SUNDAY BEST

1 Last rites for the funeral case

Last month the IPKat brought news of the Court of Appeal decision in the Adlem case. Today the Telegraph reports that this case, which turns upon a funeral undertaker's entitlement to trade under his own name, will be going to the House of Lords. This note gives some interesting background to the case.

Right: Sir Clement Atleee, former British Prime Minister and one of the celebrity burials conducted by Richard Adlem in a career spanning more than 40 years

2 Cut to the quick -- but sharp-witted knifemaker survives

The Taipei Times reports on the struggle faced by the company that makes Victorinox Swiss army knives to keep its business going after the horrors of 11 September 2001. Remarkable brand extensions include a childrens' Swiss army knife, a blade-free air-travel version and a knife with a USB port that allows you to link up to your computer.

The IPKat says, if anyone doubts that intellectual property has an "intellectual" flavour to it, this story should dispel those doubts.

3 Can't spell Google? You may be in for a surprise

This has come to the IPKat via his friend Andrea Glorioso.

An internet arbitrator has awarded Google the rights to several website addresses that relied on typographical errors as a means of exploiting the online search engine's popularity so that computer viruses and other malicious software could be unleashed on unsuspecting visitors. The National Arbitration Forum sided with a Google complaint alleging that Sergey Gridasov of St. Petersburg, Russia, had engaged in "typosquatting" by operating websites named googkle.com, ghoogle.com and gooigle.com. The decision of the arbitrator (pursuant to the UDRP) is available here.

Nothing really major here, says Andrea - the case was quite straightforward, and I think this could be used as a teaching example of "bad faith". I found this sentence rather interesting, though:

"The disputed domain names registered by Respondent consist of typosquatted versions of Complainant's famous GOOGLE mark. Thus, Respondent is engaging in the practice of "typosquatting" by taking advantage of a potential typographical error made by Internauts, intending to reach Complainant's website at the domain name, who inadvertently strike letters adjacent on the standard English-language keyboard to some letters in Complainant's mark".

Should the panel have considered also the "non-standard", "non-English-language" keyboard (which could have a different key layout, although I'm not sure at all) out there? Would something have changed in the decision?

If you have any bright ideas on this issue, contact Andrea here.