CTMO backs down in face of user revolt

01 September 2010

Peter Ollier, Hong Kong and Simon Crompton, London

Chinese trade mark owners' associations won a victory for brand owners in July, as the China Trade Mark Office (CTMO) effectively backed down from controversial requirements on filing documents. The unprecedented reversal appears likely to encourage greater lobbying by the industry.

For a few weeks in June, the CTMO created uncertainty among trade mark practitioners as it introduced what many described as onerous new filing requirements with little consultation.

The guidelines, which were due to come into force on July 1, would have required a trade mark applicant to sign all official forms submitted to the CTMO personally, including applications and oppositions, and to provide a copy of the company's certificate of incorporation.

Lawyers reported that this would have made it difficult for foreign applicants since it would require them to send original, Chinese-language documents by special delivery overseas to be signed...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


INTA Daily News 2012

Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the 134th INTA Annual Meeting in Washington DC

null null null
null null

May 2012

Do you want to be famous?

Famous, well-known, notorious, reputed: everyone wants enhanced protection for their trade marks. But should they, and what does it mean if it is? Emma Barraclough explains



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements