Wednesday whimsies

PIIPA (Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors, Inc.) is an international non-profit organisation that makes intellectual property counsel available for developing countries and public interest organizations which seek to promote health, agriculture, biodiversity, science, culture, and the environment. Its main activities are (i) expanding a worldwide network of IP professional volunteers (the IP Corps); (ii) operating a processing centre where assistance seekers can apply to find
individual volunteers or teams who can provide advice and representation as a public service
(free or pro bono) and (iii) building a resource centre with information for professionals and those seeking assistance. The organisation is currently having a fund-raising drive. If you'd like to contribute, click here.

Here's a final call for two events taking place in Central London next week. The first is CLT's conference on Ownership and Control of IP Rights (next Monday 10 May; details here), which will be held at the lovely Holborn Bars venue. The second is a half-day seminar, Intellectual Property and Tax, which Hardwicke is hosting in Lincoln's Inn next Wednesday, 12 May (details here). As luck would have it, IPKat team blogger Jeremy is chairing both events. See you there?

The PatLit patent litigation weblog (here) is looking for some new contributors, particularly from outside the United Kingdom. If you (i) have some knowledge and understanding of the subject, (ii) can write clear, crisp prose, (iii) either know how to blog or would like to and (iv) are happy to see your work criticised by readers, email Jeremy here and let him know. Successful applicants will be given a three-month trial. If they work out well, no problem. If they don't, little will have been lost!

Right: an unusual defence strategy, but it might just work ...

The May 2010 issue of the European Trade Mark Reports (ETMR), published monthly by Sweet & Maxwell, contains some choice cases. There's an English translation of the full ruling in Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV (the now notorious OMEL/ONEL dispute, on which please see the earlier IPKat posts here), as well as the final ruling in the longstanding Greek battle between Adidas-Salomon AG and Alysida AEBE: three-striped trade mark v four-striped footwear. There's also a fascinating Polish decision concerning that country's rule that there must be a two-year gap between termination of an earlier registration and a subsequent rgistration of the same mark. If you have English language texts of the judgments in cases from around Europe that are worth wider circulation, IPKat team member Jeremy -- who edits the ETMRs -- will be pleased to consider them for inclusion. Just email him here and tell him.

Product & Image Security, despite its slightly rude-sounding acronym, is quite a useful magazine for people who are responsible for the practical side of fighting counterfeits. The March/April issue for this year has just fallen into the Kat's paws: it contains Part 1 of a two-part feature on telephone airtime reload card security, a report on the progress of London's Metropolitan Police in tackling identity crime and a news round-up of seizures, legal decisions and technical innovations.
Wednesday whimsies Wednesday whimsies Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, May 05, 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.