REFERRED QUESTION IN ANIMAL v OAKLEY

The UK Patent Office confirms that a reference has been made to the ECJ in the Oakley v Animal design case (here and here). The reference concerns the question of whether Member States can rely on derogations in directives when they are implementing those directives out of time and the referred question is available here.



The IPKat awaits the ECJ’s decision with baited breath and waxed whiskers.
REFERRED QUESTION IN ANIMAL v OAKLEY REFERRED QUESTION IN <i>ANIMAL v OAKLEY</i> Reviewed by Anonymous on Thursday, August 18, 2005 Rating: 5

3 comments:

  1. Not wishing to be a pedant, I think you'll find it's "bated breath": see the discussion at http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, right. Of course you wish to be a pedant!

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, in point of fact. Some are born pedants, others achieve pedantry ... but there are also people called co-bloggers, who have pedantry thrust upon them.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.