US-Japan patent pact

The Boston Globe reports that Japan and the US have agreed on measures to harmonise their patent systems, improve procedure, and jointly fight ‘piracy’.

Said the Japanese trade minister:
"This will shorten and expedite considerably the period that will be required from application to actual granting of a patent by measures such as both countries sharing each other's examination results…The whole world will be able to benefit from this endeavor by having Japan and the United States create a global model which will be expanded to other countries".
The IPKat suspects that the European national may have missed a trick in competing for business for their patent offices by not being a part of this.

Spam, spam, spam, spam

Emediawire reports that the US TTAB will decide the fate of the SPAM ARREST trade mark in February. The mark, owned by Spam Arrest LLP, which produces anti-junk mail software, is said to be the only company, other than Hormel, to have registered a US trade mark containing the word ‘spam’.

The IPKat’s sympathies are split on this one. It’s pretty hard luck for Hormel to have had its mark fettered with a meaning that it neither sought nor encouraged. However, to recognise the mark as the exclusive ‘property’ of Hormel is to ignore the reality of the way the English language has developed.
PATENTS; PORKIES PATENTS; PORKIES Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 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.