The September 2009 issue of Oxford University's flagship monthly IP journal, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice (JIPLAP), has finally reached IPKat team member Jeremy, who edits it. Items in this issue include the following:* OHIM's Director of Designs Pedro Rodinger reviews the first few Community design cases to come before the Court of First Instance;The Editorial, "Caveat Caritas!", reflects upon attitudes towards IP as reflected in the latest Papal encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, on the subject. You can read the full text here.
* "Patent term extensions for human drugs under the US Hatch-Waxman Act", by Covidien's Jeffrey S. Boone;
* Md Rizwanul Islam (Northern University, Bangladesh) asks whether it would be prudent for Singapore to use the EU's sui generis database right as a model for its own protection of databases;
* Katya Assaf (Hebrew University) offers a semiotic perspective on trade mark dilution;
* "Marks as imitations of State emblems" -- Grzegorz Pacek (Marek Planka & Partners) takes a heraldic point of view.
Latest JIPLAP
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, September 14, 2009
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Monday, September 14, 2009
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
Jeremy, I think your JIPIL editorial comment on the Pope's remarks may not be altogether sound. "IP rights are owned and enforced by people and businesses, not by countries...". True - but some rich countries - one in particular - require many of their trading partners to enter into bilateral arrangements that go well beyond the multilaterally agreed (and reasonable) requirements of TRIPs. Don't you think this may reasonably be characterised as 'excessive zeal' for 'undue rigidity'?
ReplyDeletetwr57, I don't have as many difficulties with the bilaterals as some people do. First, I would contest the notion that TRIPs is anything other than entry-level IP protection in normative terms. Secondly, even with bilaterals in place, the position of the individual rights owner is pretty parlous. It's not as if he can enforce them, and no government finds it worthwhile to wield the big stick unless there's something sufficiently egregious to wield it for.
ReplyDelete