Wednesday whimsies

Okay, I was only joking--
but it was funny!
A Kat confesses. To clear up any remaining doubt, and to stem the continuing flow of emails from the four corners of the globe, Merpel has this to say: In Monday’s post, “To ™ or not to ™? A reader writes ...” (here”), Merpel added as a final comment:
“ How about an official depository of signs used as unregistered trade marks, together with a list of goods or services covered by their non-registration …?”
She was only having a little fun and did not mean this suggestion to be taken seriously. Yes, it might be a good task for the European Commission to give the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to tackle once it finishes with the IP Observatory, but the whole point of unregistered marks is that they’re ,er, unregistered.

No, no -- I distinctly said
"mediation", not "meditation"
While we’re on the subject .... In the very same post —“To ™ or not to ™? A reader writes ...” (here) — the IPKat happened to mention that the letters “TM” also stood for transcendental meditation”; a reader has since written to castigate him for spelling “transcendental meditation” in lower-case lettering since both “transcendental meditation” and the letters TM are trade marks. The Kat is unimpressed. A brief search of the UK IPO database shows him that, while there are various registrations of figurative marks which include the words “transcendental meditation”, there are no UK or Community trade marks for the words alone. True, an application has been made to register the words “transcendental meditation” as a trade mark— but not for transcendental meditation. The application, for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 41, 44, 45, covers such gems as “advertising; business management; business administration; office functions” in Class 35 and, more worrying for those of our readers who can expect to face further competition, “legal services; security services for the protection of property and individuals; personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals” in Class 45.

This may not change your life, but it has been reported in one of Europe’s most influential publications, The Decanter, that “EU wines may now be labelled 'organic'”. In short, EU-produced organic wines have won the right to use the labels ‘Organic Wine’ or ‘Vin Biologique’, in place of ‘wine issued from organic grapes’. In real terms,
”The new organic wine-making rules introduce a technical definition of organic wine. These rules include 30-50% less added sulphur than conventional winemaking, no use of additives such as sorbic acid, and a full traceability processes”.
A katpat to Cat the Kat, who has a fine nose for wine.

Why trample on moral
rights when you can
exterminate them?
Around the weblogs. It was hot news yesterday but it will be even hotter today: the Court of Appeal decision in the first round of the Apple v Samsung tablet litigation in England and Wales will be handed down later today. Background details are available from the Class 99 weblog here. “Is facilitating SME access to the legal profession enough to give them the advice they need?” That’s the probing question which Shireen Smith asks on SOLO IP. Over on Paid Content, the excellent Jeff John Roberts reports on an Arizona man’s attempt to obtain a judicial declaration that the word “Google” is generic and that, therefore, the company’s trade marks for internet search are invalid (a katpat to Lee Curtis for spotting this). And here's a sensation -- another punchy guest post from Mira T. Sundara Rajan for the 1709 Blog as she asks the question "Is Apple deleting the history of music?"

Feeling mandatory? Fancy a conference? Article 4a of the European Patent Convention (EPC) reads as follows:
A conference of ministers of the Contracting States responsible for patent matters shall meet at least every five years to discuss issues pertaining to the Organisation and to the European patent system.
The EPO Conference under Article 4a:
some nations that have given reluctant support
the latest EU proposals may relish the chance
to do a ewe-turn ...
As EPC 2000 came into force in December 2007, this indicates a conference of ministers should be held this year. There are plenty of live issues pertaining to the Organisation and to the European patent system, for example:
* The unitary patent and the unified patent courts [Merpel is sure that the non-participating states in the latter would like a say as to how this would affect the workings of the EPO];

* Lobbying by the USA for harmonisation with the America Invents Act [how do you politely say no?];

* The perennial subject of backlogs [and the EPO’s ability to increase them through ill-thought changes in (e.g. divisional) practice].
And, at the least, one would expect a report for ministerial consideration on the workings of the changes introduced by EPC 2000: otherwise why was the seemingly mandatory Article 4a introduced?

Nothing to do with Richard.  The IPKat's friend Richard Pinckney (an associate with Bristows) has an unusual surname which, as luck would have it, he shares with a party to a recent piece of French litigation which has been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling (see 1709 Blog posts here and here).  Richard has nothing to do with this action, so please refrain from asking him for inside information about it!
Wednesday whimsies Wednesday whimsies Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Also not to be confused with Pinkney's Green, a village in Berkshire.


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.