Call for IP Golden Oldies (Redux)

This Kat thanks all of you who responded both on-line and off-line to his call for a reconsideration of IP Golden Oldies here. In particular, we thank the IPKat's friends, Bob Sacoff and his colleagues at the Pattishall McAuliffe firm in Chicago, and Professor Michael Madison from the University of Pittsburgh, both for their support.

So it is time to take the bull by the horns on this project. Our goal is try and consider one of these IP Golden Oldies each month or so. At Bob Sacoff's urging, we will begin with a recognized classic article written by the iconic founder his firm, Beverly Pattishall, entitled "Trade-Marks and the Monopoly Phobia", published in the Michigan Law Review in 1952. ("When did they stop hyphenating the word 'trade-marks' in the U.S., by the way?") We hope to post on our comments on it within several weeks.

In the meantime, what this Kat would really like is for those of you outside of the U.S. to suggest classic IP articles from your own jurisdiction. IPKat has an array of linguistic capabilities, so don't be shy. If we can't handle the article, we will try to out-source it to an interested feline in the IP world who will be able to assist. We look forward to hearing from you.
Call for IP Golden Oldies (Redux) Call for IP Golden Oldies (Redux) Reviewed by Neil Wilkof on Sunday, April 04, 2010 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.