It seems that the show’s not over for an extension to the copyright term of sound recordings. According to an article in Friday’s Times, 
“Today, whole swathes of the recording catalogue of the 1950s and 1960s, representing a significant part of the national pop heritage, are falling progressively into the public domain…That creates an obvious problem of fairness. Artists who began their careers very young are being stripped today of all remuneration from their first recordings.”
The IPKat can’t quite share Ms Albanel’s indignation. There aren’t many other industries where success in your youth guarantees you an income for life.
Speaking of the French, they will be the only people able to understand last week’s Art.8(5) (dilution and unfair advantage) CFI case regarding the CAMEL trade mark, which still isn’t available in English. Even worse, Professor Lionel Bently has informed the IPKat that the ECJ’s judgment in Procter & Gamble v. OHIM, Case C-107/03P (23 Sept 2004) is not available in English from the ECJ’s website. The IPKat could (very very grudgingly) understand why a CFI judgment mightn’t be translated instantly, but a more than three year wait for an ECJ decision is very poor.
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
just for your information:
ReplyDeleteJudgment in case C-107/03 P has not been published because considered not worth of publication. Therefore it has not been translated into the other EU languages.
It's not like French pop music is any good......
ReplyDelete.. Should read 'Lionel Bently'... (from the Department of Minuscule Emendations).
ReplyDeleteThank you to all anonymice (which I assume is the plural form of people who wish to remain anonymous). I'm rather disturbed by the idea of someone deciding that case law isn't important enough to translate. Shouldn't that be for potential litigants to decide?
ReplyDeleteWhy should Lionel Bently be 'Lionel Bently'? I like him better without the quote marks.
ReplyDeleteTo Ilanah:
ReplyDeleteEasy, just imagine you signed the london agreement on case law.
Don't you feel much better, more modern? No money to spend on translation anymore?
Ok, I was just kidding. We non English speaker have to live with English as the lingua franca, but you English speaker please try to not take it as a given, and remember to show some empathy sometimes.
It's not really a matter of empathy. The EU has many official languages. Case law of its highest court should be available in all of them, be it English, Slovene or French.
ReplyDeleteSaro cretino, ma considerando che é stato pubbliccato in una lingua ufficiale, questo caso mi sembra perfettamente in linea con l'accordo di Londra, che permette di risparmiare sulle traduzioni. E siamo tutti d'accordo che l'accordo di Londra 'e una buona cosa. O soltanto se la linguza ufficiale in questione é l'inglese?
ReplyDeletethe same non-english speaking of above.
'should read Lionel Bently' would be a recommendation (certainly justified) to study his published work. Our previous note advised reducing his vowel count (now done).
ReplyDeleteDepartment of Minuscule Emendations