Stephen Stewart Memorial Lecture
This year’s Stephen Stewart Memorial Lecture takes place on Tuesday 15 November. The event, organised by the IP Institute and hosted at the offices of Slaughter and May features William Rooklidge (AIPLA president) speaking on ‘Reform of Patent Laws: The US Experience in Forging Legislation from Disparate Interests’. In the chair is Sir Hugh Laddie. The event is free, but those wishing to attend should return this form to Anne Goldstein of the IPI by 9 November.
Nominet Judicial Review
The IPKat must have been taking a catnap while the High Court dismissed CyberBritain’s application for judicial review of Nominet’s decision to strip it of the itunes.co.uk domain name in August. The Kat is indebted to Mark Engelman of 7 New Square, who brought the decision to his (or rather blogmeister Ilanah’s) attention when s/he was attending ICI Intellectual Property Group’s Legal Seminar last Monday. While it seems that, in principle, the decisions of Nominet are subject to judicial review, CyberBritain’s application for JR was made out of time and, in failing to use Nominet’s internal appeal procedure, CyberBritain has failed to exhaust its rights of appeal before coming to the court.
It seems that the decision is hard to get hold of – if anyone has a copy, the IPKat would be most grateful to receive it. Like Mr Engelman, the IPKat is not surprised that Nominet decisions are judicially reviewable, since it meets the traditional JR criterion that, if it didn’t exist, the Government would have to set it up.
Further coverage is a available from OutLaw
This year’s Stephen Stewart Memorial Lecture takes place on Tuesday 15 November. The event, organised by the IP Institute and hosted at the offices of Slaughter and May features William Rooklidge (AIPLA president) speaking on ‘Reform of Patent Laws: The US Experience in Forging Legislation from Disparate Interests’. In the chair is Sir Hugh Laddie. The event is free, but those wishing to attend should return this form to Anne Goldstein of the IPI by 9 November.
Nominet Judicial Review
The IPKat must have been taking a catnap while the High Court dismissed CyberBritain’s application for judicial review of Nominet’s decision to strip it of the itunes.co.uk domain name in August. The Kat is indebted to Mark Engelman of 7 New Square, who brought the decision to his (or rather blogmeister Ilanah’s) attention when s/he was attending ICI Intellectual Property Group’s Legal Seminar last Monday. While it seems that, in principle, the decisions of Nominet are subject to judicial review, CyberBritain’s application for JR was made out of time and, in failing to use Nominet’s internal appeal procedure, CyberBritain has failed to exhaust its rights of appeal before coming to the court.
It seems that the decision is hard to get hold of – if anyone has a copy, the IPKat would be most grateful to receive it. Like Mr Engelman, the IPKat is not surprised that Nominet decisions are judicially reviewable, since it meets the traditional JR criterion that, if it didn’t exist, the Government would have to set it up.
Further coverage is a available from OutLaw
STEPHEN STEWART LECTURE AND FAILED JUDICIAL REVIEW
![STEPHEN STEWART LECTURE AND FAILED JUDICIAL REVIEW]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Monday, October 24, 2005
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.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