133rd Meeting of the International Trademark Association in San Francisco. It is likely that you will be hearing something from one or more of them from time to time. The meeting concludes on Wednesday, but it usually takes anyone who attends it a day or two to recover -- but we'll try to do our best to keep up a decent flow of news, views and comments.
|Moscone Center West: one million|
square feet -- and several thousand
sore feet ...
|Scandalous and immoral!|
Not every jurisdiction in the world has a provision in its trade mark law that is as curious as Article 10 of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark which reads:
"Reproduction of Community trade marks in dictionaries
If the reproduction of a Community trade mark in a dictionary, encyclopaedia or similar reference work gives the impression that it constitutes the generic name of the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, the publisher of the work shall, at the request of the proprietor of the Community trade mark, ensure that the reproduction of the trade mark at the latest in the next edition of the publication is accompanied by an indication that it is a registered trade mark."
ITU) and the European Patent Office (EPO) have signed an agreement -- the first that the ITU has ever signed with a patent office -- which "will help create the right balance between the interests of all relevant stakeholders, including patent holders, implementers of the standard, and end-users while seeking to enable solutions to market-driven needs on a global basis". The IPKat has no idea what this means. He is equally in need of an explanation of the following:
"In order to minimize this risk of conflict and to assure a smooth and wide dissemination of standardized technology, ITU together with World Standards Cooperation (WSC) partners ISO and IEC established a joint patent policy in 2007. The common policy provides reassurance to industry that its interests are protected when sharing intellectual property with implementers of standards. It also ensures that patents embodied into ITU standards are accessible to everyone without undue constraints".Perhaps this Kat is mixing in the wrong circles, but he has never met anyone from industry who has even mentioned this common policy in the context of seeking reassurance from the ITU and others that his company's interests are protected when sharing IP with implementers of standards, or indeed in any other context. He suspects that a good deal of work has gone into all of this and notes that, while we are dealing with monopolies and agreements to share them, there doesn't appear to be any mention of consultation or agreement with the competition authorities. Can some kind reader please enlighten him?
Around the blogs. "Google's universal digital library dream is shattered" is the theme of this analytical piece by Giovanna Occhipinti Trigona for the jiplp weblog. You can read Ben Challis's take on the US$ 105 million LimeWire settlement on the 1709 Blog here. Keith Mallinson argues that there is no evidence of windfall gains" by patent owners impeding the adoption of any technology-based standard on IP Finance here. The capping of the winning party's costs in Patents County Court proceedings in England and Wales is reviewed by the Bright Spark and IP Draughts (as well as by the IPKat here). There's also a new blog on the block: Patexia.