For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Thursday, 4 May 2006

SHARED NAMES; DA VINCI - THE RESURRECTION; PURPLE PATCH


Sharing Names - a reminder

The IPKat is pleased to remind readers that the "Sharing Names" one day conference, on 20 June 2006, is still taking bookings. This event, which the IPKat endorses, examines critically the way in which the law handles conflicts and problems arising where two different entities - whether connected or not - find themselves using the same name or trade mark. There's a powerful panel of speakers, including Isabel Davies (Howrey), Dev Gangjee (London School of Economics), Dave Landau (Trade Marks Registry), Neil Wilkof (author of an amazingly good book on Trade Mark Licensing) and Wilberforce Chambers' Michael Bloch QC.

Full programme and booking details here


Resurrection, Da Vinci and the Mystery of the Reporter's Whoopsie

It seems to the IPKat that you just can't keep Mr Justice Peter Smith out of court. Just when he thought the Da Vinci Code case was dead and buried, it seems to have sprung to life again. First, the learned judge hit the headlines by sticking his own private bit of encryption into his judgment. Then, in Baigent and another v Random House (Re The Lawyer), heard yesterday, we saw a journalist with The Lawyer magazine getting into all sorts of trouble.

What happened, according to the Online Press Gazette, was that the journalist got hold of the draft judgment before it was supposed to be made public, then put it on The Lawyer's website. When he learned of the error of his ways, he apologised. But in court yesterday he got a good roasting from the judge, who explained that the privilege of making judgments available before they were fully baked would be taken away if journalists abused it again.


Purple patch

The IPKat's friend Duncan Bucknell has sent him this link which shows conclusively that global confectionery giant Cadbury's don't exercise total control over the colour purple in Australia. This follows a ruling last week in the Australian Federal Court in Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 4). Many thanks, Duncan!

Deep Purple here
The Colour Purple here

2 comments:

Kim said...

Actually, no. At the same time as the passing off action was going on in the courts, there was an opposition proceeding pending in the trade mark office, regarding registration of purple for chocolate. Same parties. Darrell Lea has succeeded in its opposition, but importantly, the TMO held that if Cadbury amended (narrowed) its application to block and boxed chocolates, it could get registration. See my post here.

Kim said...

clarification - I should have said that the judgment is not the last word. Cadbury exercise a little bit of control over a certain purple in relation to certain goods. still, that's not a bad deal, if you think about it. 'boxed and block chocolates' is a pretty good set of rights, especially since you can always at least claim infringement where the infringing goods are 'similar' to the registered goods themselves.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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