The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Sunday, 4 December 2005


Last IP&T for 2005

The IPKat has just received the November/December issue of Butterworths' sleek shiny Intellectual Property and Technology Cases. Cases reported in this issue include

* Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Records Ltd (Chancery Division), in which Mr Justice Hart swept away some convoluted, if not actually complex defences to an action for an ancient copyright infringement on the basis that there was no likelihood that they would succeed.

* IPC Media Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Chancery Division): another decision of Mr Justice Hart, in which some fairly interesting defence arguments relating to 'fair dealing' were also swept away when he awarded summary judgment in a copyright infringement claim relating to the use of the front page of the claimant's publication in an advertisement for the defendant's rival publication.

* Gillette v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy Case C-228/03 (European Court of Justice), in which the ECJ laid down, in rather more detail than the IPKat likes, the parameters within which one is allowed to use another's trade mark in order to tell consumers that one's blades fit someone else's razor handle.

* Douglas v Hello! Ltd (Nos 4 and 5) (Court of Appeal), in which the generous basis upon which Lindsay J awarded damages to a magazine that lost the exclusivity of the Douglas and Zeta-Jones wedding photos was shot down in flames.

The IPKat reminds readers that the paper version of IP&T is just something to keep the bookshelves fresh with: the real IP&T service is online and pretty nifty.

This time it's copyright

The Onion provides lots of trade mark material for the IPKat's blog. But John Blake has just sent him this lovely link to a feature on copyright. Under the heading "RIAA bans telling friends about songs" it reads as follows:
The Recording Industry Association of America announced Tuesday that it will be taking legal action against anyone discovered telling friends, acquaintances, or associates about new songs, artists, or albums. "We are merely exercising our right to defend our intellectual properties from unauthorized peer-to-peer notification of the existence of copyrighted material," a press release signed by RIAA anti-piracy director Brad Buckles read. "We will aggressively prosecute those individuals who attempt to pirate our property by generating 'buzz' about any proprietary music, movies, or software, or enjoy same in the company of anyone other than themselves." RIAA attorneys said they were also looking into the legality of word-of-mouth "favorites-sharing" sites, such as coffee shops, universities, and living rooms.
Strong stuff. While the RIAA has been remarkably successful in deterring individuals from some of the more egregious file-sharing infringements, it has not yet won over the hearts and minds of the great American music-consuming public.

1 comment:

Peter Groves said...

I recall a similar paradox in "It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand", described as "a satirical memoir" (I didn't realise it was satirical when I read it 25 years ago) by Jerome Tuccille, who tells the reader about an obscure libertarian group in the States (the whole book is about more or less obscure libertarians in the States) which takes such a rigorous view of property rights that adherents aren't allowed to share the founder's ideas with anyone.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':