For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Wednesday whimsies

Looking for something to read? Code Wars: 10 Years of P2P Software Litigation is the title of the ever-engaging Rebecca Giblin's latest book. This Kat, having already lavished kind words on the back cover:
"With a combination of acute observation, close analysis and clear-headed honesty, Rebecca Giblin leads the reader to share her conclusion that there is no legislative, judicial, commercial or technical panacea for copyright infringement which P2P software facilitates, but that even now it is not too late to improve the manner in which the rights-owning and distribution sectors address the challenges that P2P poses",
is not the Kat to furnish an objective account of it, so the book will be reviewed by someone else once the review copy arrives. In the meantime, why not just read it anyway? The prose bounces along and brings the subject to life.


Something for China-
watchers
Looking for something to learn? TECH IP is currently promoting its Live Webinar event, "China: Patent Drafting, Prosecution & Enforcement", which is coming up on Thursday 10 November 2011. No problems if you're Australian, since the event runs from 2.30pm to 5.00pm (login from 2.15pm), Melbourne time. Michael Lin and James Cleeve, both of Marks & Clerk, are presenting.  TECH IP appreciate that the timeing will be inconvenient for those in Europe, so they are recording the event by video.  IPKat readers who opt for either the live event or the recorded one are entitled to a 10% discount off the normal fees. For the live option, complete with video, slide presentation and the capacity to ask questions, click here. For the recorded option (just the video and slide presentation, which can be accessed over a 16 week period), click here.


Looking for something to eat? There's another Directors Roundtable event coming up, with all the razzmatazz that our American cousins can muster. On Thursday 10 November there's a  "World Recognition of Distinguished General Counsel: Simon Evans, General Counsel of ArcelorMittal” session London's Plaisterer’s Hall. Be there early if you don't want to miss it since it starts at 8:30am and runs till 10:45am.  There is no fee to attend and continental breakfast will be served [the IPKat's recollection is that the breakfast is well worth the early start!]. Full details and registration form can be retrieved here.


Looking for something to ponder? Thanks are due to the IPKat's friend Marlou L.J. van de Braak (Hoyng Monegier) for telling him all about the General Court's ruling last week in Case T-426/09 Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke v OHIM, Royal BAM, 26 October 2011, on a Community trade mark opposition involving two figurative marks each of which contained the word 'BAM'.  Says Marlou (who acted for Royal BAM),
1. The General Court affirmed that OHIM cannot take a request to withdraw a trade mark application into account if it is not submitted in one of the two languages indicated in the trade mark application; 
2. The applicant's goods ("rigid piping for building, transportable structures, building construction etc".) were found not to be similar to “asphalt and building materials derived from asphalt and for the production of asphalt”, even though there were certain connections between the goods. The court accepted that the goods had different origins and physical properties; their nature, purpose, composition, methods of production, use and distribution channels were different; and the relevant public was composed of specialists whose level of attention was high and who would notice those differences;

3. A Board of Appeal which errs by erroneously restricting the scope of protection of an earlier mark has misapplied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009 (incorrect assessment risk of confusion), but not Article 64(1) (misuse of power);
4. The opponent had argued that its detailed arguments in relation to the high degree of similarity between the goods and services at issue were not examined by the Board of Appeal, which failed to state reasons and infringed its rights of defence. The General Court considered that the Board cannot be required to provide an account which follows exhaustively and individually each item of reasoning articulated by the parties before it. The reasoning may therefore be implicit, so long as it enables the parties to know why its decision was taken and provides the competent court with sufficient material for it to exercise its review decision. 
Thanks, Marlou!


Looking for something? Here's another Boliven offer for IPKat readers. Boliven.com tells the IPKat it hosts a collection of over 100 million indexed and digitized patents and other science documents, of which more than 55 million are patents and patent applications. CambridgeIP has now launched API access to the Boliven collection, which is certainly easier than speed-reading your way through it (you can get some information about this API here). Thiis API allows programmatic interfaces to search and query all 100 million+ documents. This, says Boliven, will enhance user patent search and patent retrieval, as well as letting third parties develop a range of new products and services to take advantage of the wealth of data in this collection. To receive developer keys and access to the API, email boliven@cambridgeip.com, mentioning the code ‘katfreetrial’ -- and the free trial will be yours!


Looking for contentment on the blogosphere? Afro-IP blogmeister Darren Olivier reports excitedly, and with some surprise, that Afro-IP has been nominated as a candidate for the LexisNexis roster of Top 25 International & Foreign Blogs [Merpel assumed that LexisNexis was an international publisher, so why the 'foreign'?]. If you love Afro Leo (right) or indeed Darren, just follow his instructions and give the blog his support.  Something else in need of your support is the Class 99 side bar poll on whether the UK's Registered Designs Act 1949 is fit for purpose [or indeed fit for anything, chimes in Merpel].  Meanwhile the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice's jiplp blog gives you editorial board member Tim Pinto's take on Audi's uphill (and so far unsuccessful) battle to persuade two of Europe's finest institutions that the letters TDI are capable of registration as a Community trade mark for 'vehicles and constructive parts'.

1 comment:

Gentoo said...

"there is no legislative, judicial, commercial or technical [remedy for all disease or ills; cure-all] for copyright infringement which P2P software facilitates"

I think I'm being a bit slow but I'm not sure what you mean. I might have got lost in the excluded middle of your logic, or something.

Is there a reason why P2P should facilitate a panacea for copyright infringement? (as distinct from "don't use P2P to infringe copyright")

Nothing to do with me but I thought I'd mention this:

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/uploads/081030_berr_p2p.pdf

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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