No longer Double Dutch

The IPKat's friend Piter de Weerd has drawn his attention to an extremely useful Dutch website, According to Piter:
" is part of the Dutch IP website and contains mainly informal and often uncorrected English translations of (summaries of) recent Dutch case law on intellectual property. does not pretend to be complete or to offer a selection of all relevant cases, but merely provides the possibility to share translations of Dutch case law, e.g. translations made for foreign clients, with (foreign) colleagues and researchers. Everyone is invited to send in translations of Dutch IP case law, preferably accompanied by a very short summary by way of introduction, to".

Right: we can't complain that it's all "Double Dutch" to us when we can now read about Dutch cases in English

The IPKat is most impressed by what he has seen of the site so far. He's even more impressed to see that the sponsors of this valuable service include a number of law firms that are in keen competition with one another both in the Netherlands and further afield. Merpel agrees: she feels that sharing information like this will not only lead to better advice being given to clients but will also help reduce costs as duplication of the need to keep paying for translations is diminished.
No longer Double Dutch No longer Double Dutch Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, February 11, 2007 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.