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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll