Recent Poll Results

No, the IPKat hasn't forgotten to publish the results of his recent IP opinion polls - he's just been a little slow to add a couple of comments of his own. The first poll mentioned here is that on the issue of whether IP trials require specialist IP-trained judges. An overwhelming 74% of respondents - that's 134 people - felt that specialist IP judges were always needed, another 19% qualifying that view by saying that such judges could be dispensed with where sci/tech background was not needed. On this basis, cases involving trade marks, celebrity publicity/privacy or designs, for example would be okay even for ordinary judges while patent trials and know-how licensing, for example would usually need a techie judge. This high level of support was not surprising, given the fact that so many of the readers of the IPKat weblog are IP litigators and specialist judges themselves. What remains to be seen, though, is whether this sentiment is one to which national governments can accede. And remember that the European Court of Justice, whose cases shape so many aspects of EU IP law, are themselves non-specialists - as are the Advocates General who guide them.

The second poll reviewed here is the "What shall we do with BUDWEISER" issue. A total of 185 respondents expressed their opinions, more than one third of whom felt that concurrent use was the fairest solution to this long-standing (and, for trial lawyers, lucrative) dispute. A further 23% were all for giving it to the Czechs against only 7% for yielding it to the Americans - a result that might just as well reflect Eurocentric bias in the IPKat's readership as any perception that Anheuser-Busch's position is untenable. A surprisingly high proportion - more than 20% - were for the tongue-in-cheek proposal to hold the mark in trust for redundant IP lit lawyers. Self-interest, the Kat wonders? Wishful thinking, Merpel believes.
Recent Poll Results Recent Poll Results Reviewed by David Pearce on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. The reason that the Czechs came out on top is that the Czech beer is far better.


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.