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).

Wednesday, 12 July 2006



In his haste to tell everyone about the forthcoming European Court of Justice ruling in Case C-04/03 Gat, the IPKat forgot to mention that another Brussels Convention reference, Case C-539/03 Roche Nederland and Others, is also coming out. The questions referred in that case are:

"A. Is there a connection, as required for the application of point 1 of Article 6 of the Brussels Convention, between a patent infringement action brought by a holder of a European patent against a defendant having its registered office in the State of the court in which the proceedings are brought, on the one hand, and against various defendants having their registered offices in Contracting States other than that of the State of the court in which the proceedings are brought, on the other hand, who, according to the patent holder, are infringing that patent in one or more other Contracting States?

B. If the answer to Question A is not or not unreservedly in the affirmative, in what circumstances is such a connection deemed to exist, and is it relevant in this context whether, for example,

* the defendants form part of one and the same group of companies?

* the defendants are acting together on the basis of a common policy, and if so is the place from which that policy originates relevant?

* the alleged infringing acts of the various defendants are the same or virtually the same?".
Watch this blog for comments!


Phew, what a Whopper! (picture hotlinked from BBC website)

Another admirable lead from Abel & Imray's BBC reports on Burger King's threats against Wholebake, a Welsh vegetarian snack company which has been forced to change the name of its Whopper! flapjack because it is the same name as BK's flagship burger.

The IPKat can't understand why any respectable veggie would want to name a vegetarian product after a burger, even if the motive was to describe its size. Merpel adds, "Whopper!" can be misconstrued, too, in less than polite company; it's not really suitable for a family product.

Make your own flapjacks here and here
Fruity flapjacks here
Healthy seaweed burgers here

Can it really be ...

... that "Pirates of the Caribbean" is itself the product of piracy? Yes, if a suit brought by Hollywood screenwriter Royce Mathew is anything to go by. The IPKat thanks Miri Frankel (recently featured as celebrity of the month in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, see here) for this tasty morsel, which you can sample here for yourself.


Anonymous said...

It is unwise to launch a product without first carrying out a trade mark search. Burger King have had a regsitration in Class 30 since 1989 reading: "Prepared meals and constituents therefor; bread products containing cooked
foods; filled buns and sandwiches; burgers; all included in Class 30."
This would almost certainly cover flapjacks. In 1996 BK obtained a Community trade registration for WHOPPER in eight classes.

Anonymous said...

The IPKat will be purring to see that the Roche decision is available in English. The court seems to have followed the Attorney General's line. Although this is a Brussels Convention case, I presume it is also applicable to Regulation 44/2001.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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