Monday miscellany

This Thursday, 21 March 2013 is the pre-INTA annual reception for Londoners, 1800 to 2030 pm. This time it's being held in the City and not in Docklands, so you don't get such dramatic views from the windows but your chances of finding the place are about 50% better. The venue is Searcys Champagne Bar, 1st Floor, One New Change, London EC4M 9AF. If you fancy coming along, it's still not too late! Register here.

A katpat goes to Michael Pinder, final year law undergraduate at the University of Liverpool and a man with a discerning eye.  It is Michael who spotted that the IPKat got a mention in a recent UK IPO hearing, in Case O-067-13 Application of Ndinos Peri Peri Ltd; opposition of Nando's International Holdings Ltd, a decision of Al Skilton on 13 February.  
"35. Exhibit GG5 is an article from the IPKat blog concerning these proceedings, dated 2 February 2012. Mr Gruber provides the following quotation: “The IPKat can't help but feel some sympathy for Nando's in this instance: he had to do a double-take when first reading about the dispute to assure himself that that "Ndinos‟ was not, in fact, a typo.”  
36. Mr Gruber concludes that these extracts show that third parties regard the marks as confusingly similar". 
This Kat is naturally unsurprised that, relying on so unimpeachable an opinion, Ms Skilton could confidently uphold the opposition on the ground of confusing similarity. The original Katpost can be read here.

Ingrid: in the pink
MARQUES stalwart and Internal Relations Officer Ingrid de Groot is not a person who is easily persuaded of the virtue of new-fangled notions like the social media, as this Kat has discovered in the course of a number of rows battles arguments reasoned peaceful and reasoned discussions over the years.  It can therefore safely be said that, if Ingrid has bought into the concept, it must be worthwhile.  The Kat is still chortling over her company's (Nomilex) first tender steps into the YouTube, which you can enjoy here.  It's a good example of how much brand material you can pack into just over a minute without overtaxing viewers.

Something to be
grumpy about?
Going to War?  It seems that the extensive and well-reputed international legal practice of Hogan Lovells LLP has been getting excited about the unitary patent system. This Kat's attention has been drawn to the website which, as it appears, is that firm's platform for promoting its patent practice in the New Europe.  If you click the link to "Read the latest Unified Patent News", here, you will be offered a selection of news items and blog posts from, among others, the IPKat and PatLit.  This Kat wonders if all the news-providers in question are entirely happy with this arrangement.  In particular, he hopes that Hogan Lovells will spell the surname of his esteemed Kat colleague the same way that the rest of us do: it's Ward, not War ...  Never mind, says Merpel, who is consoling herself with the thought that no law firm has yet gone so far as to seek to register UNITARY PATENT as a trade mark.

World Intellectual Property Day, 26 April, will soon be upon us.  The IPKat takes this opportunity to remind folk that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has an event map which you can view on Facebook here.  You can also get the flavour of this year's theme of "Creativity: the next generation" here.

Monday miscellany Monday miscellany Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, March 18, 2013 Rating: 5


  1. I don't understand what the issue is with the Hogan Lovells website. It's a list of links and snippet quotes, like millions of other websites, and IPKat licenses use of the IPKat blog under Creative COmmons, the applicable version of which states:

    "You are free:

    to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
    to make derivative works
    to make commercial use of the work
    Under the following conditions:

    Attribution — You must give the original author credit."

    Perhaps there has been an oversight at HL (or possibly even that all the relevant content on their website has been rewritten since this IPKat post), but it doesn't seem like anyone is trying to provoke a war!

  2. To the Anonymous 10:00 commentator, I think there are two issues here.

    One is that law firms don't usually market their services on the back of the published writings of other law firms. I wouldn't expect for example Allen & Overy to offer information via a microsite in which it hosted blogposts or other stuff from Hogan Lovells.

    The second is the mis-spelling of the AmeriKat's surname as War instead of Ward. Knowing what Jeremy thinks of mis-spellings, I would be surprised if he deemed this to be a capital offence.

  3. Patto - no blogposts are hosted on the HL site! That's my point! There's a *link* back to the IPKat post, but the post itself is not reproduced. (And even if it was, the IPKat explicitly allows the reposting of entire blogposts under Creative Commons.)

    Suggesting that the IPKat fraternity might not be "entirely happy" with someone using their work in a way that is well within the scope of the explicit terms of the licence (even if you assume that Meltwater would otherwise have made the links illegal!) seems strange, that's all.

    (The misspelling is unfortunate and embarrassing for HL, but hardly material to the licensing issue.)

  4. Anonymous of 10:55, I am with Patto on this. The blogpost didn't say there was a copyright infringement or that the creative commons licence had been breached: it wondered whether those whose works were linked to by HL were entirely happy, which is not the same thing.


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.