The August 2007 issue of the Oxford University Press monthly Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice actually came out a week or two ago, but IPKat team blogger Jeremy - who incidentally edits JIPLP - has built up a bit of a backlog of publications received ...
The following features may just tickle the fancy of the casual reader:
Full contents of this issue, and abstracts of all articles, here; for a free sample, click here; if you want to subscribe, click here; details for prospective authors are here; most frequently-read features last month here; for all the editorials of the past year click here.
* A careful analysis by Noam Shemtov (a QMIPRI researcher) of post-Arsenal v Reed perspectives on the real or imaginary doctrine of 'trade mark use' in European trade mark law;
* "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail", a powerful Practice Point on how to play the Japanese trade mark system by John Tessensohn and Shusaku Yamamoto (of the Shusaku Yamamoto law firm, Osaka, Japan);
* A really valuable overview of the main decisions of the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal during 2006 by London barrister Gillian Davies;
* "How to win at Monopoly: applying game theory to the enforcement of IP rights", by Jeremy Phillips - this article having been aired on this weblog in an earlier version in order to benefit from readers' comments;
* By the same author - an Editorial on the recently fashionable topic of intellectual property auctions, which you can read in full here.
The July 2007 issue of the LexisNexis Butterworth near-monthly Intellectual Property and Technology Cases contains just three cases - but they give the subscriber 110 pages of detailed legal reading to digest. They are
* Antartica Srl v OHIM, a decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on the opposition brought by NASDAQ to an application to register a Nasdaq word and device mark for various items of sports equipment (noted here by the IPKat);
* the European Court of Justice's second ruling in Boehringer Ingelheim KG v Swingward Ltd, on the labelling and repackaging of imported pharma products (see IPKat weblog here);
* Special Effects Ltd v L'Oréal - the England and Wales litigation over SPECIAL EFFECTS/SPECIAL FX (left), on whether an opponent who fails in trade mark opposition proceedings is barred from seeking to have the mark cancelled on the same grounds (this INTA-amicus-backed decision is noted by the IPKat here).