Knut, 2006 to 2011

The innocence of youth:
Knut in happier times
The IPKat regrets to inform readers of the sad and untimely death of Knut, the celebrated polar bear who took the world of intellectual property by storm. The BBC has reported this morning that his death this weekend has reopened debate on the "ethical minefield of man's relationship with wild animals".  According to the BBC,
"Knut was born in Berlin Zoo in December 2006. Rejected by his mother, he was put in an incubator and brought up by humans. His abandonment, cute looks and close relationship with the charismatic zookeeper Thomas Doerflein, turned him into a huge star. He became an environmental symbol, acting as a mascot for the German government's campaign against climate change and being superimposed into a photograph with Leonardo DiCaprio for Vanity Fair's Green Issue in May 2007".
The cause of death has not yet been ascertained.  Despite his immense popularity, Knut never married.

IPKat posts on Knut here and here
MARQUES Class 46 posts on Knut here, here, here and here
Some Knut trade mark registrations here
Wikipedia entry on Knut here

Further reading

"Knut, Flocke, and Co: the bear facts revealed" by Dr Birgit Clark, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2008) 3 (12): 764-774 (available in full here)
Knut, 2006 to 2011 Knut, 2006 to 2011 Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. I cannot help but thinking that Knut's fate is a modern fable of our times. Sad in so many ways and on so many levels.


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.