Latest JIPLP

The printed version August 2008 issue of Oxford University Press's flagship IP journal, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP), should by now have reached its subscribers (the online version is available well in advance). Topics tackled in this summer (or winter, if you're in the Southern hemisphere) issue include

* A practical piece by David Ehrlich (Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, NY) on the role of trade mark warranties in mergers and acquisitions;

* A review by business angel Hidero Niioka on the role played by IP in investment banking;

* "Opel/Autec: does the ECJ realize what it has done?" -- a rhetorical question concerning European trade mark infringement posed by Tobias Cohen Jehoram and Maarten Santman (De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek).

The editorial for this issue, "IP: it all figures", considers some of the more subtle possibilities raised by some recent Oxford-based analysis of official IP filing and grant statistics. You can read this editorial in full, and at no cost, here.

Read all the editorials of the past twelve months here
Full contents of this issue here
For free sample, click here; to subscribe, click here; to write, click here
50 most-read JIPLP features over the past month here.
Latest JIPLP Latest <i>JIPLP</i> Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, August 18, 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.