1 IPKat translation watch

The IPKat has complained long and hard at the failure of the European Court of Justice to furnish English translations of its decisions. This time it's the turn of the European Court of Human Rights. It's now nearly three weeks since the ECHR ruled, in Anheuser-Busch Inc v Portugal, that registered trade marks were "property" within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that anything short of a granted right - for example unconfirmed registrations and applications - was not. However, the ECHR website only appears to have a French version of this case.

What about the human right of IP lawyers to access and understand the law in a language that they understand, growls the Kat. Merpel agrees and also wonders whether the ECHR's website is as user-friendly as it could be - the ECJ's site (when it's working) would be a good model to emulate.

2 Latest EIPR

The November 2005 issue of Sweet & Maxwell's monthly European Intellectual Property Review has now appeared. As usual there are lots of goodies in it. Of particular note are
* An Opinion by the intriguingly named Oxonian Leslie Kim Treiger-Bar-Am on the relationship of the meaning of art works and the relationship of their meaning to copyright law, with special reference to Christo's The Gates;

* A learned account by Dutch academic Sven J. R. Bostyn on the referral to the European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal of some questions concerning the patentability of diagnostic methods;

* A lovely piece by the IPKat's friend Duncan Matthews entitled "TRIPs Flexibilities and Access to Medicines in Developing Countries: the Problem with Technical Assistance and Free Trade Agreements";

* A note by South African IP/IT lawyer Daniel Greenberg, now in London, on the celebrated Black Labour trade mark parody case.
TRANSLATION WATCH; LATEST EIPR TRANSLATION WATCH; LATEST EIPR Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, October 31, 2005 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.