Friday fantasies

Those sound marks (or should it be sound-marks?). Earlier today the IPKat was delighted to host Lorraine Fleck's guest post about trade marks (make that trade-marks) for sounds in Canada, which mentions the requirement to "contain a drawing that graphically represents the sound". This prompted one correspondent to write in and ask: "how should the appearance of one sound be compared to that of another that is previously registered?" Merpel says the answer is obvious. The Hearing Officer must put his ear to each of the drawings and listen carefully to the sound it makes ...

By the time the Opposition had
been heard, there wasn't much
left of the Court ...
Around the blogs.  IP Finance hosts another powerful post from WiseHarbor's Keith Mallinson, this time taking a look at the effect of patent trolls in the telecom sector: he argues that patience, existing licensing practices and letting the market work is the best policy for dealing both with non-practising entities and with reluctant licensees.   On the MARQUES Class 46 blog, Edith Van den Eede has posted a most useful chart which enables you to compare the new and unfamiliar Italian trade mark opposition with the far better-known Community trade mark one.  Geoge Clooney and the Rule Against Perpetuities are not often found in immediate proximity of one another in any intellectual property context, then, IP Draughts is no ordinary weblog: take a look here for a somewhat unusual analysis.

Wake-up call for breakfast seminar.  If you registered some time ago for William Patry's sell-out seminar, "How to Fix Copyright" this coming Tuesday, you don't need to email the IPKat and ask him to remind you where and when it is -- he is kindly telling you now that it's at the London office of law firm Bird & Bird LLP. Doors open 8am for insomniacs and people whose trains are running unaccountably early, but the breakfast proper starts at 8.30am.  If you don't believe the IPKat, you can check the details on the 1709 Blog website (since this is a 1709 Blog event) here.

They never called it The Aardvark.  The Intellectual Property Law Journal (IPLJ) is a newly established twice a year peer-reviewed journal of the Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town.  Published by Juta, it will provide a platform for debate on local and international IP issues with relevance to South Africa. The Advisory Board consists of numerous stellar IP dignitaries, together with one I. P. Kat.   Anyway,  the IPLJ is calling for submissions to its inaugural issue which will be published in November 2012. Areticles (not to exceed 12 000 words), case notes and book reviews (up to 5,000 words) and opinion and practice pieces (up to 3,000 words) are welcome. All submissions should be sent to the IPLJ’s managing editors Lee-Ann Tong and Dr Caroline Ncube by 1 July 2012 via email to

Now, this Kat didn't think it was a very good idea to call this journal the Intellectual Property Law Journal.  He doesn't mind the fact that it's descriptive, but does think that it's going to cause more confusion in a world in which the following titles already exist: World Intellectual Property Review, Journal of World Intellectual PropertyIntellectual Property MagazineIntellectual Property Quarterly, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Journal of Business & Intellectual Property Law, to name but a few.  This Kat urged the new journal's powers-that-be to call it The Aardvark. The name is highly distinctive, hugely memorable, connected with South Africa, amenable to an allusive logo and therefore quite App-friendly -- as well as coming right at the top of the alphabet in any list of IP periodicals.  The sidebar of this weblog carries a poll, which enables you to advise Juta as to whether it should stick with The Intellectual Property Law Journal or opt for Aardvark. Don't waste this opportunity: vote now!
Friday fantasies Friday fantasies Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, March 30, 2012 Rating: 5


  1. Can I be the first to observe that Aardvark never hurt anybody?

  2. Interesting that they don't hyphenate the phrase "sound mark" or is it just a matter of time before it becomes "Canadian-ised"...


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.