The consequence thread (Brexit)

[L00b]

And what if the Brexit Act (the repeal of the 1972 act) has one line in it which says "All EU trademarks registered before the royal assent of this act are hereby recognised as UK trademarks".

Whilst you are correct as a matter of 'basic' principle, and what is required to solve the problem will be similar to this -again as a matter of 'basic' principle-, without going into the mechanics of it (which would bore you and all readers to tears and provoke a mass epidemic of glazing eyes with thread readers), it can't be done "that simply" without causing massive problems downhill.

 

Because doing it "that simply" would effectively create and populate the UK Register with a mountain of identical/similar UK trademarks for identical/similar goods/services overnight and glut-out the Tribunal Section of the UK Intellectual Property Office with cancellation/invalidation proceedings for a decade or longer, with an adverse effect on actual trade in the meantime ("do we carry on selling under our TM despite the proceedings? do we rebrand? what are the costs of rebranding? how much custom/goodwill would we lose? what about damages if we carry on and they win? <etc.>")

 

Great news for the likes of me, ££££s x 10³.

 

Correspondingly, an unexpected cost pit for proprietors. Some of whom may subsequently and eventually decide the UK ain't worth the commercial hassle.

 

Have you extrapolated this (comparatively obscure/small) problem to everything else EU law is relevant to in a socio-economic context, yet?

There would have to be something along those lines. British companies selling in Europe need to protect their rights, as do European companies selling in the UK.

British (and other-) companies selling in Europe with existing EUTMs will not 'lose' the balance of the EUTM rights in the remaining 27 Member States.

 

British (and other-) companies selling in Europe will still be able to apply for new EUTMs covering the EU27. They'll just need to also apply for a distinct UK TM (when the art.50 business is done and the UK is properly out) on top, with the extra associated costs (compounded by the anticipated requirement to use EU27 IP professionals for the privilege of filing new EUTMs, since UK-based EUTM attorneys will lose their right of audience at EUIPO for the exact same reason as EUTMs cease to apply to the UK).

 

It's a UK-centric problem, and just a very minor aspect of the UK's plebicide.

Loob is pointing out that there will be increased costs to British and EU companies because of duplicated fees and the costs of managing whatever process is put in place and transitioning to it.

Hopefully, what I managed to point out, or rather illustrate, is the sheer complexity of untangling UK law from EU law with a practical real-life example (topically, consequences indeed).

 

Any which way you twist the Rubik Cube, UK and non-UK trademark owners are now going to pay more for protecting their rights the UK and the EU than they currently do, and that's nothing to do with the falling pound or standard inflation. It can be laid 100% at the feet of the voting outcome.

 

All of the above is a direct and irremediable consequence of Brexit, which I explained weeks before the referendum in the earlier "Referendum" thread and in a "How will your business be affected" thread in the business section.

 

Unlike the £350m-for-the-NHS, under-100k immigration levels, we'll-do-this, we'll-do-that, <etc> peddled by Leave, and unlike the sky-will-fall-on-our-head scenarios peddled by Remain, this is real life known quantity stuff, nothing pie-in-the-sky or fearmongering about it. Because it's international law and legal practice, and consequences of repealing Acts and Treaties are well-known and fully quantifiable. That's how and why I knew about it before the vote, and how and why I know about it now.

 

Just as real-life known quantity stuff, we're setting up an EU office right now, and are not replacing recently-departed UK office staff members. We'll hire for the EU office instead.

Edited July 13, 2016 by L00b

[tzijlstra]

Just want to add, a unilateral withdrawal is possible, just as Unbeliever states, it is just going to create an absolute omnishambles - leaving all sorts of issues up in the air. Unlike popular belief, the vast majority of EU law deals with international matters, like L00b's example - it guarantees unity of trademarks across the single market. The UK does not operate in splendid isolation, it never has and never will.

 

A unilateral departure will kill off passporting and other agreements with the EU, it would lead to all sorts of issues in Ireland, Scotland would be given a jurisprudential mandate to leave the Union instantly, businesses all over the country would all of a sudden have to scramble to rewrite contracts and find out how they are affected - there is not the legal capacity to do that.

 

These negotiations will bare out how these things change and a unilateral departure would kill any UK influence on how these things change - ie. giving the EU full control over these laws, remember that the UK laws are underpinned by EU agreements, EU agreements are not underpinned by UK laws.

