The UK has launched the formal process of withdrawal negotiations by formally announcing the European Council`s intention to leave the EU. If, before the end of the transitional period, a person entitled to represent a natural or legal person before the Office of the Union of Intellectual Property under EU law represents a party in an ongoing proceeding before that function, that representative may continue to represent that party in that proceeding. This right applies to all stages of the proceedings before the Agency. On the issue of the Irish border, there is a protocol on Northern Ireland (the “backstop”) which is attached to the agreement and establishes a position of withdrawal which will only come into force in the absence of effective alternative provisions before the expiry of the transition period. In this case, the UK will eclipse the EU`s common external tariff and Northern Ireland will stick to aspects of the internal market until such an event is carried out. Neither party can unilaterally withdraw from this customs union. The aim of this backstop agreement is to avoid a “hard” border in Ireland, where customs controls are needed.  The EU and the United Kingdom have reached an agreement on the withdrawal agreement with a revised protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland (abolition of the “backstop”) and a revised political declaration. On the same day, the European Council (Article 50) approved these texts. On 6 September 2020, the Financial Times reported that the UK government was considering drafting new laws to circumvent the protocol of the Northern Ireland Withdrawal Agreement. The new law would give ministers the power to determine which state aid should be notified to the EU and to define which products at risk of being transferred from Northern Ireland to Ireland (the withdrawal agreement stipulates that in the absence of a reciprocal agreement, all products are considered vulnerable).  The government defended this approach and stated that the legislation was in accordance with protocol and that it had only “clarified” the volumity in the protocol.  Ursula von der Leyen warned Johnson not to violate international law and said that the implementation of the withdrawal agreement by Britain was a “precondition for any future partnership”.  On 8 September, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Northern Ireland, Brandon Lewis, told the British Parliament that the government`s internal market bill would “violate international law”.”  The agreement defines goods, services and related processes. Any provision of goods or services legally put on the market before leaving the EU may be made available to consumers in the UK or in EU Member States (art.