Latest IP Review

The Winter 2005/6 issue of CPA's freebie client magazine IP Review has arrived. It has put on a good deal of weight over the winter, since it's now risen to 44 pages (if you count the covers).

Talking of the cover, it's got a really scary picture of patent agent Dr Caroline Sincock, Chief Intellectual Assets Officer of Glasgow's Intellectual Assets Centre (seen here, above right, smiling). Dr Sincock's brief is to raise awareness of IP as assets and to accustom Scottish businesses to thinking in terms of them. The website's very impressive. Scotland, once a leading centre of technological advance, is now more likely to summon up associations of deep-fried Mars bars (left), Trainspotting and a dreadful international football team. The IPKat sincerely wants this initiative to succeed and wishes the Centre every good fortune.

Other features worth noting in this issue are
* Daniel Greenberg's review of the IP set-up in South Africa and

* Balsamically fruity cult litigant Ralf Sieckmann (right: remember his ECJ litigation over the registration of olfactory signs as trade marks?) asks whether holograms will provide the next generation of trade marks.
If you want your own copy of IP Review, email CPA here.


The first issue of Butterworths' Intellectual Property & Technology Cases for 2006, edited by Michael Silverleaf QC (right), contains five case reports, this time all from the UK. Two are House of Lords decisions (Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers No.2 , on whether unsuccessful defendants have to pay the full whack when claimants have made conditional fee arrangements and Synthon BV v SmithKline Beecham, the latest in a series of "last words" on disclosure and enablement in patent law).

There's also PPL v Reader, a colourful little decision of Mr Justice Pumfrey on whether the cost of getting a naughty defendant committed for contempt of court can be compensated through an award of additional damages, plus two Court of Appeal decisions: Nokia v InterDigital (stay of proceedings in a patent dispute) and Fraser-Woodward v BBC (fair use of celebrity snaps of the Beckhams in TV programme about tabloid newspapers).
IP REVIEW; IP&T IP REVIEW; IP&T Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, January 30, 2006 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Hi Jeremy,

    I'm always interested to read strange statements from the university ivory tower, just as recently from your colleague Dave Bainbridge in IPR 09, revised in IPR 12.
    For reality, see my archive under http://www.copat.de/markenformen/mne_markenformen.htm and the 2006 hologram update under http://www.brainguide.com/global/templates/PDF/publication.php?pid=34205&title=Hologrammarken%20-%20Hologram%20trademarks%202006

    Regards, Ralf


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

Powered by Blogger.