|Okay, I was only joking--|
but it was funny!
“ How about an official depository of signs used as unregistered trade marks, together with a list of goods or services covered by their non-registration …?”She was only having a little fun and did not mean this suggestion to be taken seriously. Yes, it might be a good task for the European Commission to give the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to tackle once it finishes with the IP Observatory, but the whole point of unregistered marks is that they’re ,er, unregistered.
|No, no -- I distinctly said|
"mediation", not "meditation"
This may not change your life, but it has been reported in one of Europe’s most influential publications, The Decanter, that “EU wines may now be labelled 'organic'”. In short, EU-produced organic wines have won the right to use the labels ‘Organic Wine’ or ‘Vin Biologique’, in place of ‘wine issued from organic grapes’. In real terms,
”The new organic wine-making rules introduce a technical definition of organic wine. These rules include 30-50% less added sulphur than conventional winemaking, no use of additives such as sorbic acid, and a full traceability processes”.A katpat to Cat the Kat, who has a fine nose for wine.
|Why trample on moral|
rights when you can
Feeling mandatory? Fancy a conference? Article 4a of the European Patent Convention (EPC) reads as follows:
A conference of ministers of the Contracting States responsible for patent matters shall meet at least every five years to discuss issues pertaining to the Organisation and to the European patent system.
|The EPO Conference under Article 4a:|
some nations that have given reluctant support
the latest EU proposals may relish the chance
to do a ewe-turn ...
* The unitary patent and the unified patent courts [Merpel is sure that the non-participating states in the latter would like a say as to how this would affect the workings of the EPO];And, at the least, one would expect a report for ministerial consideration on the workings of the changes introduced by EPC 2000: otherwise why was the seemingly mandatory Article 4a introduced?
* Lobbying by the USA for harmonisation with the America Invents Act [how do you politely say no?];
* The perennial subject of backlogs [and the EPO’s ability to increase them through ill-thought changes in (e.g. divisional) practice].
here and here). Richard has nothing to do with this action, so please refrain from asking him for inside information about it!