The IPKat is grateful to Felicity Hide for pointing him in the direction of another IP misnomer.

Earlier this year, the Times reported on a man found guilty of running a counterfeit drugs ring, including a factory in Wembley containing £6m of counterfeit medications, including fake VIAGRA and diazepam. Acccording to the article, loopholes meant that Valentine could be charged only with copyright infringements.

As Felicity points out, this was obviously a trade mark case and the difference is important because the the maximum term under the Trade Marks Act was rather higher than other applicable charges.

Despite the blooper, there is actually a serious point to this article. It castigates pharmaceutical companies and medical regulators for not doing enough to crack down on counterfeit drugs. The drugs companies are often loathe to report counterfeiting incidents because they are afraid of undermining confidence in their branded drugs. This leads to a conflict between the need to protect the reputation of the brand and the need to protect patients. Also, there is no obligation for drug compaies to report incidents. This is unlike the situation in civil aviation, where aircraft manufacturers are obliged to report incidences of fake spare parts.
MORE KITTY LITTER MORE KITTY LITTER Reviewed by Unknown on Friday, December 09, 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.