William Walsh wrote: >I can't cite cases right now, but I remember someone else doing so on one of >these lists where filing a trademark or copyright or related filing for the >purpose of circumventing an existing procedure in another legal process was >grounds for having the filing disregarded in the existing procedure. >I'll look for the reference, IANAL and all that, so can any of the attorney >members please provide some feedback on this? In general terms, in common law jurisdictions (such as England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand and the US) a trade mark filing which postdates the filing of proceedings would have no effect on the resolution of that dispute, for that very reason. It would, in any event, be likely to be opposed by the other party. Separate proceedings would ensue in the Registry, which might or might not await the outcome of the first set of proceedings.
