THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT LAW

1 Is anyone from Sweet & Maxwell reading this?

From time to time in recent years IPKat co-blogmeister Jeremy has politely drawn to the attention of Sweet & Maxwell, the publishers of the Entertainment Law Review, the fact that it regularly features in its case note section Hungarian trade mark cases that have absolutely nothing to do with entertainment law. He did this most recently in item 3 of his medley blog of 8 August. Well, the most recent issue (August 2005) has gone and done it again. In its "green pages" news section the Review carries a note on Novartis' attempt to register OSTEOVAN as a trade mark for treatments for osteoporosis and Paget's disease in the light of its similarity with the earlier mark OSTEOSAN. This and previous Hungarian trade mark cases have nothing to do with entertainment law and should be published in the same publisher's European Intellectual Property Review instead. If you're reading this and you're from Sweets, can you please confirm you're going to do this by posting a Comment below? Many thanks in anticipation!


2 ... and now a word about the contents

The issue of the Entertainment Law Review mentioned above is actually quite good. It carries a punchy piece by Jonathan Coad (right, of The Simkins Partnership) on the UK's Press Complaints Commission (nice people, shame about the lack of teeth), as well as a thoughtful case note by Darren Oliver and Marius Haman (Field Fisher Waterhouse) on the after-effects of the WEST/WESTLIFE Community trade mark litigation before the Court of First Instance. The IPKat notes that the Review is gaining momentum again after some rather anorexic issues last year and he wishes it well.