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, 9 October 2013

Wednesday whimsies

What the well-dressed
IP valuation expert
wears in court ...
Expert evidence and IP valuation: can you help? A regular reader of this weblog has emailed for help. She writes:
"I wonder if your memory can help me? A few years ago there was a case [probably but not necessarily from England and Wales] where the judge ruled against a party because their expert witness only used one methodology and approach to value an IP asset in question, when the other side followed the spirit of the standard and investigated with the the accepted methodologies".
This Kat, who has only the vaguest of memories of such a case, wonders if any of this weblog's learned and knowledgeable readers can provide chapter and verse for this decision, or at least for a decision that lies pretty close to it.


The line-up (if only ...!)
Follow the fashion.  There's still a week to go before team bloggers Jeremy, Eleonora and Laetitia are joined by various friends and experts on the programme of "Intellectual Property in the Fashion Industry Conference 2013", the latest version of an annual conference organised by CLT and held at the lovely Holborn Bars, London (it's a bit like St Pancras railway station but without the trains). Details may be accessed here, if you are either planning to attend or are merely curious.  See you there!


I see ICC. At the end of October, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) launches a new IP-related project called the “Positive Innovation Agenda” [great idea, says Merpel, even if the title is a wee bit, er, descriptive ...], the details of which may be highly relevant to our readers. Says the ICC:
Reality warning: this is how the ICC views positive innovation
The Positive Innovation Agenda project will seek to answer what role intellectual property plays in innovation and technology diffusion, as well as how technology is being developed and disseminated in different sectors and countries today. It will explore these ideas in five papers on: 
  • IP Management by innovative SMEs 
  • Innovation and knowledge exchange through global networks and partnerships 
  • The evolving geography of innovation 
  • IP in innovation for non-commercial purposes 
  • Diffusion channels for technology and know-how 
The first paper Enhancing IP Management and Appropriation by Innovative SMEs will be launched with the project at the end of October.
If you'd like further information, you can watch a short video outlining the project here, read about it online here, or email Project Director Daphne Yong-d'Herve at dye@iccwbo.org for further information. To stay involved and up-to-date with future paper launches follow the ICC's initiative on Twitter @ICCWBO_ORG deploying the hashtag #ICCIP


All are welcome; no-one
need feel out of plaice ...
Ask the judges.  Following a brief and invigorating exchange of emails with Professor Sir Robin Jacob and an assurance that a delicious meal will be provided for him, this Kat has decided to attend next week's Question the Trade Mark Judges event, this being jointly staged by the hosts, UCL's Institute for Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) and European trade mark organisation MARQUES. It is rumoured that there may still be room for a few more people to attend so, if you want to take shots at Katfriends Mr Justice Birss, Anna Carboni (Appointed Person), Allan James (Senior Hearing Officer and Head of Trade Mark Tribunal, UK IPO) and Tony Willoughby (WIPO and Nominet domain name dispute adjudicator), click here for further details and registration.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re the Expert evidence and IP valuation question: I think it's the Interflora case. Not sure though. Search "interflora" on this blog.

Suleman said...

In response to the item on the ICC: whilst the IP ideas are laudable, the innovation and tech diffusion ideas might be more needed. In my interaction with early stage companies I've come to believe that they need to think much more about the marketplace they'll be selling to, and whether they will be able to displace existing technologies (technology overshooting etc).

Barbara Cookson said...

HOLBORN BARS is indeed a lovely venue - perhaps more famous as the Prudential Building - but can it keep being HOLBORN if this trademark applicant tries to monopolise the name of our street.

GrahamT said...

Would anyone of these provide a stepping off point?
Experience Hendrix LLC v Times Newspapers Ltd [2010]EWHC 1986 (Ch)
Gerber Garment Technology Inc. v Lectra Systems Ltd. and Anr [1995] RPC 383 (partially reversed at appeal in 1997 [1997] RPC 443)
Coflexip SA v Stolt Offshore Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 296
esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 842
Fanmailuk.com v Cooper [2011] EWHC 902 (Ch)

Ashley Roughton said...

Jeremy

The reference to plaice is deprecated - it is a bitty fish with no real flavour (unless you pour something creamy over it). It fries well and is good with chips though.

Couldn't you say that it would be hunky Dory or say something about floundering?

Ashley

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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