PUBLIC POLICY AND PROMOTING INVENTIONS

1 Contrary to public policy and morality? Wanna bet?

The IPKat wonders whether Case T-140/02 Sportwetten GmbH Gera v OHIM, Intertops Sportwetten GmbH was posted on the Curia website today,even though it's dated yesterday. Intertops obtained registration of a figurative Community trade mark (CTM) containing the word INTERTOPS (above, right) for betting services in Class 42. Sportwetten, who had a German registration of the word mark INTERTOPS SPORTWETTEN, sought cancellation of the CTM on the ground that, since its proprietor was not licensed to provide such services in Germany, the registration of the mark was contrary to public policy and to accepted standards of morality. The application for cancellation was refused both by the Cancellation Division and by the Board of Appeal, which held that public policy and morality involve an examination of the inherent nature of a mark itself, not the actual or proposed circumstances of its use.

Sportwetten appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI dismissed the appeal, also

* refusing to declare that Intertops was barred from citing its CTM in German proceedings and

* refusing to order that a German Patent and Trade Mark Office decision, ordering that the INTERTOPS SPORTWETTEN mark be expunged from the register, be added to the file in these proceedings.

The IPKat thinks the CFI has got it right, but he's not sure anyone would want to bet on it ...


2 Invention promotion companies: highway robbers or knights in shining armour?

Further to the blog this morning on the Irish Patents Office's warning on companies that may prey on small-scale inventors, the IPKat is would like to know the following:

(i) What is the name of the American company that recently moved to Ireland, mentioned in the anonymous comment on the ealier blog? Can someone please let me have details, coordinates etc.

(ii) does anyone know of any invention promotion company that has a genuine track record of helping inventors commercialise their inventions?

(iii) should invention promotion companies be treated differently from companies that make it their business to assist in the development of brands, franchise formats, copyright-protected works and so on?

(iv) is this specifically an Anglo-American phenomenon, or is the invention promotion company found in other legal traditions too?