A member of the Madrid Protocol listserv asked:
I would like to file an e-subsequent designation for India. The country of origin is the EU and the owner is in an EU-member country. A [Madrid Protocol] application was filed in 2011 designating countries other than India. On the e-Subsequent Designation application page, a number of countries are listed from which to choose to designate protection. India is NOT listed as one of those countries. Am I missing something? Does anyone know why India does not appear in the list of countries to designate subsequent protection to?
I was fascinated to learn why it is that India is a member of the Madrid Protocol and yet an owner of an International Trademark Registration might not be able to carry out a subsequent designation to India. The explanation also offers a reminder how important it is to use an e-validated filing tool from WIPO rather than filing on paper. Continue reading “Why you can’t always count on a subsequent designation being available?”
A couple of weeks ago I had the great honor to visit at WIPO with the heads of some of the PCT processing teams. These are the people at the International Bureau who interact with callers (applicants and patent practitioners) who have questions and problems relating to PCT. One of the things that they mentioned to me, that I found puzzling when I first heard it, is that in recent months they have received ever-increasing numbers of complaints from people who call to report that they try to send faxes to the International Bureau and are unable to do so. Upon reflection I now realize the likely cause of this problem. And it is definitely not that there is some recent malfunction in WIPO’s fax machines.
