Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / / NOVEMBER EIPR

NOVEMBER EIPR


The glorious grey entity that is the European Intellectual Property Review has been gracing the finest doormats in the land for a couple of weeks now. Found within are the following:

(Left) Your portal to IP goodness

* Gert Wurtenberger on why the ECJ and CFI are getting their assessment of trade mark confusion wrong;

* IPKat co-blogmeister Ilanah on the new performers’ moral rights regime, and what it means for performers, broadcasters, record companies and UK compliance with international copyright law (Part 2 of this article will follow next month)

* Mikko Valimaki and Ville Oksanen on DRM interoperability and IP policy in Europe

* R Stephen Crespi on the upcoming EPO patent cases involving human embryonic stem cells

* Patricia Akester and Francisco Lima on the law and economics of P2P and copyright, and how they’re evolving

* The usual pic ‘n’ mix of cases and book reviews.
NOVEMBER EIPR NOVEMBER EIPR Reviewed by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 14, 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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.