tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2828513509114839792..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Catus Astutus Festivus - an Olympics updateVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35923855092698615562012-07-31T17:12:49.060+01:002012-07-31T17:12:49.060+01:00I was looking at the LOCOG brand guidance and foun...I was looking at the LOCOG brand guidance and found it extraordinarily tendentious. The idea has got around that any association is per se infringing, but it is clear from the statute that the association has to be essentially a commercial relationship between the defendant and the Games. Reference to the Games is not in itself the suggestion of such an association. I predict that there will be few successful actions.Thomas Dillonhttp://www.dillon.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46487766017550285392012-07-30T17:32:14.006+01:002012-07-30T17:32:14.006+01:00LOCOG rely on the disturbing Schedule 4 of The Lon...LOCOG rely on the disturbing Schedule 4 of The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 which prevents people from creating an association between a business, goods or services, and the London 2012 Olympic Games without their authorisation. <br /><br />Keep in mind its THEIR determination of what amounts to an 'association'. <br /><br />My employer received a threatening letter from LOCOG that had this cracking line: <br /><br />"We want the Olympic Games to be remembered for getting the nation behind the Games, not for incidents of unauthorised commercial activity"<br /><br />So what did we spend our money on trade mark protection for then? We are surely authorised under the TMA1994 to use the brand for what we registered it for? (see para 6 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006). According to LOCOG... no...Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64208487685925733662012-07-30T11:46:35.931+01:002012-07-30T11:46:35.931+01:00There's an fascinating clash between LOCOG'...There's an fascinating clash between LOCOG's incredibly aggressive protectionist stance and the attitudes of the great Britains who were celebrated in the opening ceremony. Tim Berners-Lee famously didn't patent the world wide web ("This is for everyone"), and Isambard Kingdom Brunel not only didn't patent any of his inventions, he actively campaigned for patents to be abolished.<br /><br />Ask any member of the public to categorise LOCOG, Brunel and Berners-Lee into good guys and bad guys, and there's little doubt which way they would decide. Surely and it can't be long before politicians outside the Pirate Party start to capitalise on the public's attitude to IP enforcement?Andrew Robinsonhttp://www.pirateparty.org.uknoreply@blogger.com