Friday factualities

Make Friday your day for checking the list of forthcoming events in the IPKat's side bar. As ever, this week contains some new items. We might even see you at one (or more) of them!

Around the blogs. IP Tango -- which has now taken upon itself the onerous responsibility for tracking all the developments relating to IP licensing, enforcement and ambush marketing arising from the Rio 2016 Olympic Games -- is hoping to recruit some more talent for its blogging team. So if you come from or are connected with IP in Latin America, have lots to say about IP law, business and practice there, and have plenty of energy and commitment, Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella Martinez would love to hear from you if you email him here. Meanwhile, if you like participating in IP blog polls, you have three days left to decide how best to solve the impending problem of having no judge for the Patents County Court (see PatLit's sidebar here), and just two days to help choose a new name -- or preserve the old one -- for the institution that administers the Community trade mark and Community design systems in Alicante (see the IPKat's side bar here).

The IPKat has heard of an interesting settlement involving a dispute between the English Premier League (football, that is) and other claims and LCD Publishing Limited. As is sadly so often the case, the details of the settlement are confidential but they include an agreement by LCD not to publish magazines which are not permitted by the photographic licence regimes operated by the Premier League, the Football Association and UEFA. LCD Publishing also agrees not to infringe the “Arsenal” and “Premier League” trade marks or copyright in the Liverpool and Arsenal crest and the Premier League’s Lion and Ball logo. The Premier League, represented by Clarion, is also pocketing an undisclosed sum in settlement of its damages claim. The thing that fascinates the IPKat here is the bit about agreeing "not to publish magazines which are not permitted by the photographic licence regimes" in question. Presumably, if LCD were not licensees of the photos in the first place, they would not be so restricted. Any thoughts?

A new journal, Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, is currently soliciting and reviewing submissions. For further details, click here. If you'd like to write for it, email Editor-in-Chief Ashwin Krishnan here. Not quite so new but still recent is the Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law, which is accepting papers for its third volume to be released in 2010. The final date for submission of papers is 30 October 2009. You can discover more about this journal here, or email Dhananjaya Mishra (on behalf of the Editorial Board) here.

A valued reader, Richard Nugent (Rothamsted Research Ltd), has drawn the IPKat's attention to the Boliven analytical website which, he says, provides "a whole host of info on patents, and research networks". He adds: "I tested it following an enquiry from a researcher and it came up with some very good data which I would not have found otherwise through searching on patent websites". The Kats would like to receive readers' experiences.
Friday factualities Friday factualities Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, October 09, 2009 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. The Premier League have something of a history for aggressively defending their IP.

    The mainstay of this aggression is the fixture list, which, through a separate licensing company, is not allowed to be freely publicised, indeed several websites (predominantly not for profit fan sites) have been threatened with legal action (which by the nature of their being fan sites, they cannot afford to undertake)if any fixtures are published either by themselves or on their fora.

    Personally I can't see such a suit being successful, with an easy claim of "fair usage" in terms of reporting news, sites ran by volunteers are neither able to afford the licence nor risk the legal action.

    It's a fans' game don't you know.


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.