Good month for the Kat; Latest IP&T

Once again the IPKat must thank his readers for their support and for their interest in his mew-sings. In March the weblog received 20,800 casual visits, while 869 IP enthusiasts received their posts by Gmail circular. In the third week of March the site was visited a record 5,089 times. Thank you, thank you, says the IPKat. No need to repeat yourself, says Merpel.

Right: without wanting to stick his neck out, the IPKat ventures to predict that interest in news and comment concerning IP continues to grow.

What's in the March 2007 issue of LexisNexis Butterworths' Intellectual Property & Technology Cases, the IPKat hears you ask. The five cases this time around include
* Siemens v VIPA (European Court of Justice): a ruling on whether a business had taken unfair advantage of the reputation of the distinguishing marks of Siemens' Simatic product range by using Siemens' stock code numbers as part of its own stock numbers for compatible products.

* MIP METRO Group v OHIM (Court of First Instance): a salutary tale of what can happen if a party opposing a Community trade mark application fails to subject evidence that its earlier mark is still validly registered at the operative time.

* Grant v Google UK Ltd (Mr Justice Rimer of the Chancery Division for England and Wales): Google - who did not oppose the application - were ordered to disclosure information relating to the identity of one of its advertisers who was involved in an alleged copyright infringement, on terms that the applicant paid Google's costs of providing that information.
Good month for the Kat; Latest IP&T Good month for the Kat; Latest IP&T Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, April 04, 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.