Thank you, Gavin Ward (Scots Law Blog), for drawing the IPKat's attention to "Passing off Nessie?", a delightful little piece by the Kat's old friend Hector MacQueen on a dispute between two rival Nessie exhibition centres in Drumnadrochit, Scotland. The disputants were the Official Loch Ness Exhibition Centre, a five-star attraction established near the Drumnadrochit Hotel in 1980, and the Original Loch Ness Monster Visitor Centre, a three-star centre established since 1987. The two centres are about 100 yards apart. We shall never now know where there was a likelihood of confusion, since the two have restyled themselves as (i) the Loch Ness Centre and Exhibition and (ii) the Nessieland Castle Monster Centre. Nessie was not available for comment.
If you care about IP enough to make sure that your own personal views count, Oxford University's Global Economic Governance Expert Taskforce on Global Knowledge Governance invites you to take part in a short international survey on Global Knowledge Governance and Intellectual Property (details here, or thereabouts). This survey will help the Taskforce gather a diversity of views from around the world on challenges facing the international institutional arrangements and processes that shape the rules and practices for creating, using and sharing knowledge -- and related goods and services.
Around the blogs. Well done Fashionista-at-Law, which has today attracted its 500th email subscriber. Incidentally, Fashionista supports the Handbags at Dawn IP and fashion conference (here). On the subject of fashion (sort of), the IPKat notes that SOLO IP -- the weblog for those who work for themselves or in very small units within the field of IP -- has treated itself to a face-lift (here). This blog is always looking for talented contributors: if you think you may be one, get in touch with Filemot here and she'll soon size you up!
The Toyota trademark lawsuit is really, really impressive. Of course, I hope most people don't take it as an invitation to represent themselves, just because.
ReplyDeleteIt's still rarely a good idea to go pro se, unless you truly have no other option. Apparently, the defendant here couldn't afford the legal fees, so he really didn't have a choice.