Ananova reports that, in a study of 100 women who had undergone a variety of cosmetic operations in the past two years, 19% gave up holidays to finance the surgery while 12% spurned home improvements. The Harley Medical Group reports that those having a nose job (rhinoplasty) were most likely to give up a holiday (33%), while women seeking breast surgery opted to take out loans (31%). Liposuction patients were most likely to do without home improvements (20%).
The IPKat is contemplating the intellectual property aspects of rhinoplasty. The Patents Act 1977, s.4(2), following Art. 52(4) of the European Patent Convention, refuses patent protection to any "method of treatment of the human ... body by surgery". As for the nose itself, a sculpted nose (i.e. not a genetically modified or cloned one) is not precluded from patentability but is unlikely to fulfil the patentability criteria. An inherently distinctive human nose may be registered as a trade mark without the need to show that it has acquired distinctiveness through use (as a trade mark, that is). So long as its form is not dictated by its function, a nose created by plastic surgery may be protected by design right. As for copyright, it might even be a "work of artistic craftsmanship" under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.4. The IPKat asks whether rhinoplasty, and indeed other forms of cosmetic surgery, should be entitled to the protection accorded to other intellectual creations and, if so, what should that protection be? The usual prize will be awarded for the best answer.
More about rhinoplasty here, here and here
Nose sculptures here and here
Noses of note: Michael Jackson here and here, Cyrano de Bergerac and Jimmy Durante
Noses that work: click here and here
Artificial noses here and here
The IPKat is contemplating the intellectual property aspects of rhinoplasty. The Patents Act 1977, s.4(2), following Art. 52(4) of the European Patent Convention, refuses patent protection to any "method of treatment of the human ... body by surgery". As for the nose itself, a sculpted nose (i.e. not a genetically modified or cloned one) is not precluded from patentability but is unlikely to fulfil the patentability criteria. An inherently distinctive human nose may be registered as a trade mark without the need to show that it has acquired distinctiveness through use (as a trade mark, that is). So long as its form is not dictated by its function, a nose created by plastic surgery may be protected by design right. As for copyright, it might even be a "work of artistic craftsmanship" under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.4. The IPKat asks whether rhinoplasty, and indeed other forms of cosmetic surgery, should be entitled to the protection accorded to other intellectual creations and, if so, what should that protection be? The usual prize will be awarded for the best answer.
More about rhinoplasty here, here and here
Nose sculptures here and here
Noses of note: Michael Jackson here and here, Cyrano de Bergerac and Jimmy Durante
Noses that work: click here and here
Artificial noses here and here
WHAT'S IN A NOSE?
![WHAT'S IN A NOSE?]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html