For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Monday, 14 September 2009

Latest JIPLAP

The September 2009 issue of Oxford University's flagship monthly IP journal, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLAP), has finally reached IPKat team member Jeremy, who edits it. Items in this issue include the following:

* OHIM's Director of Designs Pedro Rodinger reviews the first few Community design cases to come before the Court of First Instance;
* "Patent term extensions for human drugs under the US Hatch-Waxman Act", by Covidien's Jeffrey S. Boone;
* Md Rizwanul Islam (Northern University, Bangladesh) asks whether it would be prudent for Singapore to use the EU's sui generis database right as a model for its own protection of databases;
* Katya Assaf (Hebrew University) offers a semiotic perspective on trade mark dilution;
* "Marks as imitations of State emblems" -- Grzegorz Pacek (Marek Planka & Partners) takes a heraldic point of view.
The Editorial, "Caveat Caritas!", reflects upon attitudes towards IP as reflected in the latest Papal encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, on the subject. You can read the full text here.

List of editorial board panellists here
Full contents of this issue here
Free sample copy of JIPLAP here
Guidance for authors here
Read all of the past year's editorials at no cost here

2 comments:

twr57 said...

Jeremy, I think your JIPIL editorial comment on the Pope's remarks may not be altogether sound. "IP rights are owned and enforced by people and businesses, not by countries...". True - but some rich countries - one in particular - require many of their trading partners to enter into bilateral arrangements that go well beyond the multilaterally agreed (and reasonable) requirements of TRIPs. Don't you think this may reasonably be characterised as 'excessive zeal' for 'undue rigidity'?

Jeremy said...

twr57, I don't have as many difficulties with the bilaterals as some people do. First, I would contest the notion that TRIPs is anything other than entry-level IP protection in normative terms. Secondly, even with bilaterals in place, the position of the individual rights owner is pretty parlous. It's not as if he can enforce them, and no government finds it worthwhile to wield the big stick unless there's something sufficiently egregious to wield it for.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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