From October 2016 to March 2017 the team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Tian Lu and Hayleigh Bosher.

Friday, 2 January 2015

Friday fantasies

Season's Greetings email circulars: a Katpoll. Whether on account of his vastly increased popularity or simply because more people are using the medium, this Kat has received an extraordinarily large number of seasonal e-greetings this year.  Many have come from law firms of which he has not heard, with which he has had no dealings and which, he frankly confesses, he now deletes straight away.  Some are addressed to "Dear Sir/Ma'am" or bear an equally impersonal salutation, if any.  He misses the Good Old Days in which people sent each other cards. These were usually prettier, provided endless fun in the office when we crowded round them and attempted to decipher the signatures, pinned them up on the wall (see illustration, right) and then cut the stamps off the envelopes in the belief that they were being collected by some good soul as a means of buying guide dogs for the blind.  Also, since they were more expensive to purchase and send than are emails, far fewer of them were sent -- which gave each a more personal impact and a greater value to the recipient.  Those days will not return, but does that mean that we are to bombard each other with electronic excrescences of this nature?  This Kat bemoans the fact that, while the law protects him with regard to cookies, there is no convenient opt-out programme for end-of-year email circulars.  Wondering if others feel the same, he has just launched a little poll, which you will find on the IPKat's home page, at the top of the left-hand side bar.  Do please vote!

Around the weblogs. From Barbara Cookson on SOLO IP comes "Thank You @Oamitweets for 2014", in which the author regales us with some more of her thoughts concerning the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and its online services. The MARQUES Class 99 weblog has just let us know that Russia has joined Ireland and South Korea as recent participants in OHIM's DesignView programme.  Incidentally, next Tuesday the IPKat will be posting his regular three-monthly blogroll of friendly IP blogs in which he and his fellow contributors are involved. There will be a passionate an impassioned appeal for enthusiastic, energetic and knowledgeable volunteers to come forward and do some blogging, especially for the PatLit, 1709 and IP Finance blogs -- so, if you fancy your chances as an IP blogger, just watch this space next week for further information.

Ready to review ...
Sanity from Amity.  Last week this weblog hosted a book review by one of our current guest Kats, Suleman Ali, which pulled no punches and had some serious criticisms to make. The book in question is Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights. Legal and Social Implications, published by Springer (details available via the link above). Unusually, this review attracted considerable attention, receiving well over 1,000 visits and drawing 19 comments so far (the average book review receives somewhere between 0 and 1 comments). Anyway, this Kat has now heard from the book's author, Kshitij Kumar Singh (Assistant Professor, Amity Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Noida, Uttar Pradesh). Kshitij writes:
"Thanks for publishing the review. Academic authors have certain limitations in certain respects and that is true for practitioners also. But being a new entrant in this field I have highest regard for the reviewer as he is closely dealing with the practical issues and seeks practical solutions. I am always open to improvements and also to the challenges. Its so kind of the reviewer that he is willing to assist me for my further projects in this area. Yes, I am poised to dig into the details of this converging field of law and technology and will seek the reviewer's advice. Thanks a lot!"
This Kat thoroughly commends Kshitij's exemplary and positive attitude, and wishes him success in his further work in this area. It is a regular theme of this weblog that academics and practitioners have much to learn from one another, collectively and individually and, if publication of last week's book review will lead to further intellectual and practical cross-fertilisation, we will all have gained from it.

Around the restaurants. A katpat goes to Mrs Kat for letting this blogger know about a piece of litigation involving Gordon Ramsay, the celebrity Scottish-born chef and restaurateur whose language is a good deal more salty than his menus. However, it seems that while bad language is his metaphorical trade mark [see for  instance here, here and here -- plus Hell's Kitchen montage on YouTube here], it is his name that supports his commercial goodwill. According to the Telegraph, in proceedings before the High Court (this Kat presumes that the jurisdiction is England and Wales), Ramsay is seeking to stop what is described as a Tenerife-based restaurant trading as "Gordon Ransay's".

From the signature on the restaurant's fascia the writing appears to the casual reader to spell "Gordon Ramsay's" and the confusion is perpetuated online where, for example, TripAdvisor United Kingdom's website's English-language entry for "Gordon Ransay's" is, at the time of posting this blog, headed "Gordon Ramsay's".  The Telegraph report indicates that foreign lawyer have also been instructed, so it may be that parallel proceedings are underway, but the report contains little by way of legal detail.  For the record, Gordon Ramsay's restaurants (of which one is illustrated on the left) do not appear to use his name on their frontage -- though this is something that is likely to be unknown to many or indeed most Tenerife holidaymakers, though they may be familiar with Ramsay's name through his books and media appearances (he is sufficiently well known to have featured in The Simpsons).

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

With reference to the book review, it needs to be recognised that academics are not scientists and they are not practitioners. So they assess the patent system from afar. I think they don't get an idea of the day to day concerns of research companies, and how difficult it can be to commercialise R&D. They don't see the struggle of trying to get reasonable claims through patent offices. I think that one must have experience of these things before one can make suggestions. The law of 'unintended consequences' is very true for changes to the patent system. If you make the wrong changes small businesses will go bankrupt and investors will run away.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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