[DnAuK]

I don't think it would be anything like that dramatic. Uk law we can arrange is unaffected. How the EU handle things their end is down to them. I don't believe that EU law regarding the UK would suddenly change either. But I'm not 100% on this so do correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

As has been said on this thread already, there are many who voted for Brexit on the back of lies, misinformation, misunderstanding and downright bigotry. But some, like your good self, clearly thought things through.

 

Unfortunately you thought them through on the back of misinformation or misunderstanding. It really can't work like you suggested at all. It would be great if it could. But I said a while back just what the small area of work I deal with, which is underpinned by 5 areas of legislation, will have to go through in light of Brexit. So intertwined is it in EU law.

 

---------- Post added 13-07-2016 at 09:15 ----------

 

There would have to be something along those lines. British companies selling in Europe need to protect their rights, as do European companies selling in the UK.

 

Loob is pointing out that there will be increased costs to British and EU companies because of duplicated fees and the costs of managing whatever process is put in place and transitioning to it. It's one area where the EU has greatly benefitted British companies, and remember this protects companies that don't export too. It stops EU companies selling goods and services that infringe on trademarks into the UK, and protects brands abroad as well.

 

It's just one area of deep complexity where there can be no simple or cheap transition on Brexit.

 

God, I wish I'd trained in law.

 

Exactly this ^^^

[Lex Luthor]

As has been said on this thread already, there are many who voted for Brexit on the back of lies, misinformation, misunderstanding and downright bigotry.

 

And there are many who voted Bremain on the back of lies, misinformation, misunderstanding and downright bigotry too.

 

It couldn't have been arranged any quicker for Cameron's 'removal', once the picture was starting to emerge. He will have to answer for his actions regarding an abuse of his position, just as Mark Carney is having to.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Lex Luthor

[L00b]

It couldn't have been arranged any quicker for Cameron's 'removal', once the picture was starting to emerge. He will have to answer for his actions regarding an abuse of his position, just as Mark Carney is having to.

That to me epitomises what is wrong with the UK right now, so much politics as the mis-sold electorate, and why I'm planning to leave this place soon indeed.

 

Brexit supporters led by the nose by the Tory hardliners (clearly making a play for BoE/MPC influence over the Carney thing), incapable of recognising and valuing assets that have helped and would continue to help the UK transition out at least impact, and choosing instead to unload the entire ammo clip into their feet, rather than seeking first aid after the first shot.

 

You just could not make this up, and there isn't a quadruple facepalm meme for this.

 

Clearly, and very regrettably, it's properly FUBAR'd. The eventual reckoning is going to a sight to behold, and I certainly don't want to be around when that happens

Edited July 13, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

As has been said on this thread already, there are many who voted for Brexit on the back of lies, misinformation, misunderstanding and downright bigotry. But some, like your good self, clearly thought things through.

 

Unfortunately you thought them through on the back of misinformation or misunderstanding. It really can't work like you suggested at all. It would be great if it could. But I said a while back just what the small area of work I deal with, which is underpinned by 5 areas of legislation, will have to go through in light of Brexit. So intertwined is it in EU law.

 

How is it that you imagine these problems will come about if we have first transposed EU law into UK law?

 

Look, I'm not advocating this approach.

I just wanted to put it out there as a legitimate option.

I defend it only because people tell me it's a disastrous idea and I think they're wrong. I'm not saying it's best.

 

Problems only arise in our relationship with the EU, and in our own affairs, if we make sudden changes. This approach avoids sudden changes as there is no immediate change to the law. The only immediate change is in the mechanics of future law-making.

Edited July 13, 2016 by unbeliever

[L00b]

How is it that you imagine these problems will come about if we have first transposed EU law into UK law?

I'll defer again to what I know, so see the preamble to the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 by way of example.

 

This is the UK's current national trade mark law, has been since 1994 when it superseded the 1938 Act.

 

Within it are provisions implementing Council Directives to harmonise trade mark law across all 28 member states (less at the time in 1994, but new EU members have updated their own national trademark law just the same since, and this Act has itself been updated since). This is so that UK TM law is the same as German, French, Spanish, Irish <etc.> TM law (the TM law of all EU member states). Bear in mind that it "only" took 5 years (1989 Directive>1994 Act) to get to that stage.

