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.

Thursday, 12 May 2016

Around the blogs

This Internkat has been trapped inside almost all week by the dreary, unsummery London weather - a perfect opportunity to catch up with some highlights from the IP blogosphere.

Should charities enforce IP? This question, and some thorny examples of trade mark and branding disputes involving philanthropic organisations is at the heart of IP Finance's recent piece, "Philanthropy’s Purple Rain – Brand Building for Non Profits". IPKat founding father, Jeremy Phillips, is quoted vehemently criticising a UK charity clash from last year as a "a disgraceful waste of utter stupidity in branding and squandering of charitable funds for no constructive purpose", which does indeed seem to hold true for many such disputes. However, the post highlights some scenarios which reveal the need for integrity within charitable branding, and considers what IP may be able to give them.

Getting to know the general knowledge. PatLit compare Mr Justice Birss' judgments in Accord v Medac and Trial C in the Unwired Planet v Huawei tussle in "Common General Knowledge and Inconvenient Details" and the commentary on obviousness as an attack on a patent's validity. The need to avoid hindsight is clear when it comes to setting out the parameters of the common general knowledge, and the "inconvenient" details in prior art documents can make all the difference to a finding - if they are inconvenient enough to make a step inventive.

To assign or not to assign? Over at IP Draughts, Mark Anderson has some words for wisdom for any academic researchers why it would be necessary to execute a written assignment of IP rights to a university if there is an apparently good policy in place. This is bound to be a particularly pertinent question when commercial licensing is at stake, and hopefully will offer some comfort to academics who have found themselves in a similar position. In conclusion? "Just Sign the ____ Form".

Florentijin Hofman's duck sculpture is world-famous

Plagiarism of a giant rubber duck? Public protest against president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has rallied around a giant rubber duck mascot. Unlike the original sculpture by Florentijin Hofman, their giant duck has Xs for eyes, and bears the slogan "CHEGA DE PAGAR O PATO" [~ Time to pay the piper] but since the duck was produced in the very same factory and resembles the sculpture, plagiarism has been alleged. The question to be addressed focuses on the technical drawings used to prepare the ducks. In "Check your rubber duck - is it original?" on IP tangoPatricia Covarrubia explains the story. IPKat reporting of previous alleged counterfeits of the same rubber duck, here, floats Mr Hofman's intended message behind the duck: "humanity's shared culture and childhood memories, pure art and anti-commercialisation".

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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