Wednesday whimsies

Dead King still enjoys royalty perks, but Schulz earns Peanuts. While it has been established since the days of Lewis Carroll (deceased) that a Kat may look at a king, it is plain that he is unlikely to earn as much. The BBC is among many media outlets that report the Forbes dead celebrity survey findings that the King of Pop (as Michael Jackson is apparently known) earned a whopping $275m (£173m) last year. This puts him ahead of any other celebrity, dead or alive, except Oprah Winfrey. Another moneyed monarch, His Majesty the King of Rock and Roll (a.k.a. Elvis Presley) crept in a distant second, making $60m (£38m), followed by a commoner, JRR Tolkien. In comparison, what Charles Schulz raked in might be described as Peanuts $33m (£21m), with Working Class Hero John Lennon trailing in fifth with a paltry $17m (£11m) [The celebrities listed here may be dead, but copyright isn't, notes Merpel: Jackson's album sales and radio airplay accounted for $50m, while sales of a video game, memorabilia and a re-released autobiography were worth another $50m].

Antonio, looking
very serious
Around the blogs. New PatLit team member Antonio Selas is now posting: you can see his first piece, on Veteri's patent infringement suit against Google, here.  On the subject of PatLit, the third in its PPC Pages series ("The biter bitten") on the revamped Patents County Court (PCC) for England and Wales has now been published here (this episode deals with pitfalls at the pre-action stage and how to avoid, or sidestep, themand a very helpful chart contrasting the PCC and Patents Court options appears here.

A little bit of Laetitia
Another new team member, this time for the MARQUES Class 46 weblog, is Laetitia Lagarde (Jacobacci), who will be monitoring General Court decisions on Community trade marks and applications for that busy blog.  Laetitia, it should be known, has worked as an Examiner in OHIM's Trade Marks Department and as a Legal Assistant to the Boards of Appeal.  She tells the IPKat that her old colleagues at Alicante will be curious to see where she has ended up ...

Brains = Money?
Wrong equation ...
Intelligence seeks vacant head.  If you fancy a change of career (unless you're already doing this work, of course), the UK's Intellectual Property Office is looking for a Head of Intelligence Hub, Copyright & IP Enforcement Directorate.  From the details here you will notice that all sorts of skills and talents are demanded of the lucky appointee, but the salary range, in keeping with current public sector austerity, is just £42,250 to £53,478. That's more than a Magic Circle trainee solicitor earns, but less than he or she would receive on qualification.

Recently published.  Oh dear, October is ebbing away and the Kat plumb forgot to mention this month's Intellectual Property Magazine (here).  This issue focuses on food and drink with reviews of (i) food 'n' drink brand extensions, (ii) protection of recipes, (iii) European GIs, (iv) brand bios of The Pure Package and Horlicks.  Lots of pretty pictures, not too much to tax the reader's resources.  Meanwhile, the IPKat has just received his November 2010 issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP): contents here, editorial ("IP and the moral maze") here; a reader's rejoinder here.

Editorial, advertorial?  The UK Intellectual Property Office's IP Insight online newsletter carries a fair amount of content that is not created by the Office itself.  For example, the current issue carries "Royalty Calculator" by Christi Mitchell of Highbury Ltd, "IP Enforcement in UK: Cheaper and Simpler New Procedure" from Marks & Clerk and "Have You Protected Your Brand Name?" by Amanda Jackson (Tigerfish PR).  This has led to more than one reader of this weblog asking how he or she can get the answers to the following questions:
(i) does the IPO pay for its outside-generated content or, on the contrary, is it paid to carry it? (ii) is the facility for this wonderful opportunity for publicity open only to UK contributors and (iii) how can one apply or volunteer to have one's own editorial/advertorial content promoted in IP Insight?  
The IPKat doesn't know the answer to any of these questions and hopes that one of his kind readers from the IPO -- or one of the contributors to IP Insight -- will come to his aid.  Merpel says, IP Insight isn't very transparent: its home page carries no details of editorial policy and there's no obvious point of contact for would-be contributors. Merpel says, the IP Insight 'Fast Facts' balloon carries the following information: "IP Insight currently has a customer base of over 5,500 subscribers". This is the sort of data that is usually of more use to paying advertisers than to readers or to anyone who is not concerned with marketing and promotional prospects.
Wednesday whimsies Wednesday whimsies Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Rating: 5


  1. Jeremy

    In response to your blog today about IP Insight and the questions posed:

    (i) does the IPO pay for its outside-generated content or, on the contrary, is it paid to carry it?

    Neither. The IPO no longer pays for externally produced content and has never paid IP Professionals for content featured in IP Insight.

    Likewise, the IPO does not ask for nor has ever received any form of payment for the items featured in the eNewsletter.

    (ii) is the facility for this wonderful opportunity for publicity open only to UK contributors

    Yes it is. You mention no information is on the website to offer anyone the chance to submit items for IP Insight - however, if you visit this page:

    You will notice the there is a link and wording at the bottom of the page to invite/allow submissions:

    (iii) how can one apply or volunteer to have one's own editorial/advertorial content promoted in IP Insight?

    As per the previous answer, any articles or features can be submitted for consideration using this page/link above.

    Thank you for today's helpful promotion of IP Insight and we look forward to future reader submissions.

    Kind regards
    Matthew Navarra
    Marketing Communications Manager

  2. @Anonymous, a.k.a. Matthew

    Thanks so much for your terrifically helpful comment. I'm sure that you'll be getting plenty of suggestions and submissions from readers of this weblog.

    Your mention of is interesting. The link at the bottom of that page leads to text that reads: "We are always keen to hear what you have to say to us. We welcome questions and comments.

    Be sure to include your email address if you want us to be able to respond to you." As a writer and editor of long standing, I would not have realised that this was intended "to invite/allow submissions". Perhaps a change in the wording is needed, to something like "If you'd like to write a piece for IP Insight, please tell us who you are and what you want to write" might just get the message across.

  3. Jeremy

    Does it not say also say the following text below in the first instance, on the main IP Insight landing page?

    "Do you have any subjects or stories that you think we should cover?"

    "Please let us know" (embedded link)

    We will revisit the final page you refer to and see what we can do.

    Found at:

    Matthew Navarra

  4. @Matthew

    I would not have taken "Do you have any subjects or stories that you think we should cover?" as an invitation to offer to write something myself, but rather as a request to look for gaps in the content that needed to be covered, so that the "we" referred to here (i.e. the IPO, not me) would do the covering or arrange for someone else to do it.

  5. Thank you for your suggestion(s)

    We will revisit the page wording and continue to welcome new submissions for IP Insight

    We thank the many contributors that have recently submitted articles, and those that have been doing so for some time via the IP Insight page link previously mentioned.

    Kind regards


  6. Indeed meeow! Jeremy must be on a quite day and nit picking again!

    The fact others are making submissions and have been for sometime suggest its known that the ipo offers this opportunity...just some are slow to pick up on it and use it!

    Well done IPO


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.