
The IPKat reminds you that, if you have information about any recent European trade mark cases that you'd like to see reported in the ETMR, just write to him here and let him know.* Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Oy - the Finnish Supreme Court decision after the European Court's preliminary ruling as to the use of Gillette's trade marks by a manufacturer of compatible razor blades;
Below: from Polish hero to trade mark - the curious fate of Jan III Sobieski
* Belvedere's application - an opposition before the Irish Patents Office to an application to register JAN III SOBIESKI as a trade mark, in which the Hearing Officer has to consider whether tobacco and spirits are similar goods;* WWF World Wide Fund v Moniker Online Services (WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center) - the latest sad story in the sage of the wwf.com domain name;
* O2 Holdings v Hutchison 3G, in which the Court of Appeal for England and Wales refers three further questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling, plus some suggested answers.

* "Improving patents for smaller firms: insurance, incontestability, arbitration?" by veteran patent critic/guru William Kingston;Left: Melissa de Zwart (Senior Lecturer, Monash University)
* Tanya Aplin's "The development of the action for breach of condidence in a post-HRA era", HRA being the Human Rights Act;
* Melissa de Zwart's "An historical analysis of the birth of fair dealing and fair use: lessons for the digital age" and
* "The patentability of computer-implemented inventions in Europe" by David Booton.


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