London-based law firm Olswang -- where IPKat team blogger Jeremy holds an intellectual property consultancy -- produces a quarterly Life Sciences Newsletter. Edited by partner Stephen Reese, the most recent issue of this newsletter is available online here, or you can download it as a pdf file here.
This newsletter seeks to provide updates on recent important events, cases and issues affecting the life sciences sector. Its content is not limited to intellectual property issues, though topics such as the recent approval of the London Agreement by the French National Assembly and the French Senate are covered.
Good reading on bad faith in domain name disputes? The IPKat called last week for readers' recommendations. This is what he received. The most popular recommendation was WIPO's own website. According to first-off-the-mark Annemieke De Koster-Arkesteijn (Nestlé, Vevey) -- with whom several other readers agreed -- the first thing to take a look at is the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions. Here, she points out,
"you can find an overview of WIPO panel views on each of the four key questions (the third question refers to bad faith).Another of the IPKat's friends, domain name expert Jim Davies, endorses this recommendation but adds that the Oxford University Press book on international domain names by Torsten Bettinger and his team is also useful.
The relatively new index of WIPO UDRP decisions (which can be found on the same page) is good as well. You can search for legal terms in each of the WIPO decisions".
Earlier today the IPKat had a go at translating a CFI ruling in a Community trade mark opposition appeal from the original Spanish in the ODA/RODA case. He has since received an encouraging endorsement from Patricia Koch, Head of Litigation at Spanish law firm Herrero & Asociados. Patricia writes:
"The trade mark was applied for in various classes, and only class 33 was opposed. The only opposing trade mark taken into account was RODA (documents were filed too late to have the others taken into account).The IPKat thanks Patricia for her guidance here, and also for her very kind words concerning the IPKat's attempts to translate from Spanish which the Kat, with his usual blend of modesty and humility, would not dream of posting on a publicly accessible weblog such as this.
The Court considers that ODA is the dominant element of the later trade mark and applies its usual rules, thus coming to the conclusion of a risk of confusion.
It was alleged in the proceedings by the applicant that, on a wine label, there are always other elements - including the name of the manufacturer - which further reduce the risk of confusion. The CFI said, quite correctly in my opinion, that what has to be compared is the marks as filed, not the way they might - or not - be used.
Perhaps the most interesting point of the judgment is that the owners of ODA argued that the Court of La Rioja, and the Spanish Trade Marks Office, had stated that the trade marks are sufficiently different to coexist. The CFI said that this was irrelevant, as the relevant consumers are not the same (the trade mark RODA is registered in countries other than Spain).
A further point examined was the allegation that the trade marks had coexisted on the market. However, there was not sufficient evidence to prove that. But even if it were true, this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the trade marks are not similar".