International Sports Law ReviewThe IPKat has been perusing issue 2/2006 of Sweet & Maxwell's quarterly International Sports Law Review. It's not a title that is known for its IP content, tending to deal with issues such as regulation of various sports, liablity for sport-related injuries and the like. This issue, however, contains a review by Pauline Dore (Lewis Silkin) of the draconian measures which are intended to combat the harmless pleasures of ambush marketing in the London Olympics in 2012. There's also a nice piece on the battle between the French government and the European Commission over whether French football clubs should be allowed to raise public finance, by Patricia Edwards (Calleja Consulting).
Ambush marketing: a lexicographer speaks
Gowers debateThe IPKat thanks Joseph Savirimuthu for drawing his attention to a debate last week in the House of Commons on the forthcoming report of the Gowers Review on intellectual property.
Right: Parliamentarians grapple with the subtleties of intellectual property law
Readers can draw their own conclusions, but the IPKat thinks this is going to be a big build-up that will lead to very little, given (i) the propensity of lobbyists and special interest groups to cancel one another out and (ii) the reality that almost all IP reform initiatives today must either come from the European Commission or receive its blessing. Still, Merpel says, anything that gets IP on to the pages of the national press is welcome - especially if it means that journalists will finally learn that you can't patent a trade mark.
INTERNATIONAL SPORTS LAW REVIEW; COMMONS DEBATE ON GOWERS
![INTERNATIONAL SPORTS LAW REVIEW; COMMONS DEBATE ON GOWERS]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html