the parties have not fired any argument in the statement of grounds. If the first dis instance this or did not decide on the other grounds, obviously the um, appellant the opponent, the, the applicant were lost because of one UK right?
Did not discuss in the statement of grounds the other earlier trademarks because they were not examined yet. So our board decided that um, I think the 27 2 would only limit, uh, the board will appeal to the extent with that we decide as a board of appeal, as an appeal instance, but not if we continue with the further issues. The question whether we are allowed to or whether we should decide on def further issues is a question of discretion which we have
to, to exercise. If for example, proof of uses is initial or reputation, then as a general tendency we would remit first to the first instance because it's a bit unfair to take a decision on proof of use and particularly if it's not sufficient for the first time before the module appeal because later before the general code you will not be allowed to add further evidence.
So that's fair to have a two step two like two uh, step procedure, have the first decision of the first instance of the opposition division or cancellation division on reviews and then come back to the board appeal if necessary. We did not do it in the S case because we considered case out if reputation is limited to the UK and it's limited to the uk, nothing, not, not, not lot to do. We can immediately close the case and then uh, party life can go on and we don't need to remit.
As a question of principle, we have this liberty, this question. Um, we did discuss this question in the boards appear whether we have the Liberty team or not, to what extent we have the Liberty team if we need first to decide on the appeal before we switch to another ground, if we can go immediately to the,
to the other ground. So, um, we had a lot of discussion always and therefore the S case is so long because I took up all the case law with respect to the competency of appeal, uh, and I quoted even the parts of the judgment that referred to the different questions. I introduced each judgment with a small summary of the procedure situation and I harmonize the terminology and the way to quote um, provisions with our way to do it.
That means um, the applicant in the children's decision is the applicant as the applicant of a trademark and not as in the terminology of the general code the applicant who applied before the general code . So it's easier to read. So it's a long decision because you have a lot of case quoted there. But this makes it interesting as well to read to reread the old. Yes, thank you very much. And. We discussed this and we discussed this still internally.
Now we will have one of these coherence reports and the objective is to have a document, a paper, a kind of internal to allow as well parties to know what we think inside of the board appeal, what the parties should raise in the, in the statement of or in the pro appeal. Right? So when do you think will the court office instance decide on the case? What is your your.
I dunno because it was a it the um, general court took it quite seriously and has upgraded the case to an large board and had as well in oral hearing on that in that question, which already took place. I heard from my colleagues that the main issues that were discussed were issues of the UK Mark, whether uk Mark, whether we can ignore UK marks that are not valid anymore
because of Brexit. Maybe they want to correct, I dunno, the caseload before the Court of Justice and let's see, I didn't know maybe, uh, I hope it will be still in, see I don't think it be in, I hope it be early three. This paper, we independently of this are working on it hope as well to decide on a later this year or early next year.
It's a very complex issue because we talk always of very different cases and uh, obviously the recommendation would be to be clear in your statement of grounds or the cross appeal, um, what you attack and what are the points, what are the findings of the decision, you know, do you attack only one trademark or do you take the findings from all your trademarks on which the first instance has taken view?
Do you attack the contested decision on all the goods of which on which the decision has taken review or do you in fact limit somehow the scope to those goods which are core to your interests? You can as a party focus on certain trademarks or certain groups which are more important for you and this can be strategic decision you take. Right? Yeah, it will be an interesting read for the trademark partitioners for two reasons. For one reason being what happens to UK trademarks
as opposing trademarks. And the secondly of course, um, what is the scope of the boards of appeal, how can they decide? And yes. Um, and so that would give us an immediate hint, uh, how to, how to appear, how to ride the grounds for the appeal, right? With one issue I would still like to mention, uh, which is a bit outside of, uh, the scope of the decision,
which Isation mediation. Um, I don't know if you know if you have heard of these services which are offered by the boards of and which we are working on. We are trying to build up a mediation center and we are already quite successful with mediation or ation.
The difference between mediation ation being that the mediation is done by an external mediator, that means external for the board not to the office would be someone from the office, someone from different board will act as a mediator and more formal, uh, rules of mediation and ation is something I can do as a, as a of case, which is not mediation, but as well can give good results, hesitate to think of this other opportunity as
we send the boards of appeal. Uh, good decision is not always decisions, not always the most efficient and appeal. Sometimes agreement is better and pay attention to. Those. And there's one last thing I wanted to mention. Um, you are, um, a frequent writer of different books and the most recent book is Concise European Trademark Loan. So I can uh, place a link to the book, uh, in the show notes as well so people can look at this.
It might be very helpful to see your views on the different case law. It is certainly an interesting book. I obviously, it's my personal opinion and um, obviously you have other group books as well. Consistency reports are much better. . Let's see. Okay, thank you very much for being on this podcast with me and for your very valuable insights for all the trademark partitioners out there. Thank you so much.
Thank you Beverly, Thank you very much for inviting me, was a pleasure and uh, hope you keep in touch. Yes, thank you so much. Keep in touch. That's it for this episode. If you liked what you heard, please show us your love by visiting ip fridays.com/love and tweet a link to this show. We would be so grateful if you would do that. It would help us out to get the word out. Also, please subscribe to our [email protected] or on iTunes or stitcher.com.
If you have a question or want to be featured in one of the upcoming episodes, please send us your feedback at ip fridays.com/feedback. Also, please leave us a review on iTunes. You can go to IP fridays.com/itunes and it will take you right to the correct page on iTunes. If you want to get mentioned on this podcast or even have comments within the next episode, please leave us your voicemail at ip fridays.com/voicemail. You have been listening to an episode of IP Fridays.
The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of nor are they endorsed by their respective law firms. None of the content should be considered legal advice. The IP Friday's podcast should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents of this podcast are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions.
As always, consult a lawyer or patent or trademark attorney. Copyright 2014, all rights reserved. To use the tool.