 

Within it are also provisions implementing aspects of the Madrid Protocol Relating to the International Registration of Marks (international treaty and system for 'international trademarks', nowt to do with EU...but the EU is also a signatory to the Madrid Protocol, so there is some cumulating with the Council Directives above). This is so that UK TM law 'works with' EU, US, JP, AU, CN <etc.> TM law for international applications (1 international application turns into one or more national applications, there has to be some fundamental compatibility to begin with or the system couldn't work).

 

Within it are also provisions implementing aspects of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (another international treaty and system with most relevance to application filing dates, nowt to do with EU and nowt to do with the Madrid Protocol...but again the EU is also a signatory to the Paris Convention, so again there is some cumulating with the Council Directives above - and with the Madrid Protocol to boot). This is so that UK TM law 'works with' EU, US, JP, AU, CN <etc.> TM law for filing dates of equivalent applications (TM applications for same mark in different countries, with later applications backdated to date of filing of the first, again there has to be some fundamental compatibility to begin with or the system couldn't work).

 

Scrap the EC Act 1972 and the automatic consequence is to viciate the TMA 1994 fundamentally, thus the position and inter-working of the UK's TM system in all of the above contexts.

 

It is the reason why, along with EUTMs and EU designs, the UK will also lose the ability to file international design applications under the Hague Agreement (same principle as the Madrid Protocol above, but applies to designs rather than trademarks) - because the UK is a party to the Hague Agreement only by virtue of its EU membership (unlike the Madrid Protocol, which the UK signed up to itself). The obvious thing to do would be for the UK to sign up to the Hague Agreement itself, then update the Registered Design Act 1949 accordingly. That is a process which would take a couple of years, if it's pushed hard at the bum.

 

Look, I'm not advocating this approach.

I just wanted to put it out there as a legitimate option.

I defend it only because people tell me it's a disastrous idea and I think they're wrong. I'm not saying it's best

In the past few posts, I've made my (niche topic) case for the 'disastrous' side.

 

Can I have your case proving me (or another niche or not-so-niche topic) wrong?

Edited July 13, 2016 by L00b

[tzijlstra]

How is it that you imagine these problems will come about if we have first transposed EU law into UK law?

 

Look, I'm not advocating this approach.

I just wanted to put it out there as a legitimate option.

I defend it only because people tell me it's a disastrous idea and I think they're wrong. I'm not saying it's best.

 

Problems only arise in our relationship with the EU, and in our own affairs, if we make sudden changes. This approach avoids sudden changes as there is no immediate change to the law. The only immediate change is in the mechanics of future law-making.

 

You have a contract with someone, you decide that you write their name out of the contract unilaterally. Is the contract still valid?

[Lex Luthor]

That to me epitomises what is wrong with the UK right now, so much politics as the mis-sold electorate, and why I'm planning to leave this place soon indeed.

 

Brexit supporters led by the nose by the Tory hardliners (clearly making a play for BoE/MPC influence over the Carney thing), incapable of recognising and valuing assets that have helped and would continue to help the UK transition out at least impact, and choosing instead to unload the entire ammo clip into their feet, rather than seeking first aid after the first shot.

 

You just could not make this up, and there isn't a quadruple facepalm meme for this.

 

Clearly, and very regrettably, it's properly FUBAR'd. The eventual reckoning is going to a sight to behold, and I certainly don't want to be around when that happens

 

It seems you are happy to point out that Brexit didn't run an entirely clean campaign but not so happy when it is pointed out that Remain didn't either.

[L00b]

It seems you are happy to point out that Brexit didn't run an entirely clean campaign but not so happy when it is pointed out that Remain didn't either.

Does it?

Unlike the £350m-for-the-NHS, under-100k immigration levels, we'll-do-this, we'll-do-that, <etc> peddled by Leave, and unlike the sky-will-fall-on-our-head scenarios peddled by Remain, this is real life known quantity stuff, nothing pie-in-the-sky or fearmongering about it. Because it's international law and legal practice, and consequences of repealing Acts and Treaties are well-known and fully quantifiable. That's how and why I knew about it before the vote, and how and why I know about it now.

Edited July 13, 2016 by L00b