Monday miscellany

Paris Convention:
effective protection
in its day, but is it
adequate for 2011?
In need of protection: WIPO and the patenting public.  Following the IPKat's post on Friday (here) on what appears to be a scam in which patent applicants are invited to pay money for a "filing fee" by a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) lookalike, the Kat has received a number of interesting communications.  Johannes Schönning posted a comment on the original item to the effect that the Head of WIPO's Brand Development Section, Communications Division, said
"Our new logo is protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention. Our basic principles are that our logo should be used primarily for WIPO activities, and we do not authorize the use of our logo by third party for publications, web sites, events, etc. ..."
The IPKat remains concerned.  Article 6ter requires the countries of the Paris Union to protect the sign. This does not mean that WIPO can take the initiative.  Does WIPO have locus standi to litigate its logos in national courts, or does it have to present its compliments to the Czech government and ask them if they would be so kind as to eradicate this pest?  Merpel says, given the similarity between the two websites, one might feel that there is an argument in favour of copyright infringement -- but the Paris Union doesn't really cover copyright, does it?

Can anyone help? Back in October of last year the IPKat posted this item on the Court of Justice of the European Union reference for a preliminary ruling in the WEBSHIPPING trade mark dispute, Case C-235/09 DHL Express (France) SAS v Chronopost SA. This is an incredibly interesting case, which actually goes to the very heart of European trade mark law.  Alas, the Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón is available in a wide selection of official European languages -- but not English.  The Kat has been asked, by a reader who is even more frustrated than he is, if he knows of any translation -- authentic or otherwise -- which is available for consultation.  If you can put your finger on such a wonderful thing, please let the Kats know!

If you want to know what's going
round, get the information straight
from the horse's mouth
Around the weblogs. The breaking blog news is that the UK's Intellectual Property Office has launched a blog as a means by which Ian Hargreaves (he of the review) and the British IP public can commune: you can check it out here. 

Over the Winter break quite a few blogs with which the IPKat and his friends are associated have had some happy news to celebrate. The MARQUES Class 46 weblog (in which three members of the IPKat team participate), which focuses on European trade mark and branding issues, has now welcomed its 1,700th email subscriber. The unrelated Class 99 blog on design law and practice has passed the 400 subscriber mark, as has the weblog associated with JIPLP (the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice), the jiplp weblog. Patent litigation weblog PatLit has just touched the 700 subscriber mark, but is still trialling the copyright-based 1709 Blog which -- for those readers who like their round numbers a little less round -- now has 750 subscribers.

Networking via the INTA?
This is the sign to watch out for
Two snippets of Jeremy news. IPKat team member Jeremy has a little happy arbitrary statistical news too: he now has 1,500 followers on Twitter.  And now for something that has nothing to do with statistics: here's a short note for those of who are members of the International Trademark Association (INTA).  Long-time INTA member Jeremy is up-and-running on the organisation's social network ("My Powerful Network") and has already set up an internal bloglet, IPKat @ INTA.  My Powerful Network looks quite promising and will be preferred by many who feel that professional networks like LinkedIn and Plaxo have become too busy and too widely-focused.  See you there?

Nice work if you can get it.  Eleanor Sharpston QC, one of the IPKat's favourite Advocates General at the Court of Justice of the European Union, is looking for a référendaire for her cabinet. If you want more details and/or think this position suits you, please email the Curia's director of Human Resources Jeannette Thinus with your CV by not later than 28 January 2011.

Perhaps it was because everyone was on holiday, but on 24 December the IPKat received no responses to the post in which he mentioned that he had recently been in correspondence with a young and charming Polish lawyer with interests in intellectual property, new media and IT law -- and a CV to kill for. The Kat added: "The young man in question does not intend to practise as a barrister in England and Wales but he is seeking an unfunded pupillage there in order to enrich his experience, following which he will return to the post that is being held for him by the Polish affiliate of a large, successful company in the telecoms sector. If you can offer him an unfunded pupillage for six months from October 2011, he -- and the IPKat -- will be delighted. If you'd like to know more, please email the IPKat here and let him know; he'll forward your email".  So, if you're back from your holiday and want to avail yourself of the chance to meet a very special individual, let's hear from you!
Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, January 10, 2011 Rating: 5


  1. In the UK at least, Art 6ter protection is implemented by s58(4) TMA, giving international organisations the right to seek an injunction. So in the UK, WIPO has locus standi.

  2. I share your concern. I note the comment from Johannes Schönning, but it certainly does not address the intriguing question of whether Article 6ter can possibly help in respect of the use of the mark WIPD. This is because, as I read the Article, the members of the Union are only asked to protect against imitations "from a heraldic point of view". I can't see how that applies to words or acronyms. Does anyone know of a case where comparison "from a heraldic point of view" has been applied to what would be a clear case of verbal similarity?


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.