Last IP&T for 2005

The IPKat has just received the November/December issue of Butterworths' sleek shiny Intellectual Property and Technology Cases. Cases reported in this issue include

* Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Records Ltd (Chancery Division), in which Mr Justice Hart swept away some convoluted, if not actually complex defences to an action for an ancient copyright infringement on the basis that there was no likelihood that they would succeed.

* IPC Media Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Chancery Division): another decision of Mr Justice Hart, in which some fairly interesting defence arguments relating to 'fair dealing' were also swept away when he awarded summary judgment in a copyright infringement claim relating to the use of the front page of the claimant's publication in an advertisement for the defendant's rival publication.

* Gillette v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy Case C-228/03 (European Court of Justice), in which the ECJ laid down, in rather more detail than the IPKat likes, the parameters within which one is allowed to use another's trade mark in order to tell consumers that one's blades fit someone else's razor handle.

* Douglas v Hello! Ltd (Nos 4 and 5) (Court of Appeal), in which the generous basis upon which Lindsay J awarded damages to a magazine that lost the exclusivity of the Douglas and Zeta-Jones wedding photos was shot down in flames.

The IPKat reminds readers that the paper version of IP&T is just something to keep the bookshelves fresh with: the real IP&T service is online and pretty nifty.

This time it's copyright

The Onion provides lots of trade mark material for the IPKat's blog. But John Blake has just sent him this lovely link to a feature on copyright. Under the heading "RIAA bans telling friends about songs" it reads as follows:
The Recording Industry Association of America announced Tuesday that it will be taking legal action against anyone discovered telling friends, acquaintances, or associates about new songs, artists, or albums. "We are merely exercising our right to defend our intellectual properties from unauthorized peer-to-peer notification of the existence of copyrighted material," a press release signed by RIAA anti-piracy director Brad Buckles read. "We will aggressively prosecute those individuals who attempt to pirate our property by generating 'buzz' about any proprietary music, movies, or software, or enjoy same in the company of anyone other than themselves." RIAA attorneys said they were also looking into the legality of word-of-mouth "favorites-sharing" sites, such as coffee shops, universities, and living rooms.
Strong stuff. While the RIAA has been remarkably successful in deterring individuals from some of the more egregious file-sharing infringements, it has not yet won over the hearts and minds of the great American music-consuming public.
LATEST IP&T; ONION HITS RIAA LATEST IP&T; ONION HITS RIAA Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, December 04, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. I recall a similar paradox in "It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand", described as "a satirical memoir" (I didn't realise it was satirical when I read it 25 years ago) by Jerome Tuccille, who tells the reader about an obscure libertarian group in the States (the whole book is about more or less obscure libertarians in the States) which takes such a rigorous view of property rights that adherents aren't allowed to share the founder's ideas with anyone.


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.