For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Monday, 24 November 2008

Linguistic laughs -- an expert writes

The IPKat's venerable and learned friend Dr Alexander von Mühlendahl is a man whose experiences both as Vice-President of OHIM and as an attorney in private practice have given him some precious insights into the linguistic problems that have beset Europe's Long March to harmonisation, the single market and a common understanding.

Right: the Verpiss-Dich plant, originally designated Coleus canina (presumably on account of its smell), is now thought to be a Plectranthus: see the IPKat note on Schrader v CPVO here

Prompted by David Keeling's recent post he tells the Kat:

"The laugh is certainly called for.

The original language of the Plectranthus case is German, and in that language all the terminology put on his pointed needle by David Keeling is indeed correct: the term in Article 7 of the Plant Variety Regulation is "Unterscheidbarkeit"; in the English it is "Distinctness" (English mother tongue/readers may know how to distinguish between distinctness, distinctivity, and distinctiveness). In French it should be -- the Article 7 term -- distinction, a term at times properly used in the French translation of the judgment (which may well be the original), but even there at times the "caractère distinctif" raises its head (e.g. in para. 25 of the judgment), while the proper term should have been "distinction".

The problem thus is one of proper translation, rather than sloppy language in the original. David, who in one of his past lives was at the ECJ's translation service, will know how difficult the task is.

Perhaps your readers may also chuckle at another translation "error":

The applicant in the case had claimed that the variety SUMCOL 01 for which protection was sought had already been marketed in the European Union in January 2001, under the designation "Verpiss Dich". A proper rendering in English would have been "Piss Off", but the translation service prissily chose "get lost" (in para. 12) (imagine the smell of the plant!)

As for the discretion that the CFI grants the CPVO, anything else would have come as a surprise, given the sometimes time-consuming and complicated examinations carried out by the CPVO and the participating national offices in determining stability, distinctness, novelty, etc. - it is difficult to imagine the CFI itself carrying out a re-examination or appointing experts to do so. Perhaps trade marks are indeed less complicated than plant varieties".
Plant samples here and here
Urine samples here and here
Why we love cat pee, but hate dog pee here
Thomas Bowdler here

4 comments:

MM said...

The German Wikipedia has an entry.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verpiss-dich-Pflanze
The plant is a Plectranthus hybrid.
It says that the name Piss Off Plant was coined by the Swabian gardener Dieter Stegmeier from Essingen. He has been selling the plant since 2001 as a protection against dog shit on flowerbeds and lawns. It's a cross between P. caninus and another P. Similar crosses are known in English-speaking countries as "Scaredy Cat Plant" or "Pee-off plant".

Anonymous said...

For the IPKat's information, the Verpiss Dich plant has been successfully marketed in Germany aimed at garden owners who are fed up with visits from the local cats and dogs seeking to relieve themselves. Apparently, the plant has an unpleasant odour which cats and dogs seek to avoid. When I bought some to try out, there was a label in the pot indicating that they were subject to some form of protective right (can't remember if it was a patent or variety) but how this could be used against private users taking cuttings etc. was beyond me.

Anonymous said...

It's a chandelier.

Anonymous said...

The advocate general has issued her/his opinion in the appeal before the CFI, recommending the rejection of Mr Schraeder's appeal:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2009/C3809_O.html

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':