Monday miscellany

... But are they moral?

"Are human rights moral rights?"  This poser is the title of the forthcoming Blaca/IPKat seminar on 12 Ferbruary (details here).  Despite the fact that the seminar was only launched last Tuesday, it is already booked out.  This Kat is curious to know whether, among those who have not signed up or who have sought to do so in vain, there is much demand for the event to be streamed so that they can follow it online. If there is sufficient demand, that might become a reality if the organisers and host firm can work it out.  If you are seriously likely to join the seminar online if it's available, can you email Blaca's Tom Rivers at tom.blacatreasurer@gmail.com.  On the same subject, we've heard from Professor David Welkowitz (Whittier Law School), who is sad to be so far away to be able to attend in person, but mentioned a recent article he had published on the subject: "Privatizing Human Rights? Creating Intellectual Property Rights from Human Rights Principles", 46 Akron Law Review 675 (2013) 713. So if you fancy doing a little background reading, now's your chance!

Hot dog, hot design:
even hotter with mustard ...

Hot Design Topic.  From katfriend Claire Lazenby comes news that this year’s registration for the European Communities Trade Mark Association (ECTA) Round table in Alicante has now opened.  The subject of this forthcoming attraction is Hot Design Topics and the date is 20 February. Participation is free (though a journey to Alicante sadly isn't); panellists include fellow Class 99 blogger David Musker and the ever-excellent Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral from the OHIM Litigation Service.  Further details are here.

The woman who took a bite out
of a priceless item of modern
art, mistaking it for a canapé ...

Practice run before the fun.  The International Trademark Association's Annual Meeting is famed for its size, for the quality of its sessions and presentations -- and for the sheer abundance and variety of the receptions that seem to sprout from every hotel, bar, restaurant or space big enough to spread a buffet. Since the INTA Meeting is a gruelling test of one's stamina and ability to withstand reception after reception and still function as an IP lawyer, why not get into training early and attend this year's Pre-Annual Meeting Reception in London? According to information that has recently reached this Kat:

 This Pre-Annual Meeting Reception is planned exclusively for you and your colleagues to learn more about INTA's 2014 Annual Meeting in Hong Kong SAR, China. Feel free to bring a friend, co-worker or prospective member to find out about INTA’s first Annual Meeting in Asia and to discover all the benefits INTA offers. 

This reception is hosted by katfriend David Stone (Simmons & Simmons) on Monday 24 February, from 6 pm to 8 pm, and the venue is his firm's CityPoint office with the prospect of an optional art tour of that firm's art collection at 7 pm.  To confirm your attendance, RSVP here by Wednesday,19  February (though if you're not currently an INTA member, you will need to create a username and password to register for this event).

Around the weblogs.  This morning's PatLit carries a good descriptive analysis by Aaron Wood of last week's ruling over the Nexium patent in Astrazeneca v KRKA on what courts do when faced with successful defendant in infringement proceedings who, having been wrongfully tied down by a pre-trial injunction, seeks to cash in on the claimant's cross-undertaking in damages.  Following last week's seminar on passing off and unfair competition, led by Baker & McKenzie partner Ben Allgrove and Gert Würtenberger from the Munich law firm Würtenberger Kunze, the jiplp weblog has posted the speakers' PowerPoints.  On the same blog, Joel Smith and Laura Deacon relate the sad tale of the "other" Starbucks and the fate of its NOW Community trade mark.  Over on the MARQUES Class 99 design law blog, Friederike Manz summarises amendments to Germany's own design law that promise to make it cheaper and more user-friendly.  Finally, Mark Anderson asks the shocking question on IP Draughts "Are legal details a waste of time in IP contracts?"