IT'S THE WTMR AGAIN


It's the WTMR again

The second issue of Globe Business Publishing's bimonthly World Trademark Review has now arrived through the IPKat-flap, with a giant pixellated apple on the front cover. Sorry, the Kat couldn't find a web page for the new issue, or a picture of the cover to post on this blog, so you'll have to make do with a different apple for the time being.

It's a good issue, though. 68 pages of seriously small-print features on topics as varied as

* the Apple Corps/Apple Computer (non)-coexistence agreement, depending on which way you view it, analysed by Herbert Smith's Joel Smith (any relation, Joel?) and Laura Deacon;

* the continuing obsession in the US with trade mark dilution, by Jeffrey K. Riffer and Brian M. Yates (Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro, Los Angeles);

Left: Globe Publishing Ltd undercover reporters prepare to infiltrate yet another INTA reception in search of business cards ...

* a post-mortem on INTA's Annual Meeting in Toronto by the IPKat's friend Véronique Musson, who must have self-sacrificingly attended every event in person in order to determine its cosmic significance for trade mark practice;

* a feature on India's new aggressive stance towards IP infringers by Keshav S. Dhakad (Anand & Anand).

If the WTMR maintains its present level of quality, says the IPKat, it has a bright future ahead of it.
IT'S THE WTMR AGAIN IT'S THE WTMR AGAIN Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, July 25, 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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.