The November 2008 issue of Oxford University Press's flagship IP journal, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLP), is now out. Topics featured in this issue include the following:The editorial for this issue, "The great unread", muses on the fact that key documents in IP, in particular End User Licence Agreements, are assumed to be read but in reality are usually not. You can read this editorial in full, and at no cost, here.* Gillian Davies, formerly of the European Patent Office and now a barrister in Hogarth Chambers, summarises significant decisions of the EPO boards of appeal in 2007;
* Birgit Clark (Boult Wade Tennant) discusses the German Bundesgerichtshof COOL WATER/ICY COLD decision on the legitimacy or otherwise of allusive product names as a means of comparative advertising for imitative perfumes;
* Marianne Schaffner and Sandra Georges (from Linklaters' Paris office) explain three rulings of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris on how the IP Enforcement Directive's "right to information" should be applied in intellectual property infringement litigation;
* Claire Sellars and Amanda Easey (McDermott Will & Emery) discuss the Court of Appeal decision in Eisai v National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence, in which NICE's procedure for issuing guidance on certain drugs was held to be procedurally unfair;
* Barrister Phillip Johnson (7 New Square) provides an in-depth assessment of the new UK rules for challenging the registration of company names and considers how this regime relates to existing name-protection provisions under regular IP law.
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
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Rating:
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
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html