The LA Times reports on the battle of the smileys. Retailer Wal-mart is attempting to register its yellow smiley face (lovingly known as ‘Mr Smiley’) as a trade mark for retail services before the USPTO. Loufrani, the owner of trade marks for smiley faces in more than 30 countries, is opposing the application. Both sides are citing the investment that they have put into promoting the cheeky chappie as justifying their claim.

The IPKat reckons that even if Wal-mart gets the registration it won’t get a particularly wide scope of protection. Most consumers on seeing a smiley face elsewhere will think they’re being told to be happy, rather than being given a message concerning the origin of goods.

The IPKat recommends…

this piece on Yahoo concerning the draft WIPO Broadcast Treaty which would create a right for broadcasters of programmes across telelvisions and radio networks and the internet. The draft treaty, which is largely modelled on the WPPT, was discussed last week at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, with the provisions on webcasting added to the treaty as a non-mandatory annex.

The IPKat notes the limited nature of the exceptions recognised. In particular he’s concerned about how the very limited exceptions fit together with the exclusive right of fixation of broadcasts. Does this mean that users will no longer be able to make domestic video recordings of broadcasts?

The text of the treaty is available here.
SMILES AND BROADCASTS SMILES AND BROADCASTS Reviewed by Unknown on Sunday, May 07, 2006 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.