Four from Sweet & Maxwell

The September 2007 issue of the European Trade Mark Reports has been published. The eight cases in this issue include

* Société Belvédère v Bat Group Poland Sp. Zo.o (Cour de Cassation, Paris, France) on whether the owner of the SOBIESKI trade mark for alcoholic beverages was entitled to secure the cancellation of the later JAN III SOBIESKI trade mark for tobacco products on the basis that the use of the earlier mark would be limited under tobacco advertising restrictions if it called to mind the products of the junior trade mark owner [Right: Jan III Sobieski - from Polish king and hero to trade mark for popular addictive vices];

* Guccio Gucci SpA v Turkish Patent Institute (Ankara Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights, Turkey) - where the owner of the famous GUCCI trade mark was able to prevent the registration of the GUJI mark;

* Principe SpA v Principles Retail Ltd (Irish Patents Office), in which an application to extend an international registration for the PRINCIPE word and device mark was allowed, following consideration as to likelihood of confusion with the PRINCIPLES national and Community trade marks and applications: here, given the relative sophistication of the consumer seeking the applicant's design service, there was little threat of confusion.

As usual, if you come across any interesting and important European trade mark cases please let the IPKat know here and he'll do his best to get them reported in full, in English.


The September issue of the flagship monthly European Intellectual Property Review is also now out. This issue leads with a critical opinion by the IPKat's friend and fellow scholar Andreas Rahmatian - not only a lawyer but something of a musicologist - on the subject of the recent debate in the UK over the much-lobbied request for copyright term extension for sound recordings and performers' rights.

Right: Since cats by tradition have nine lives, a mere 50 years' protection of rights in their performances may seem a trifle ungenerous

Other features of interest include

* Two pieces on privacy rights in the UK: a full-blown article by Alastair Wilson QC and Victoria Jones (both of Hogarth Chambers) and a case comment by Angus McLean and Claire Mackey (Simmons & Simmons). The Kat wonders whether they're the wrong way round - the case note is a good deal longer than the article and, in his humble opinion, should have been published as one;
* A pretty advanced piece (for lawyers, that is) on the methodology for determining IP royalty rates by barrister Tim Sampson (One Essex Court) - tough reading if you aren't great at maths and don't read Greek;

* A thought-provoking piece on the privatisation of culture through the employment of Geographical Indication protection by Rhonda Chesmond (Griffith University), which reminded the IPKat of comments made by Hugh Hansen in an intervention at Fordham University some years ago about GIs marking a return to feudalism.

Issue Three for 2007 of the Intellectual Property Quarterly maintains that title's reputation for publishing somewhat longer, more expansive and analytical pieces than most monthlies can carry. Among the topics in this issue are

* Hazel Carty (Manchester University) on the role of the common law in developing remedies for real or perceived ills, discussing among other things whether the fact that a claimant can prove that he has established an advantage which the defendant's activity erodes is of itself a justification for protecting it;

* Chris Wadlow (University of East Anglia) asks whether TRIPs can be counted as the origin of a GATT Anti-Counterfeiting Code;

* Nigel Gravells (University of Nottingham) revisits a House of Lords decision that is always cited by students in exams, often footnoted by academics and sometimes cited by practitioners - but probably not often critically read: the ruling on originality and authorship of a literary work in Walter v Lane.

In its splendid red and green livery, the bimonthly European Commercial Cases carry quite a few decisions of interest to IP lawyers.

Right: now in the public domain: Claude Monet's famous 'Plant Varieties'

This issue is no exception. In it the reader will find

* Re LUCKY STRIKE trade mark (Supreme Court, Austria) - a battle as to whether the wording in a trade mark prevails over its imagery;

* Société des Auteurs dans les Arts Graphiques et Plastiques v Editions Fernand Hazan (Cour de Cassation, France), in which it was ruled that Monet's works could not be further extended under war extension provisions and were thus definitely in the public domain.