Monday miscellany

While litigation is often described in military terms, it is a less frequent occurrence for skirmishes between military groups to be fought out in court. Here however is news of a set of thoroughly confusing manoeuvres between the Combined Armed Forces Federation UK (CAFF) and the British Armed Forces Federation (BAFF), in which, on an appeal heard by the Kat's friend Anna Carboni (here), BAFF biffed CAFF with a successful operation which, if expensive, will cost the vanquished trade mark applicant dearly (the original decision, noted here by the IPKat, considers, inter alia, the recovery by the successful party of a mileage allowance in respect of a 310 mile journey). Thank you, Sang Nkhwazi, for the link.

Are you feeling a little bit historical or theoretical? If so, this could be for you! Registration is now being accepted for the 2010 workshop of the International Society for the History and Theory of Intellectual Property (ISHTIP), 24 to 26 September, American University Washington College of Law. There's an all-star cast lined up, waiting to impose their stamp of authority upon the proceedings, and with the promise of true scholarship ahead. Details and booking here.

Trade mark folk: do you want to participate in the major survey by World Trademark Review (WTR) into how industry is preparing for new generic top-level domains? This survey will be live until at least 15 September so a post any time over the next couple of weeks will help. According to WTR:
"It is now almost certain that new gTLDs will launch. So the trademark community is best advised to stop trying to improve the policy and focus instead on strategy. External counsel must work out how to build business models around new gTLDs. Meanwhile, brands must answer much more than the question of whether or not to apply to run a new gTLD registry; they must plan how to react to new spaces on the internet, how to restructure their internal teams accordingly and how to continue building and protecting their brand online".
Adds WTR, this research is an editorial, not a commercial, endeavour. The results will be independent and therefore to the benefit of industry as a whole -- and WTR will be sharing them with the IPKat and other cooperating blogs. You can access this survey here.

CPDcast informs the IPKat that it is the largest provider of online CPD for legal professionals in the UK The company, part of the Informa group, boasts than 400 legal podcasts on its site on a diverse range of topics. These include criminal copyright infringement (here), current issues in European pharma and biotech patent litigation (here) and ownership and control of IP in joint ventures and collaborations (here). Students are offered free unlimited access to CPDcast's podcast directory (here).

Trying to provoke the IPKat into saying something controversial, Ronald Camp (Kilburn & Strode) has sent him this link to a neatly composed piece by Christopher F. Marki (Marki Microwave) entitled "A Case Against Patents". The Kat notes the four points made against patents --
1. Patents create a false sense of security,
2. Trade secrets are more important than patents,
3. Would you really sue over patent infringement? and
4. A patent is NOT a product
-- are not a case against patents but rather a case against some the misunderstandings and false expectations which patents can cause to those who pursue them.
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, August 30, 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.