Hi Mirjana, hi Dennis, hi Bill,
thank you very much for putting together that text. I fully agree that
the comments and guidelines from the IP are confusing, in the sense that
it's unclear whether visual similarity entails variant relationships or
not.
In that context, I find the P.S. section one of the most important
comments as it summarises our (or at least my) confusion. Maybe we
should not have it in the P.S. section but rather as a main section.
Another suggestion: should we include the IP's example in our list of
examples (i.e., 1E35 vs. 006B) and at the same time add 014D vs. 006F?
Then we have a letter with line below and without, as well as a letter
with line above and without. I assume the former case is deemed to be a
variant for the IP while the latter case is not. Which to me is
inconsistent. By adding those two examples we point the IP towards this
inconsistency.
In case the list of examples gets too large now, I would rather remove
some other example than leaving out the two from above.
Best regards,
Michael
--
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
------- Technologiepark
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
44227 Dortmund
Germany
Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0
Fax: +49 231 9703-200
Register Court:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
Chief Executive Officers:
Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list