Define the decision
Choose the question a public authorisation entry must answer: which entity may use which mark, for what scope, during which period and under which current status? Give each entry a stable reference and a last-update date. Directory presence, an application and an accepted authorisation should have distinguishable descriptions.
Build a usable record
Maintain a private decision record containing the review evidence, responsible authority, version and internal contacts. Derive a smaller public entry from explicitly approved fields. A useful public record may identify the entity, authorised scope, status, effective dates and a contact route. It should not disclose customer files, signatures, personal addresses or unrelated commercial evidence.
Check the evidence boundary
Publish only decisions that an authorised process has actually made. An editable browser field or a badge uploaded by a participant is not proof of authorisation. Define how changed, expired, suspended and withdrawn entries remain understandable. Preserve the historical decision record without presenting old permissions as currently valid.
Worked example — illustrative
In a fictional registry, a company is authorised for one project-specific application of a mark. The public entry names that project scope and its validity period, while the private review retains supporting documents. A separate directory profile links to the entry but does not broaden it into a general licence.
Put the method into practice
Use the public-summary template to propose fields and wording, then have the responsible authority review the entry. Check both direct viewing and search previews for accidental private details. Leaf’s current public guidance explains the method; publishing an operational register with authenticated decision changes depends on the shared engine.
- Name entity and exact scope.
- Separate private and public fields.
- Display current status and update date.
- Require actual publication authority.
