Winners of the WIPO logo competition. The IPKat is now in a position to unmask two of the three entrants to the WIPO logo competition (see here for best entries) and to explain why he can't reveal the identity of the third. The winning entry, "Why Po?", is from Phillip Carnell. A talented man, by day he is an IT and IP litigator at CMS Cameron McKenna - but by night he purports to be the world's best person at writing words on other people's pictures (Merpel says, perhaps he should have become a patent attorney then ...).
Right: "Some are born anonymous, some achieve anonymity - and some have anonymity thrust upon them ..."
The Tower of Babel came from the UK Patent Office's Edward Smith, who incidentally has been short-listed as one of the candidates for the Annual OHIM Prize for the best dissertation on Community trade mark and design law. The very seriously attractive design that was sandwiched between the two English jokers is a gallic effort. The author, who prefers to be known as "The French One", is erudite, works in-house and has a good sense of humour (Merpel adds, "and probably needs it ...).
Don't forget the Golding Prize. Meanwhile, if you are thinking of winning the Competition Law Association's prestigious Golding Prize, you've still time to write the winning essay. The title: “Should there be a tort of 'unfair competition' in English law?”. Details here.
Left: Is unfair competition is a question of standpoint? The tortoise can never out-run the hare, but this one is blocking the path and thereby hogging an essential facility.
And another IPKat competition ... First question: do you ever read the confidentiality notices and disclaimers at the end of emails? You know, the ones that go something like
"The information contained in this email message may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. Although this message and any attachments are believed to be free of viruses, no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use thereof. Messages to and from the sender are monitored for operational reasons and in accordance with lawful business practices".Second question: would you read them if they were (i) at the beginning of your incoming mail rather than at the end, and if (ii) they were halfway towards being enjoyable? The competition is this: compose an email tail-note in the form of a haiku (strict adherence with these composition rules please) that conveys the same sense as these unread, unloved, possibly unenforceable rubrics. Closing date: close of play on Monday 5 February 2007. The prize? a copy of Patent Litigation: Jurisdictional Comparisons, published by European Lawyer and edited by Thierry Calame (Lenz & Staehelin, Zurich) and Massimo Sterpi (Studio Legale Jacobacci & Associati, Turin). Please send your entry here. There are three copies to be won.