Friday frisks

Once again, the IPKat urges you to check out the 'Forthcoming Events' feature, which you will find in the left-hand side-bar of this weblog's front page. It contains some fresh entries which you may not yet have seen.

The SOLO IP weblog carried a feature
earlier this week on the increasingly burdensome regulatory environment in which solicitors in the UK practice. While compliance with demands for information and the fulfillment of other obligations presents little difficulty for large and even medium-sized law firms with substantial administrative and managerial capability, it can make things very hard for small practices and sole practitioners -- many of whom work in the field of intellectual property. If you'd like to attend a meeting to discuss these matters, email Shireen Smith here.

This week saw the publication in the online version of the European Union's Official Journal of Commission Decision of 3 June 2008 adopting implementing rules concerning the Data Protection Officer pursuant to Article 24(8) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. The IPKat wonders why it has taken so long to adopt these rules, since Regulation 45/2000 dates back to December 2000.

The IPKat has been delighted to learn, from his friend Susan Sneddon (Maclay Murray & Spens), that a new (and 4th) specialist IP judge has been appointed to the Court of Session in Scotland with effect from 21 July 2008. Says Susan, "We think this reflects the trend towards an increase of IP litigation in Scotland generally". The new judge is Lord Malcolm who, under his maiden name of Colin Campbell QC, was Senior Counsel for Norton in the patent infringement action of Organon v Norton joined with the Petition of Arrow Generics for revocation of the Tibolone patents (see IPKat note here). Scotland now has four IP judges: Lord Emslie, Lady Smith, Lord Hodge and Lord Malcolm. For the sake of judicial impartiality, you can check out some Scottish clan conflicts here.

The IPKat's friend Pamela Chestek is an in-house lawyer who composes a lively little blog called Property, Intangible (subtitled 'A blog about ownership of intellectual property rights'). On Wednesday, Pamela asked her readers the following question: "What does it mean in various countries to assign a mark without the goodwill? Is there really any difference between U.S. practice and practice in other countries, other than we have to insert specific words in our agreements?". If this is an issue that you'd like to take up with Pamela, she'll be thrilled to hear from you.

In the news again is easyGroup, which may be doing a spot of litigation in the UK in order to remind the world of its deep and meaningful attachment to the word 'easy'. Some have criticised the company for its aggressive stance, but it looks as though it may have some substantial justification this time around. The Telegraph has reported that easyGroup is threatening Northmpton-based Indian restaurant easyCurry with legal action if it doesn't do something about its name and get-up by Monday morning.

Restaurant owner Naz Uddin said he offered to change the typeface and colours, but refused to remove the word "easy" from the restaurant's name: "We agreed to change the capital letter so it's all lower case and said we would change the colour but they said that's not enough. They're not happy because the word easy is still in the name". For easyGroup, managing director Anthony Robb-John, responds: "We won't let the public be misled. We do not hold ourselves out as owning 'easy' but we do own lots of trade marks. If people are using those names then we will take the appropriate court action".

Friday frisks Friday frisks Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, July 25, 2008 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.