Monday miscellany

Around the blogs. Class 46, the European trade mark weblog founded by MARQUES supporters and now hosted by that organisation, has this weekend secured its 1,100th email subscriber. There's also some news of a team change: Finnish trade mark blogger Mikael Kohlemainen is taking a break; his place will be filled by fellow Finn Johanna Kauhanen. Good luck, Johanna!

Watch this space. The Fordham Law School, New York, already much loved-and-hated for its fabled annual IP Conference, is launching a Fashion Law Institute this autumnn. The new Institute will be headed by the lively Susan Scafidi and its website is here. Susan is best known as the power that drives Counterfeit Chic. IPKat team member Jeremy, whose interests extend to fashion via the UK-based Fashionista-at-Law weblog, will be watching for some useful tips. Good luck, Susan!

There's still nearly a month to go in the New WIPO Logo competition. While many readers are appending their thoughts as comments, the only entries that can be considered for the prize -- a free one-year electronic subscription to the Journal of Intellectual Property and Practice (JIPLP) -- are those which are emailed to the IPKat. WIPO states, among other things, that the new logo is "based on a graphic representation of the WIPO headquarters’ building", though some may feel that the building illustrated on the right is no less close to the new logo than is the organisation's Geneva Headquarters.

The IPKat says a big "thank you" to fellow blogger Hugo Cox (The 1709 Blog) for sending him this link to BD, the Architects' Website. The link tells the story of how English Heritage has threatened a small independent art gallery with legal action after it exhibited Dave Anderson's light-hearted alternative version of the blue plaque which is a good deal more famous than most of the dead folk whose names appear on the official variety. A limited edition of 250 of Anderson’s plaques, priced at £50 each, has been put into storage before even one was sold, following receipt of a cease and desist letter. Oh dear, says the IPKat, one thing which is definitely not part of English Heritage is a sense of humour. Merpel adds, did I miss something? I looked for the plaque on the IPO website's little box for searching marks by proprietor (here), keying in 'English Heritage' -- but I didn't get the little blue plaque at all. Did I do it wrong, or English Heritage not the right name?
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, May 03, 2010 Rating: 5


  1. "English Heritage is an Executive Non-departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Our powers and responsibilities are set out in the National Heritage Act (1983)"

    What with it being a creature of statute and all let's hope the cease and desist letter was not ultra-vires. Of course I doubt that it is, because as you can see here

    Government bodies never exceed their authority.

    Given also, that the blue plaque was run by the LCC (the defunct predecessor of the long defunct GLC) is there a prior art defence?

    Finally, what happened to the parody defence? someone called "J Phillips" wore about it in 1984...

    and there's more here

    Sorry I'm not moaning about software patents, but at least I'm still moaning.

  2. English Heritage seems to be a trade mark rather than the proprietor name.

    The proprietor is "Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England", whose registered trade marks are here, and which include both the device and the name English Heritage.


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.