Such is the case before us. The simplicity of the application of the rule comes at a price. Sometimes it will lead to results that are inconsistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is the price we are forced to pay for the choice of the "rule". Yet, in many cases, the legislature is willing to pay the said price, in order to reach a legislative arrangement that is easy to implement, which provides stability and certainty.
- In our case, it is easy to determine that we are dealing with a legislative arrangement full of rules. The limits of the duration of protection are well defined (section 64B(2)); the conditions for granting an extension order are also clearly and clearly detailed ( section 64D), including the terms of both states; the date by which it is possible to fill in the gaps and correct defects in the applications for an extension order is set at a fixed period (section 64T(a)); the dates accompanying the examination of the application for an extension order are also clear ( section 64E); and so is the period of validity of the extension order (section 64I).
In contrast to the flow of these rules, the lack of use of legal standards is conspicuous, even though these are also addressed. Thus, for example, it was held that an application for an extension order must be filed in "good faith" (section 64B(1)). However, this is the exception to the rule that testifies to the rule - literally.
Of course, it should be mentioned that we are concerned with human legislation, and as such it may give rise to interpretive dilemmas, the need to deal with deficiencies that require completion, and so on and so forth, issues that can arise even under a regime of rules. Individual arrangements can also give rise to dilemmas and legal disputes. Still, on the agenda is a set of rules that will promote - at its core - certainty and stability.
The appellant's interpretive position cannot be accepted
- And having gone through all of this, I am of the opinion that the appellant's interpretive approach cannot be accepted, and no reason was found to intervene in the decision of the Honorable Deputy Registrar.
- At the basic level, I accept the position of the Patent Office that the process at hand moves along the timeline towards thejunction where the fate of the extension order is decided for the tribe or chesed. And when an extension order is granted, it "swallows" the previous stages along the way.
Thus, at the outset, an application for an extension order is filed (section 64E(a)). If the conditions set out in the legislation are met, a notice of intention to grant such an order must be published (section 64E(c)). If the conditions are not met, the application must be rejected "within sixty days from the date of completion of the examination of the application for an extension order" (section 64E(d)).