Looking for something? last week's Katposts

When holidaying in England in the springtime,
there's never a time when it's more likely to
rain than when you rely on the drought warnings
So many people are packing their bags, clearing their desks and getting ready for a few days away over the holiday week(end) that a large portion of IPKat readers are in danger of having missed some of the past week's posts. Accordingly, with a little help from Merpel, the IPKat has listed all the past week's freshest features for your comfort and convenience:
* "No Glee for Thee, says PCC", here, this being a sort of kamikaze attempt by a small British chain of comedy clubs to stop massively popular Fox programme The Glee Club dead in its tracks with what looks rather like an ill-founded trade mark action, as reported by Cat the Kat.

* "Consent and competition: getting the right balance", here, this being a very serious note on an attempt to ward off the effects of a litigation settlement agreement and consent order where a trade mark infringer agrees to be bound by it but then argues that it's anticompetitive [Merpel thinks there's space for plenty of litigation in the gap between consent agreements and competition law, since the need for finality of the former invokes justice only inter partes while the latter is there to protect third party interests too].

* "Love Bites fade away, sandwiches get eaten -- but trade marks go on forever". In this post, we see how the US branch of global superpower Weight Watchers initially fails to crush an upstart sandwich bar and then takes it to pieces over a cheeky attempt to sell the giant its own WAIT WATCHERS registration.
At this point, it's big US corporations 3, small UK businesses 0 -- but there's no arguing that this is the right score.
"Who Rules the Domain of the Belgian Pie?", here, breaking the news that the Court of Justice of the European Union is going to have to rule on the interplay of trade mark law with Commission Regulation 874/2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain [says Merpel, Regulation 874/2004? Oh, that Regulation 874/2004 -- I knew about it all along ...].

* "Standards and patents in ICT: a conference in June", in which the IPKat announces a conference coming up in London on 12 June on, well you can guess.

* "A time to file, a time to sue ...", here, this being a post on Case C 190/10 Génesis Seguros Generales Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros (Génesis) v Boys Toys Sa, Administración Del Estado, in which the Court of Justice had to sort out a lovely problem involving two trade mark applications filed on the same day.

* "Teva Tigers v Astrazeneca Lions - obvious to sustain...?", here. This is a thoughtful post from Darren on the validity of patents and the expectation of success [that means success in commerce, Merpel explains, not success in litigation].

* "Dutch court asks, "Can GasPedaal peddle Autotrack data?"", here, in which the Kat hosts the first of two items of Dutch news kindly provided by Stephen Vousden. This post announces the decision of a court in The Hague to refer Innoweb BV v Wegener ICT Media BV to the Court of Justice and ask some questions about the repeated extraction of insubstantial parts of a sui generis database, among other things.

* "Wishbone, chin and spine -- and we're talking about a car?", here. If you enjoy long cases on confidentiality, liberally studded with names of obscure parts of Formula One racing cars, Catherine's concoction here will literally drive you ecstatic with happiness.

* ""Back in the C.T.M.R....." -- the Beatles' latest hit", here, this being a General Court ruling on the (non)registrabiity as a Community trade mark of the word BEATLE for electric mobility aids [Merpel thinks there wasn't much legal substance to this one, but it was about the Fab Four ...].

* "VEGF Trap Eye Trapped by Genentech Patent - Regeneron & Bayer unsuccessful", here, in which Darren promises readers an appeal against the judgment of Mr Justice Floyd -- which had everything in it except a sanity check.

* "The root of the problem: equitable remuneration for use of a plant variety", here. Well, the IPKat doesn't care what anyone else thinks: plant variety rights are part of IP even if they're not very sexy and he will continue to cover them till everyone else agrees ...

"Trade-mark registration: some sound practical tips for Canadians", here. In this guest post, Can-adian trade mark Lorraine Fleck gets a little bit teased by the Kats, but she gives a crisp, clear explan-ation of the new Canadian position on the regi-stration of colours as trade-marks.

""More, Much More, on the Centrality of Trade Secrets"", here. In a guest post James Pooley, Deputy General of the World, plays variations on Kat blogger Neil's earlier post here in which some surprise is expressed as to the true significance of trade secrecy and confidentiality within the spread of available IP rights.

* "Patently in love: a book review", here. No, it's not a joke, it's not an April Fool's prank -- it'a a bona fide review of the first bit of IP-chicklit to reach this weblog.

* "Confidentiality of decision-making and personal data: a new and curious reference", here. This is the second item kindly contributed by Stephen Vousden -- a reference to the Court of Justice regarding the balance between confidentiality of decision-making and the right of an individual to gain access to information concerning that person.

* "CJEU declares Poland's law on cheap drugs contrary to EU Law", here, in which Darren picks up on an important ruling at the edges of IP law.
Looking for something? last week's Katposts Looking for something? last week's Katposts Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, April 02, 2012 Rating: 5


  1. While Jim Pooley is truly an extraordinary lawyer, I'm not sure he's yet mangaged to become the deputy general of the world.

  2. Victoria -- when you're just a fictional cat with an intellectual property habit, WIPO is the world :-)


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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.