Monday miscellany

Following the mention of The Logo Game in last week's Friday Fantasies, the IPKat has received, courtesy of Shoosmiths' Joe Stephenson, this informative snippet from the game's manufacturer Drummond Park, together with his own comments in square brackets:
"The Logo Board Game of things you know and love [I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ALL THINKING...AT LAST!] . For 2-6 players aged 12 to Adult. Our life is full of things. [AN ALARMINGLY STARK AND PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT TO MAKE IN THE CONTEXT OF A BOARD GAME?! OH WAIT….MY MISTAKE….READ ON] From chocolate to cereal, football to flowers--and they all have logos. The Logo board game is all about those logos and the things wrapped up in them [WRAPPED UP IN THEM? ARE THEY REFERRING TO THE PRODUCT OR THE CONSUMER?]. It taps into the knowledge we've piled up over our lives [SOUNDS PAINFUL] and adds a few astonishing facts and surprises to entertain the whole family. It's easy to learn and fun to play . Just answer the questions to leap around the board. The first player to answer correctly in the winning zone wins [REASSURING, IF NOT A LITTLE CONVENTIONAL. STILL AT £24.95 IT SOUNDS A BARGAIN]".
Yes, indeed, says the IPKat ...

The IPKat's attention has just been drawn to the curiously-named case of Glaxo Group Ltd v Patents Act [2009] IEHC 277, a decision of the Irish High Court (Mr Justice Charleton) of 26 June. It's not every day that the Kat stumbles across a 153-paragraph decision of this court on the intricacies of patent invalidity and inventive step, and it reads well too. Taking much the same line as the European Patent Office regarding inventive step and the problem-solution approach, the judge reached the same decision -- regarding Glaxo's patent for Seretide (that's Advair in the US) as was reached in the United Kingdom.

The decision last Thursday of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), England and Wales in Patel and Hussain v R [2009] EWCA Crim 2311, is a useful reminder that people who sell counterfeit VIAGRA, not to mention other medicinal products, may find themselves facing more than the ire of the trade mark owner Pfizer. They may also face prosecution under the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisation etc) Regulations 1994, SI 1994/3144 -- which implemented Council Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. In the case of infringements which in civil terms may not be cost-effective to pursue, the criminal process may come in handy.

The IPKat's Italian friend Cristiano Cori, recalling the Kat's curiosity about burger empire McDonald's efforts to reserve the 'Mc-/Mac-' prefix for itself (see eg the Kat's earlier post here), writes to inform him of a recent episode in Italy. It seems that McDonald sent a cease and desist letter to a small Italian entrepreneur who had filed with the Chamber of Commerce of Turin (in its local office of Rivoli) the trade mark "Mac Bün" (in local dialect this means "only good"), in respect of for "agrihamburgers" consisting of the meat of the trade mark applicant's own cows. Like all good lawyers, Cristiano cite his sources (here, here and here) -- but il IPGatto isn't very good at Italian so he hasn't had a chance to savour them to the full. On the left you can see what is now the "M** Bün Slow Fastfood" restaurant. Interesting ...

Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, November 16, 2009 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.