Five Golden Rings

The IPKat's excitement at receiving his copy of Sweet & Maxwell's International Sports Law Review is sometimes diminished by (i) discovering how little IP it often contains and (ii) how thin it sometimes is. The just-published issue 3/06, however, is no disappointment to him at all. It's full of pages (a useful technique for keeping subscribers happy if they're paying over £500 a year for just four issues) and - this is the best bit, it's pretty rich in IP too. There's

* a long and really well-researched article by London barrister and author Christina Michalos on the development and protection of the Olympic symbol. Christina doesn't just spout pro- or anti- sentiments, but takes the trouble to ask questions like, for example, just why is it that so few states that compete in the Olympics have taken the trouble to sign up to the Nairobi Treaty on Protection of the Olympic Symbol (just 45, so far).

Right: Sweet & Maxwell like to test aspiring contributors rigorously before accepting their work for publication

* the full text of the judgment in the action brought by adidas against the various authorities running the main tennis tournaments in response to their attempts to curb the manner in which adidas uses its three-stripe motif on tennis wear.

Subscription details here
FIVE GOLDEN RINGS FIVE GOLDEN RINGS Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, August 31, 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.