Friday finicketies

The Onion is having some more fun with other people's trade marks. This time it's Dippin' Dots - a brand with which the IPKat is unfamiliar: the thesis is that, in the future, the earth's inhabitants will consume Dippin' Dots rather than traditional ice cream.
" ... dessert items are made by flash-freezing beads of cream with liquid nitrogen, then storing them in subzero conditions. People enjoy these treats with great regularity, and often remark upon how delicious they taste ...

Put down your crude melting desserts of churned animal's milk and embrace the glorious world of high-tech flash-frozen treats ..."
It seems to the IPKat that one way to gauge the ubiquity of the public's consciousness of a brand is to see whether it features in parodies, satires and humorous pieces aimed at the general public. The Dippin' Dots feature works well for US readers, but the brand is little known outside its home markets (see the brand's biography in Wikipedia).

The IPKat says a big thank-you to his friend Kristof Neefs (Laga, Belgium), for sending him here also, on Ars Technica). This is all about AV v iParadigms, a Virginia District Court decision on whether students have rights to the material they hand in as class assignments. If they do, can they then sue iParadigms (owners of the turnitin automated plagiarism-detection operation) for infringing their copyrights when their works are uploaded not for the purpose of receiving a grade but for the purpose of seeing how many people may have already submitted the same assignment? And can iParadigms plead "fair use"?

In brief, Judge Claude M. Hilton rejected the students' claims. To use the service at all, the students had to agree to a clickthrough statement that absolved iParadigms from legal liability. The students' attempt to get around this by attaching a disclaimer to the material they submitted failed since the iParadigms scheme had no provisions for disclaimers. Arguments based on lack of capacity (the students being minors) and duress got equally short shrift.

What was the IPKat doing back in October 2007 when he missed the registration by Pfizer Inc of a Community trade mark for the word VIAGRA in Classes 01, 03, 09, 10, 16, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 41, 42 and 44. The large range of goods and services covered by this registration includes the following, which the IPKat offers without comment:

"Class 28: Games and playthings; ... decorations for Christmas trees.

Class 29: ... frozen, dried and cooked ... vegetables; jellies ...; edible oils and fats.

Class 30: ... tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour ...; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ....

Class 31: ... live animals; fresh fruits and vegetables; seeds, natural plants and flowers; ....

Class 32: Beers; ...; syrups and other preparations for making beverages.

Class 33: Alcoholic beverages (except beers).

Class 35: ... office functions.

Class 41: ... entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.

Class 42: ... design and development of computer hardware and software".

Friday finicketies Friday finicketies Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, March 28, 2008 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. I never fail to buy a hatful of Dippin Dots whenever I go to a New Yankees baseball game. (The product is sold is a plastic cup in the shape of a small baseball cap.)You have to eat is quickly, to enjoy the mouthfeel, before it melts into prosaic ice cream.


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.