1 Is anyone from Sweet & Maxwell reading this?

From time to time in recent years IPKat co-blogmeister Jeremy has politely drawn to the attention of Sweet & Maxwell, the publishers of the Entertainment Law Review, the fact that it regularly features in its case note section Hungarian trade mark cases that have absolutely nothing to do with entertainment law. He did this most recently in item 3 of his medley blog of 8 August. Well, the most recent issue (August 2005) has gone and done it again. In its "green pages" news section the Review carries a note on Novartis' attempt to register OSTEOVAN as a trade mark for treatments for osteoporosis and Paget's disease in the light of its similarity with the earlier mark OSTEOSAN. This and previous Hungarian trade mark cases have nothing to do with entertainment law and should be published in the same publisher's European Intellectual Property Review instead. If you're reading this and you're from Sweets, can you please confirm you're going to do this by posting a Comment below? Many thanks in anticipation!

2 ... and now a word about the contents

The issue of the Entertainment Law Review mentioned above is actually quite good. It carries a punchy piece by Jonathan Coad (right, of The Simkins Partnership) on the UK's Press Complaints Commission (nice people, shame about the lack of teeth), as well as a thoughtful case note by Darren Oliver and Marius Haman (Field Fisher Waterhouse) on the after-effects of the WEST/WESTLIFE Community trade mark litigation before the Court of First Instance. The IPKat notes that the Review is gaining momentum again after some rather anorexic issues last year and he wishes it well.
THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT LAW THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT LAW Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 Rating: 5


  1. Been following your blog.
    Looks pretty good, keep up the good work.

  2. Would The Thought Of Thousands Of Other Web Site's All Displaying Your Content,

  3. If you would just take your time to know your way around, you could discover


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.