The January 2006 issue of JIPLP, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (published by Oxford University Press) has some pretty challenging stuff in it. For example
* Toshiko Takenaka (CASRIP, University of Washington) contrasts the US doctrine of patent claim construction with its UK counterpart and makes some sharp observations;

* Abida Chaudri (Bristows) examines the contents of the London Olympics Bill, which makes grim reading for honest traders as well as dishonest ones;

* Susie Middlemiss and Steven Warner (Slaughter and May) say that Lord Justice Aldous' intriguing dicta in Arsenal v Reed indicate a view of passing off as developing a doctrine of dilution; Chris Wadlow (University of East Anglia) says they're wrong - he's talking of a restitutionary remedy to curb unjust enrichment;

* Russell Falconer (Baker Botts) explains the basis of the Washington Redskins case, where trade mark law and political correctness collide.
IPKat co-blogmeister Jeremy, who edits JIPLP, is always anxious for feedback and exciting ideas for future features. If there's anything you'd like to tell him, please email him here.

Contents of this issue here
LATEST JIPLP LATEST JIPLP Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, January 13, 2006 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.