A famous example of summary judgment from Alice in Wonderland
IPKat co-proprietor Jeremy is currently writing an article on summary judgment and striking out in intellectual property proceedings. For those readers who are not familiar with the terms, "summary judgment" is where the judge issues an order in favour of one or other party without letting the matter under dispute go to a full argument before the court, on the basis that the successful party's case on the disputed point is so strong that his adversary has no chance of succeeding against it. "Striking out" is where the court orders all or part of a claim or a defence to be removed from the dispute on the ground that it is so weak or unjustifiable that there is no justification in leaving it to be resolved at trial.
If any reader of the IPKat weblog has any interesting thoughts, strong opinions or valuable experiences of summary judgment and striking out, Jeremy would be most excited to hear about them. Please email him here and tell him. When the draft article is finished (realistically, some time in June), he will make it available on the blog for anyone who wants to read it. The article will focus mainly on UK law but, if there are any lessons out there which lawyers in other jurisdictions can teach us, those lessons will be highly welcome.
More summary judgment in Alice in Wonderland (click here and scroll down to the mouse's tale).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN IP CASES; A PLEA FOR HELP
![SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN IP CASES; A PLEA FOR HELP]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, April 22, 2005
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.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