Friday fantasies

Have you got the Friday habit? Today's the day for checking what's been listed on the sidebar under Forthcoming Events -- so do take a peep or two.

If you're in Central London on Thursday 28 January and feel social, a number of members of the IPKat team -- and possibly all five, together for the first time ever -- will be supping a refreshing glass of something other than vodkat at the Melton Mowbray pub, in High Holborn. This pub is just down the road from the venue of the CLT Annual IP Update conference, which finishes shortly after 5pm. The Kats propose to be there from around 5.15pm to 6.20pm before disappearing off for dinner, so if any reader of this weblog would like to come and say hello, we'll be delighted to say much the same in return ...

So how do you describe Nestlé's SMARTIES (that being the trade mark) without using the word "smarties" as a generic term? A recent Tweet from the IPKat produced some interesting suggestions. These included "colourful sugar-coated chocolate confectionery", "dragées", "pastilles", "chocolate beans" and even "oblate spheroids". Any more suggestions?

On Wednesday the IPKat asked if anyone had a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales to refer a question to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in Nokia v Her Majesty's Revenue and Excise, in which the trial judge held that counterfeit goods could not be detained at Heathrow Airport, when in transit from one non-EU country to another, on the basis that they had not been placed in the European market (see earlier IPKat post here). Several noble souls have come to his aid (many thanks, all of you!) and the decision can be read here. If the mouse weighs heavily in your hand and you can't be bothered to click, but just want to know the question, this is it:
"Are non-Community goods bearing a Community trade mark which are subject to customs supervision in a Member State and in transit from a non-Member State to another non-Member State capable of constituting “counterfeit goods” within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation 1383/2003/EC if there is no evidence to suggest that those goods will be put on the market in the EC, either in conformity with a customs procedure or by means of an illicit diversion".

Slightly disappointed that there hasn't been an avalanche of populist response, the IPKat respectfully reminds his readers that there's still a little time left if they'd like to have their say in the poll to determine whether the new choice of blog template for IP Tango is okay. Click here if you want to exercise your democratic prerogative. Another change of appearance, though not subject to the whims of democratic preference, is the cover of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice for 2010. Last year was green; this year is a silvery-grey (right). To see the contents of the January 2010 issue of JIPLP and to read the Editorial free of charge, click the jiplp weblog site here.

For a genuinely constructive deployment of that deadly weapon, humour, on a subject that many people don't find very funny -- patent trolls -- take a peep at this item on PatLit, on the stylish way in which Alexander Poltorak (General Patent Corporation) seeks to debunk some deeply-rooted myths. Nice one, Alexander!

The IPKat just can't shake off those IP proverbs (see earlier posts here, here and here). This selection comes from someone who is so easy to identify that the Kats have been instructed not even to give clues as to who he is. Anyway, he offers the following:
"Never put your faith in a spell checker; when you reed it back, it’ll always let you down in the most embarrassing plaices" [The IPKat gave up using spell checkers when he started writing about trade marks, so many of which are classified as spelling errors].

"Never read an ECJ decision whilst sober [Please advise as to which beverage improves the experience ...]".

"The thinner the file, the harder the issue" [Merpel thinks she's found the exception that (dis)proves the rule. There's a fairly stout file floating around with the word BUD on the spine].
Friday fantasies Friday fantasies Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, January 22, 2010 Rating: 5


  1. Which beverage should one consume while reading an ECJ decision? Budweiser, for sure!

  2. would like to add:

    "the thicker the file, the thinner the novelty"

  3. Suggested ways to describe SMARTIES:
    Milk Chocolate in a Crisp Sugar Shell or
    Prettier than but don’t taste as nice as M&Ms or, if in the US as

  4. Which beverage enhances the ECJ experience ? Well, there's a generic, lemon- based liqueur, that goes by the name of.....

    [I'll let your readers guess]

    It's made by a company called SHAKER (amongst others of course)and decorated with a highly attractive bowl of lemons.

  5. Re: the generic name for Smarties -according to the judgement of Perram J in the Australian Federal Court decision of Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 606 (affirmed on appeal) the industry name is "chocolate lentils". It was specifically noted that "some people, including some ordinary consumers of chocolate confectionary, would recognise [these] as being similar to smarties or M&Ms" (see [40], [40].

    Chocolate lentils, that's a way to put kids off Smarties for life....

    The decision was affirmed on appeal, so there's definite judicial authority!!

  6. Suggested ways to describe SMARTIES:

    Rainbow Plops?


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.