Recent publications

To the IPKat's interest and surprise, an unsolicited copy of issue 16 (February 2007) of China Intellectual Property (subtitled Comprehensive IP report on China) has just reached him. Published by Hurrymedia, this handsomely-produced magazine contains features both in Chinese and in English.

Right: the current issue is not yet illustrated on the website - but this is what an earlier issue looks like

According to the publishers' website,

"Hurrymedia’s flag ship publication, China IP, has set the new standard for all the other legal publications in China. Our editorial coverage, led by a team of some of China’s finest writers and legal experts is already very well respected by people within both the legal and business fields.

The issues concerning the Chinese Intellectual property sector cover a wide and diverse spectrum. The publication is designed to meet the ever-growing demand for up to date information regarding the increasing number of international IP law firms within the Chinese market. Another key role it has is to promote the reputation of international clients in China and Chinese firms abroad.

Given our extensive reach, over 50,000 copies are distributed to various organizations both locally and internationally. Our reputation amongst even the most prestigious international legal firms has grown so we anticipate that both our circulation figures and exposure levels will grow through time".
Left: This year is the Chinese Year of the Pig, a sign of prosperity - but will IP owners prosper too?

Features in this issue include an interview with Thomas Pattloch (IP Officer with the European Commission) and a special report on "trade mark proximity", this being a case study with views from the perspectives of various parties and persons involved. The IPKat feels that the message conveyed in this issue is the usual one - things in China are bad from the point of view of IP enforcement, but they're improving because (i) the law is better than it was before, (ii) practitioners and enforcement agencies are more aware of the issues, (iii) the judiciary is better-equipped to handle IP disputes and (iv) the Chinese are conscious of the need to conform to international standards. The tone of China IP is a strongly positive one, too. Merpel adds, if you have difficulty memorising Chinese characters, you'll find the bits on similarity of trade marks tough to follow.

Less of a surprise was the arrival of the March 2007 issue of Informa's 10-times a year Patent World. This issue leads with a cogent little piece by veteran US patent commentator Kenneth R. Adamo and his colleague Susan M. Gerber (Jones Day) on the manner in which the US Supreme Court has increasingly continued to shape the development of the US patent system. There's also a slightly startling piece by doctoral candidate Ronald Ker-Wei Yu on whether Hong Kong ought to adopt the doctrine of equivalents, with special attention to the biotech sector: the IPKat had forgotten how spoilt for case law countries like the US and the UK are, and how much there is still to play for in jurisdictions where key questions remain de facto or de jure open to argument.

Full contents of this issue here
Recent publications Recent publications Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, February 25, 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.