Monday miscellany

The most recent issue of Oxford University Press's flagship IP publication, the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLAP), is now published. IPKat team member Jeremy, who is fortunate enough to edit it, has just been reminding himself of its contents. This issue contains a good spread of items, including

* Louise Longdin giving one of the fullest and most powerful critiques of anti-ambush marketing provisions yet published, examining the impact on the IP ecosystem of public law solutions in New Zealand;

* A ten-year-on review of the UDRP by Tony Willoughby;

* Eddy Ventose considers the prospects of disclaimers of medical treatment under the European Patent Convention;

* Andrea Tosato discusses the progress of the UNCITRAL proposals for securitisation of intellectual property rights.

The editorial, "Fragrance brands face a pot pourri", reviews what has been a good summer in court for the leading fragrance brands and asks whether their good fortune will continue. You can read it here in full.

Contents list and abstracts of all items in the current issue here

Editorial team here; instructions for authors here; free sample online or by hard copy here

Subscription details here

The IPKat is most concerned that no enthusiastic would-be judges are lining up to replace the much-loved Michael Fysh when he retires from the Patents County Court (England and Wales) next year. He is however much relieved to see that the ever-practical PatLit weblog has conjured up a poll as to which of a number of options might be adopted in the absence of any suitable applicants. Voting lasts for a week and the poll can be found iat the top of the right-hand side-bar.

The ActionAid 'pre-salted potato chip' item in last Friday's round-up has provoked a good deal of response: sharp tweets and curt emails were received from those who rushed to inform the Kat that this was old news (it goes back as far as 2002 according to some sources, which is before the IPKat started his weblog). Patently Rubbish has however addressed the issue as any responsible patent practitioner should, by measuring the fanciful claims against the law and the reality.