Tuesday's Big Copyright Debate. We're up to 212 people attending the debate on whether we come to bury copyright or to praise it (details here), which is quite amazing. If you are attending, please (i) be there on time for a 5pm start -- doors open for registration from 4.30pm; (ii) remember to use the Tudor Street entrance to Frshfields Bruckhaus Deringer's office; (iii) if you suddenly decide you want to come, or have any last-minute questions or problems, can you email Lucy Wymark and let her know, so that a badge can be made up for you? You can copy the IPKat in if you want by emailing him here, but he will be away from his desk for most of the next day and won't be able to do anything useful ...
|You know when you've|
had too much to drink at
the Hogarth seminar. All
the barristers start to look
like this ...
Case C-212/08 Zeturf Ltd v Premier Ministre, seems to cast an interesting light on internet trading. The impression that the Court of Justice gives is that the internet is not a market in itself but a channel -- and therefore, if blocked, an obstacle -- by which a particular activity may be marketed. This Kat finds himself wondering whether the all-embracing medium of the internet, especially where it is the medium through which a market for online services is served, is blurring the hitherto easy-to-identify distinction between a market and a channel. Readers' thoughts are welcomed.
here). Now, at  EWHC 1712 (Ch), 5 July 2011, Mr Justice Briggs of the Chancery Division (England and Wales) has held that the practice of another company, Delta Containers, of replacing used bottles in Schütz's trade mark protected caged bulk containers with new bottles produced by different manufacturers, then selling those re-bottled containers, infringed Schütz's trade marks and amounted to passing off. Said Briggs J, Delta's cross-bottling and sale of a Schütz bulk container with someone else's bottle in it infringed the trade marks in relation to both the bottle and to the bulk container as a whole, since the average end-user of a Delta re-bottled bulk container in a Schütz cage was likely to perceive that the Schütz trade marks on the cage were being used in relation to the container as a whole, including the bottle. Delta's various disclaimers didn't let it off the hook: they were ambiguous, lacked prominence and were stuck onwith adhesive labels that could come off. Katnote: Delta earlier sought unsuccessfully to get the trade mark and passing off action stayed pending the patent infringement action against Werit. Mr Justice Kitchin's refusal to stay, which has a handy summary of the long and complex history to this dispute, can be read here.
|"Beware of people who dislike cats" (Irish sayng).|
On sale from Etsy, along with other super cats, here