Under the header "Shameless self promotion" the IPKat's friend Cedric Manara announced, on his excellent Domain Name/Nom de Domain blog:
"I will present a study on Internet-related international trademark disputes on September 1, at the Institute of Intellectual Property in Tokyo.The study has now been published and the IPKat has been enjoying it. The study addresses linguistic issues that arise from the use of words marks in Romaji and in Roman characters, as well as the quest for a language test in UDRL decisions. For those who fancy a change of reading habits this summer, there's a summary of the English text in Japanese. Many thanks, Cedric, for all your efforts.
I am grateful to the Institute of Intellectual Property for sponsoring this study. The objectives of the Institute are to conduct study and research concerning various domestic and overseas issues and to collect and supply information for the purpose of promoting appropriate protection and international harmonization of the intellectual property and thereby contributing to the development of the industry and economy of Japan".
Left: Roman characters, as depicted in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
The IPKat's copy of the June 2006 issue of Oxford University Press's quarterly Journal of Competition Law & Economics has just reached him. From an IP reader's point of view, this issue's star article is that of Professor Ariel Katz (Faculty of Law, Toronto), "The Potential Demise of Another Natural Monopoly: New Technologies and the Administration of Performing Right". Legal readers will find that it's more law than economics, but European readers will find it's more North American than EU-ish. Definitely worth a read, though, wherever you come from.
View contents of the current issue here
Call for help I: stay of patent infringement proceedings
IPKat co-bloggie Jeremy edits the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. In this capacity he is looking for someone who can write a comparative article, reviewing the different approaches taken within European Patent Organisations in the following situation: proprietor X secures a European Patent, designating various countries. Opponent Y files opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office. Opponent Y subsequently works the disputed invention in the various countries and X sues for infringement of the national patent in each case. Y then applies before the national court for a stay of the national infringement proceedings until the European Patent Office rules on the patent's validity.
What's needed is a well-written, well-researched and highly focused review of this topic, preferably taking in at least three significant patent litigation jurisdictions in Europe. Any takers? If you're interested, just email Jeremy here and we can discuss the matter further.
Details of JIPLP here. Guidance for authors here. Editorials currently available for free online here.
"Oh won't you stay?" here
Call for help II: grabbing goods
IPKat co-bloggie Jeremy needs more help for his forthcoming book, The IP Enforcement Directive (details here). In the United Kingdom there are some rather strange self-help provisions, one of which is section 100 of the Copyright, Patents and Designs Act 1988. Briefly stated, this allows a rights owner - having complied with certain conditions - to seize infringing goods where they are being sold and then to walk off with them. Jeremy wants to know: do any other European countries have similar provisions? He also wonders whether the fact that some countries do allow self-help while others don't has any repercussions for the famous level playing field for IP enforcement in the single European market.
If you have any bright ideas, just email Jeremy here. All serious contributions will be acknowledged in the book.