Monday miscellany

Despite decades of European harmonisation, the Belgian academic
community has never departed from its traditions, including
the ever-popular Professorial Retirement Procession (above)
Retirement launch. The IPKat's scholarly friend Frank Gotzen's retirement is to be excitingly launched by a commemorative conference, "Harmonisation of European IP Law: From European Rules to Belgian Law and Practice".  In case you didn't know,
"Frank Gotzen, the founding father of the Centre for Intellectual Property Rights, displayed a vivid interest in IP law and the European harmonisation movement throughout his academic life. At the beginning of his career in 1970 the European harmonisation movement was negligible. During the many years of his research and teaching, a whole body of harmonised rules came into being in the sector of IP rights in the EU. It is widely known that this field of law and the gradual emergence of a ‘true’ European IP system always was, and still is, at the heart of Frank Gotzen’s interests.  
Undoubtedly, his lectures and publications have contributed to the shaping of European IP law, and to the modification of Belgian IP law after the European model. Frank Gotzen’s superannuation constitutes an exquisite moment for giving an echo to the achievements – and failures – of this ambitious European project of harmonising IP law". 
This Kat remembers the first meeting of the International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP), back in the mists of the last century when there still lots of continental IP scholars who didn't speak a word of English: Frank did, so this Kat had the benefit of his wisdom -- which he very much appreciated. Merpel is quite amused at the title of the conference: "Harmonisation of European IP Law: From European Rules to Belgian Law and Practice". She wonders if, had this been a Dutch professor who was retiring, the title would have been "Harmonisation of European IP Law: From Belgian Law and Practice to European Rules" .... Anyway, further information concerning this event, which is "followed by an academic celebration", can be sought from Linda Mees or from the Leuven CIR (Centre for Intellectual Property Studies) website here.

Memory in need of a jog.  One of the Kat's oldest friends has emailed him to ask about the identity of a passing-off case.  He describes this case as "one in which it was held lawful for a trader to claim (truthfully) that he was formerly employed by or otherwise associated with another, even if his intent was to benefit himself by the association". He asks: "do you remember the name of the case and the judge?"  Of course I do -- in general terms, says the IPKat, but not quite at this moment.  Merpel suggests that the Kat asks his readers, who may remember the specifics and be kind enough to post them below.

Around the weblogs.  The 49th country in Kingsley Egbuonu's pan-African tour of official intellectual property office websites is Tanzania: you can read his findings on Afro-IP here. Remember the days when three strikes was the preferred formula for dealing with copyright-infringing file-sharers? Well, the discussion in the US now is all about six strikes, explains Eleonora Rosati on the 1709 Blog here.

Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, May 21, 2012 Rating: 5


  1. When it comes to "association" between the current and former businesses, Asprey & Garrard v WRA Guns [2001] EWCA 1499 is probably the leading case on where the border lies.

  2. I cannot conceive of many situations in which a true statement would amount to a misrepresentation. This is probably more a jury question for the judge than a point of law determined by precedent.


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.