IPKAT RANT: THE LANGUAGE ISSUE (AGAIN)

The Court of First Instance gave judgment yesterday in Case T-8/03 El Corte Ingl�s v OHIM - Pucci (EMILIO PUCCI). It is available in a number of languages including Latvian, Lithuanian and Slovak -- but not English.



The IPKat wonders why the European Commission spends his hard-earned money on a variety of causes all over the world, but won't provide enough cash for immediate translation of cases involving EU law into the world's most widely-used language in intellectual property circles. Who, he wants to know, is the person responsible for the translation of ECJ and CFI cases? What is the basis of current translation policy? Does it have any official sanction? How are English-speaking lawyers expected to compete in the provision of legal advice, with lawyers from France, Germany and other countries in the lucrative market for intellectual property services when the others can rely on official texts and translations but English-speakers must make to with unofficial translations? Why is this state of affairs being allowed to continue? How much would it cost to provide timely translation of ECJ and CFI decisions in all main EU languages? What is the Department of Trade and Industry in the UK doing about it? Why is no-one else shouting?



Merpel says "I agree".