Next Tuesday, 16 November, the European Court of Justice rules in Case C-245/02 Anheuser-Busch (another Budfest). This is classed as an "external relations" case rather than as an IP one -- but we know better! The decision concerns the interpretation of Community law concerning trade marks, considering specifically

* whether the TRIPs Agreement applies to an alleged infringement if it commenced before the entry into force of that Agreement but carries on after that date;

* what Article 16 of TRIPs actually means and

* protection of a trade name under Article 8 of the Paris Convention.

The Advocate General's Opinion is still available in just seven EU languages, including Finnish, but not English. Why, the IPKat wonders, is it considered more necessary for Finns to know what's going on than for the English?

On Thursday 18 November we have the judgment in case C-143/04 Commission v Belgium. This is where Europe's leading nation of chocolateers are roasted alive for their failure to implement Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. The IPKat notes that this case has floated effortlessly up the agenda without the apparent publication of any Advocate General's Opinion at all.

The IPKat looks forward to bringing you news and -- if he understands the decisions -- comments, so don't forget to check the blog for them.
FORTHCOMING ATTRACTIONS FORTHCOMING ATTRACTIONS Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, November 12, 2004 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.