|Another Titus has a tough time in Europe ...|
"Are Articles 34 and 36 TFEU [that's the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] governing the free movement of goods to be interpreted as precluding the criminal offence of aiding and abetting the prohibited distribution of copyright-protected works resulting from the application of national criminal law where, on a cross-border sale of a work that is copyright protected in Germany
* that work is taken to Germany from a Member State of the European Union and de facto power of disposal thereof is transferred in Germany,
* but the transfer of ownership took place in the other Member State in which copyright protection for the work did not exist or was unenforceable?If you would like to comment on this case, says the IPO, please e-mail email@example.com before 24 February 2011 [so you have three days in which to get your thoughts together ...]. The IPKat has no idea what the background to this reference is: can any kind soul from Germany who happens to read this weblog give him a hint? Merpel agrees: how can we know whether to have sympathy for the poor, abused copyright owner or the poor, accused defendant unless we know what they're up to?
|The Golden Gate: San Francisco's answer to London's|
elegant docklands, home of the Rouse INTA reception ...
Websites that may easily give the impression of being official when they're not are not the exclusive domain of patent and trade mark law. The IPKat's friend Charles Oppenheim has kindly drawn his attention to the official-looking UK Copyright Service (here). Like the UK's Copyright Tribunal, which sports a yellow copyright symbol (right) on its webpage, the UK Copyright Service embeds a similar device in its own logo -- and the page gives a very official impression indeed. The IPKat is curious to know whether any readers have had experiences of using the copyright registration service offered by the UKCSS, and what they think of it.
Further to Friday's post concerning the telephone survey conducted by TNS-BMRB into designs -- this apparently being a genuine survey, paid for by the government -- the IPKat is getting an uncomfortable feeling that this survey is being aimed solely at respondents who registered UK designs in 2009. He very much hopes that this is not the case, since only 2,111 registered designs were granted in that year, while there are estimated to be well over 200,000 designers in the country of whom the overwhelming majority do not rely on the UK registered design right for their continued survival in the tough world of design (non)protection. If this suspicion turns out to be correct, this curious Kat is dying to know what function the survey responses might perform.