|Joff and Neil: great|
ambassadors for IP
Kats are biologically programmed to take a great interest in birds, so it was no surprise for this Kat to hear that one of our former guest Kats, Miri Frankel, had spotted an item on BananaIP's SiNApSE blog (here) about Angry Birds that excited her sufficiently to write about it. Says Miri:
Angry Birds sought to chomp
Angry Bite out of the market
"A recent ruling from the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) determined that “Angry Bite” snack foods do not bear a confusing similarity to Rovio Entertainment’s “Angry Birds” brand. The dispute arose when Kimanis Food Industries, a Malaysian snack food manufacturer, applied for a trade mark for its snack brand, Angry Bite (comparison pictured on the right). Rovio opposed the Angry Bite trade mark application on the basis that its characters, branding and trade marks were well known in Singapore and that consumers would be confused due to the similarity of the applied-for Angry Bite trade marks.
The IPKat and Merpel have both come in for some criticism,
|The editor as nanny? |
" ... the comments have often strayed away from proactive discussion of law, policy, and practice — moving instead into the less productive rhetoric of meta-bickering and inside-shorthand only accessible the handful of individuals who constantly monitor the site. I have never watched any party win these arguments and the eventual result is offense to the participants and Patently-O. This situation has discouraged many from reading the comments and has discouraged even more from participating in the discussion by writing their own comments. And, it has put me in the unenviable position of de facto comment editor and nanny. The anonymity factor of internet communications has, in my view, encouraged frank discussions but has also allowed for bad behavior. ... Thoughtful, respectful comments are welcomed and encouraged on Patently-O, but we’re also not going to tolerate repeated disruptive behavior".Dennis then offers some constructive comments, which include the following:
* As you post, think about the tone of your comments. Be polite and avoid all name-calling (both implicit and explicit).
* Think about writing longer more substantive comments rather than one-liner criticisms and, when you disagree, do not be rude but instead provide constructive and helpful feedback.
* ... prepare a post that truly explains your position or question.
* Recognize very few (if any) readers read all of the comments and most of us (including myself) do not understand shorthand references to arguments found on other threads or obscure cases.
* Re-read your comment before you hit submit–think before you send! And, although you may be writing anonymously, post written work that you would be willing to attach to your professional name.
* Do not launch an avalanche of comments in quick succession.
* Stay on topic ... and avoid meta-bickering
* When you can, provide positive statements (what is correct about another post/comment or correct about the way to think about an issue) rather than only criticisms. That gives us something to build from rather than only tearing-down. To be clear, I want to encourage debate and sometimes the best outcome is to be able to define the points on which we agree/disagree ..."The IPKat endorses these suggestions and hopes that readers will take them to heart, including the sourpuss who thinks that we have deprived him/her of an entitlement to free speech and keeps trying to re-open the debate by posting anonymous comments to that effect.
here) leads with a guest editorial by Neil Wilkof, "The second Green Revolution: when no-one seems to take the lead", which you can read at no expense or inconvenience by just clicking here. Additionally, the JIPLP Readers and Writers LinkedIn Group calls for articles on various subjects from time to time; one topic on which contributions are keenly sought, from any jurisdiction, is the possibility of bringing an action for wrongfully filing oppositions to applications to register trade marks, patents or other registered rights; another such topic is overlap issues in figurative trade mark infringement actions where a parody defence may be open for copyright in the work but not for the trade mark. If you're interested in writing about these, or other topics, why not join the group?
|The SPC phoenix|
|Good food where|
you see this sign