It’s not even the bank holiday, and yet the June European Intellectual Property Review is already gracing subscribers’ doorsteps. Inside they’ll find:

* Simon Chapman and Jenny Holmen (FFW) on new gTLDs and what they mean for IP owners;
* IPKat co-blogmeister Ilanah on the concept of embellishment in trade mark law:
* Tony Ciro (La Trobe University) and Mark Fox (Indiana University) on competition v copyright protection in the digital age:
* Alexandra Sims (University of Auckland) on the public interest defence in copyright law:
* Vanya Bromfield and John Runeckles (White and Case) on securitisation of IP:
* Michele Boote (Addleshaw Goddard) on the ECJ’s Picasso decision;
* Julia Clark (Hogarth Chambers) on the Court of Appeal in Philips v Remington;
* Gunter Poll (Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Poll & Ventroni) on technologically new types of exploitation under German law;
* The usual case notes and book reviews.

Desperately seeking beer

No, the IPKat hasn’t finally hit the bottle. Instead, he’d love to get his paws on an English version of the Finnish Supreme Court’s judgment in the Budweiser case. If anyone can help him out, please drop him an email here.
THINKS AND DRINKS THINKS AND DRINKS Reviewed by Unknown on Sunday, May 28, 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.