TUESDAY MISCELLANY

1 None more fleet than Fleet Street

The IPKat's copy of Sweet & Maxwell's Fleet Street Reports for August 2005 has reached him with remarkable speed, given that July's not yet a week old. This issue contains reports on Schering Corp v Cipla Ltd (Laddie J on whether a request to resolve a patent dispute amicably constituted an infringement to which a threat of litigation could justifiably be made), Jagger v Decca Music Group Ltd (Pumfrey J on the meaning of the words "in connection with" in the arbitration clause in a copyright royalty agreement) and Cambridge Antibody Technology Ltd v Abbott Biotechnology Ltd (Laddie J on rectification of a patent licence for mistake).

Sir Hugh Laddie: often bored, it seems, but never boring

2 Angst-ridden LLM student: a Doctor Writes

Joint IPKat Blogmeister Jeremy received an email from an anxious LLM student, who complained that he was struggling to give short, concise answers to examination questions rather than developing the themes in an analytical manner. The student felt, in short, psychologically unfulfilled. Dr Jeremy has replied that, if the student seeks fulfilment, he is best advised obtain it by writing case notes or articles, rather than through the inherently unsatisfying medium of the law exam. He also notes that, in the real world, legal advice is generally given to satisfy the needs of a client rather than to gratify the intellectual needs of the lawyer. Such gratification should not be procured at the client's expense.

3 A treat for Thursday, from the ECJ

Merpel says, don't forget what's coming up from the European Court of Justice this Thursday. Judgment is expected in

* Case C-418/02 Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte (on the registrability of trade marks for the retail sales services) and

* Case C-353/03 Nestlé, on ascertaining the distinctiveness of a slogan such as HAVE A BREAK, where the applied-for mark's distinctiveness is allegedly derived from its use in a slogan (HAVE A BREAK ... HAVE A KIT-KAT) in which the words KIT-KAT are themselves a well-known mark.

4 Amazon sued for copyright infringement

Not the Perfect defendant

The IPKat chortled at the imagery conjured up by this headline, which he found on Findlaw. Sadly, the defendant in this case is no female warrior but the online book sales company which has been giving visitors to its site a free peep at naughty images that Beverly Hills-based Perfect 10 Inc. charges its subscribers $25 a month for. A similar suit is pending against Google. Both actions are still at the discovery stage, it seems.