SOUNDS FISHY


Despite appearances, the IPKat is in truth a bit of a furry luddite so, even though a number of his readers have tipped him off about it, he has only just discovered Altavista’s Babelfish for himself. Named after the universal translator used by Arthur Dent, Ford Prefect and friends in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, this natty little site takes blocks of text (150 words at a time) and translates them into English or any other language you fancy. This could be invaluable for translating cases that are unavailable in any other way.



The IPKat put in the reasoning part of the OHIM decision in Spa v Cosmetics Ltd, one of the few cases where a successful opposition under Art.8(5) CTMR has been made, but which had been eluding him for months. The resultant text only appeared to have a couple of mistranslations. What he found was that, in comparing the two marks, the Board of Appeal had adopted a global appreciation and had paid particular attention to the distinctive elements of the two marks. While it’s no surprise that they took this approach, which is the same as that taken to judging similarity in confusion cases, thus far the ECJ has not commented on whether particular attention should be paid to the distinctive elements of marks in dilution cases.

The IPKat thinks that it’s a sorry state of affairs that, even though he understands that OHIM makes unofficial translations of certain decisions, he and the rest of the world have to rely on an automatic website modelled on a fictional fish. Wouldn’t it make more sense for OHIM to disseminate the unofficial translations, the contents of which it has at least some control of?
SOUNDS FISHY SOUNDS FISHY Reviewed by Anonymous on Friday, August 19, 2005 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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.