There number of events listed in the IPKat's patiently-updated 'Forthcoming Events' feature, which you will find in the left-hand side-bar of this weblog's front page, stands at 38. Don't forget to check these events out: you might even find one you fancy ...
The IPKat's distant relation Afro Leo is conducting an opinion poll, hosted on his Afro-IP weblog, on the question whether FIFA's trade marks for the next World Cup football tournament are invalid for lack of distinctive character. The marks are WORLD CUP 2010 and SOUTH AFRICA 2010. If you're not sure why these trade marks might be invalid, see what Europe's finest have to say here. To cast your vote, click here.
The past is a foreign country, wrote Go-Between author L. P. Hartley. His book was at least filmed, which is more than can be said for the new James Bond book Devil May Care, which was cunningly crafted by best-selling novellist Sebastian Faulks. According to The Telegraph:
"Set in 1967 during the Cold War, the plot revolves around the international drugs trade and the action takes in London, Paris and the Middle East. ... But it is precisely this authentic period setting which has worked against Faulks and led to Eon, the production company behind the Bond franchise, turning down the movie rights. Producer Barbara Broccoli told industry publication Variety: "We love the book, but because it is set in the 1960s, we haven't considered making it in the near future".
Just read that final quote a few times and think about it, says the IPKat ...
If James Bond is out in the cold, Watchmen are very much the flavour of the month, it seems. A film based on the adventures of some rather flawed superheroes, based on the comic books of Alan Moore, is at the centre of a spat between Warner and Fox, the BBC reports. It looks as though Fox will be pressing for interim injunctive relief to halt the film's planned March 2009 launch date.
Right: tragic scene from Watchmen -- a starving actress picks her way through the rubble in search of the world's last-ever triple cheeseburger with french fries ...
The IPKat wonders what rights-allocation work by members of the legal profession could have been allowed to lead to this misunderstanding [or, Merpel says, is it those pesky clients that are to blame again?]. There are plenty of off-the-peg precedents that provide for film studios to obtain exclusive rights and to protect their amply padded backsides by sorting out the merchandising and associated rights, which usually involves some sort of due diligence.
More on the easyJet/easyGroup saga -- following the item published earlier this week on this weblog, one of the IPKat's sharp-eyed readers who is too modest to wish to be named spotted this item on the easyGroup's website. On the 56-page brand licensing agreement, drafted in 2000, Stelios commented:
“It should not be surprising to anyone that certain language that was drafted 8 years ago can be interpreted in more than one way in view of the fast changing business model of low cost airlines and their recent pursuit of ancillary sales. I want to be fair to the other shareholder's of easyJet PLC but also to the many investors in all the other "easy" branded businesses (see www.easy.com). Given my commitment to the highest standards of corporate governance and my obvious conflict of interest as a director and shareholder of both companies, I feel it is best to ask a judge to interpret certain clauses in the brand license and in particular the so called 75:25 rule. I am sure that clarity is in the best interest of everyone involved in the "easy" brand. Given my obvious conflict I have suggested to the board of directors of both companies that we should all agree not to trade in the easyJet stock until this is resolved.”The IPKat says, what a masterpiece of draftsmanship -- it's a shame that whoever penned this piece of spin didn't have a go at drafting the licence in the first place.