Sharing Names - a reminderThe IPKat is pleased to remind readers that the "Sharing Names" one day conference, on 20 June 2006, is still taking bookings. This event, which the IPKat endorses, examines critically the way in which the law handles conflicts and problems arising where two different entities - whether connected or not - find themselves using the same name or trade mark. There's a powerful panel of speakers, including Isabel Davies (Howrey), Dev Gangjee (London School of Economics), Dave Landau (Trade Marks Registry), Neil Wilkof (author of an amazingly good book on Trade Mark Licensing) and Wilberforce Chambers' Michael Bloch QC.
Full programme and booking details here
Resurrection, Da Vinci and the Mystery of the Reporter's WhoopsieIt seems to the IPKat that you just can't keep Mr Justice Peter Smith out of court. Just when he thought the Da Vinci Code case was dead and buried, it seems to have sprung to life again. First, the learned judge hit the headlines by sticking his own private bit of encryption into his judgment. Then, in Baigent and another v Random House (Re The Lawyer), heard yesterday, we saw a journalist with The Lawyer magazine getting into all sorts of trouble.
What happened, according to the Online Press Gazette, was that the journalist got hold of the draft judgment before it was supposed to be made public, then put it on The Lawyer's website. When he learned of the error of his ways, he apologised. But in court yesterday he got a good roasting from the judge, who explained that the privilege of making judgments available before they were fully baked would be taken away if journalists abused it again.
Purple patch
The IPKat's friend Duncan Bucknell has sent him this link which shows conclusively that global confectionery giant Cadbury's don't exercise total control over the colour purple in Australia. This follows a ruling last week in the Australian Federal Court in Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 4). Many thanks, Duncan!Deep Purple here
The Colour Purple here
SHARED NAMES; DA VINCI - THE RESURRECTION; PURPLE PATCH
![SHARED NAMES; DA VINCI - THE RESURRECTION; PURPLE PATCH]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
Actually, no. At the same time as the passing off action was going on in the courts, there was an opposition proceeding pending in the trade mark office, regarding registration of purple for chocolate. Same parties. Darrell Lea has succeeded in its opposition, but importantly, the TMO held that if Cadbury amended (narrowed) its application to block and boxed chocolates, it could get registration. See my post here.
ReplyDeleteclarification - I should have said that the judgment is not the last word. Cadbury exercise a little bit of control over a certain purple in relation to certain goods. still, that's not a bad deal, if you think about it. 'boxed and block chocolates' is a pretty good set of rights, especially since you can always at least claim infringement where the infringing goods are 'similar' to the registered goods themselves.
ReplyDelete