Latest IP&T; Consumer Commissioner silent on IP

Only two cases feature in the February 2007 issue of LexisNexis Butterworths' Intellectual Property and Technology Cases - but they're both incredibly popular ones. There's Baigent v Random House Group Ltd, a.k.a. the Da Vinci Files case, and there's also the Court of Appeal's much pronounced-upon pronouncement in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd/re Macrossan's application.

IPKat posts on Da Vinci here and here
IPKat posts on Macrossan and its impact here, here, here, here, here, here and here

If you have harboured any delusions that European Union consumer policy might in any way be connected with intellectual property law, let the IPKat put you straight. Here is the full text of a speech by EU Commissioner for Consumer Policy Meglena Kuneva. This speech, rather curiously entitled "Does the European Union's ability to act erode?", was delivered at a meeting of the Strategy Group on the Future of Europe held in Berlin on 26 February 2007. Alas, it contains no references to IP at all. Says the IPKat, given the prominent position of IP law at the very point where consumers acquire and consume goods and services, this is a little disappointing. Merpel adds, perhaps it looks like poaching if one Commissioner talks about topics that belong to the other ones ...
Latest IP&T; Consumer Commissioner silent on IP Latest IP&T; Consumer Commissioner silent on IP Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, March 06, 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.