Golding Essay Prize 2007The IPKat has a very warm place in his affections for the Competition Law Association, since he has long felt that you can't appreciate how intellectual property rights work in the marketplace without also understanding those principles of law which lie outside the IP system but circumscribe its operation.
The CLA is offering a prize of £1000 to be awarded for an essay submitted by a student, trainee solicitor, pupil barrister or devil barrister (from Scotland) on the following topic: “Should there be a tort of 'unfair competition' in English law?” The essay should take account of Art 10bis of the Paris Convention and the Trade Marks Directive. The Rules are as follows:The IPKat is very excited about this competition and urges everyone eligible to have a fling."The essay shall be of a maximum length of 5000 words and the closing date for entry is 13 April 2007. Entries should be formatted on A4 in at least 11 point font and 1.5 spacing with footnotes at the bottom of the page, and submitted in electronic form to the CLA secretary, Sharon Horwitz.
Entrants should please place a codeword instead of their real name on the essay and include both the codeword and real name, with confirmation that the author satisfies the entry qualifications, in the covering e-mail.
Those already qualified as lawyers whether in the United Kingdom or a foreign jurisdiction are not eligible for the prize and the entry qualifications apply as at 13 April 2007.
The judges will be Christopher Morcom QC, Dr Christopher Wadlow of the University of East Anglia and Dr Justin Watts of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. The decision of the judges is final and the CLA reserves the right not to award the prize if the judges consider that no entry is of a sufficiently high standard or to divide the prize between two or more entries if the judges so decide".
To Kill a Licence? Medimmune v GenentechThe IPKat’s friends, nobly led by Edward Tomlinson (Frohwitter, Munich), have drawn his attention to the US Supreme Court decision yesterday in MedImmune v Genentech, by a majority of eight judges to one, that a licensee can now sue for invalidity of the licensed patent without breaching the licence agreement and without needing to terminate the licence before seeking revocation. This decision appears to bring the US into line with European competition law. The IPKat promises to put his thinking cap on and give a more reflective comment soon, so watch this site for further thoughts. Meanwhile, says the Coalition for Patent Fairness:
"… This ruling is a positive step, but it is clear that a legislative remedy is needed to strengthen our overall patent system..."
No comment yet available on Patently-O or Patent Baristas, but the IPKat bets there will be soon.
To Kill a Licence? Medimmune v Genentech
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