|A sign of the times?|
Following an explanation of the doctrine's origins in the US, particular attention will be given to the implications of initial interest confusion for the use of trade marks as keywords, Mr Justice Arnold's groundbreaking judgment in Och-Ziff and the pre-trial and evidential issues which it raises.
You can get there and enjoy a coffee from 10.30am onwards. If you miss the morning coffee you can still collect the 3 CPD Points which are on offer -- and the cost, even including the eat-all-you-can-manage buffet lunch -- is a thoroughly modest £70.00 per person (inclusive of VAT).
To book your place, do get in touch with Lisa Pick by email or give her a call on +44 20 7242 2523.
|Can you spot the genuine product?|
If so, you're imagining things!
|IP scammers be warned:|
we want justice now!
|In their cunning disguise, Bunglewart and|
Muddleby could go about their daily job
of finding out whether IP is actually
worth anything without attracting the
attention of the business community
nb More serious, detailed and respectful reviews of both reports will be forthcoming in due course.
"Are any of you aware of any cases as follows?
(1) Party A gives requisite consent for party B to register party A's name as a mark;
(2) Party B receives registration for mark consisting of party A's name;
(3) Party A later revokes consent for Party B to use Party A's name as a mark;
(4) Party A seeks to have registration for Party's A's name invalidated.
I'd be interested in any such scenarios regardless of jurisdiction)".The scenario has much in common with Edwin v OHIM, Elio Fiorucci and is not so very far from Safariland v OHIM, DEF-TEC -- but if readers can pinpoint any 'direct hits' our reader (who is not actually a Kat but does have the letters k, a and t in his surname) would be massively grateful.