More recent publications

The August issue of Sweet & Maxwell's quarterly International Sports Law Review has a genuine IP-related article in it - Denton Wilde Sapte's Helen Padley writes "London 2012: Five Years and Counting", another in a flotilla of article from responsible members of the UK legal profession asking the same question: "has the bar been set too high or are [the key provisions regulating use of Olympic signs and terms] a necessary measure?" The answer, it seems, is a bit of each.

The August-September issue of LexisNexis Butterworths' black and shiny Intellectual Property and Technology Cases - the near-monthly paper adjunct to the online service - carries five cases this time round. They include
* Independiente Music v Music Trading On-Line (HK) - Evans-Lombe J's judgment of 20 March in the controversial CD-WOW case, in which ultimately damages of £41 million were awarded following the defendant's persistent copyright infringement by supplying non-EEA sound recordings to UK purchasers (on this decision see earlier IPKat post here); on the damages award see here;

* Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd, a Court of Appeal decision on how many weak defences you may as well not have argued (see IPKat post here) when being sued for making unauthorised spare parts for Dyson's vacuum cleaners;

* Procter & Gamble v OHIM, this being lots of Joined Cases before the Court of First Instance on the unregistrability as Community trade marks of some thoroughly unmemorable three-dimensional washing detergent shapes with floral colouring (recorded by the IPKat here);

* Intel Corporation v CPM, a Court of Appeal decision to refer various questions relating to trade mark dilution European-style for a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice (noted here).
More recent publications More recent publications Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, September 05, 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.