Thursday thingies

Every Kat's nightmare: the dreaded
Three Pekes Challenge ...
The name of Haydn Gush is unknown to most readers of this blog, but he is part of our IP ecosystem, being one of those "behind the scenes" folk who work so hard to help arrange IP conferences, summer schools and other events offered or managed by Informa.  Anyway, Haydn tells the Kats that he is attempting the Three Peaks Challenge this month, seeking to raise money for The Prince's Trust. Donations will be greatly appreciated, he adds.  To donate, just click here.

Given the option, Kats choose Farringdon --
though most humans prefer Chancery Lane
It's a Federal issue.  The London-based IP Federation, which "represents the views of UK research-based industry on policy and practice matters in in­tellectual property" [which of course we all do, adds Merpel,a little cheekily], is looking for a permanent part-time administrative assistant.   Particulars of this post can be accessed here. Bad news is that applicants have to be "well organised, with an eye for detail, and able to work without super­vision", which eliminates a number of good and well-meaning folk who would be quite happy with a post that only encroached on their time for 15 to 20 hours a week if they didn't have to work for it. A further obstacle to overcome is the need "to be familiar with Microsoft Word and Excel, and ideally with Outlook". The IP Federation's offices are conveniently situated near Farringdon and Chancery Lane Under­ground stations which means that, while The Old Nick is within walking distance, you will definitely need that refreshing pint of Badger by the time you get there.  Interested? Email David England at by 5 June 2015 -- and tell him you read it on the IPKat ...

Palomar, Solamar. Last week fellow Kat Neil posted this piece on an initial interest confusion experience he had in San Diego when attending this year's International Trademark Association (INTA) Meeting and found himself at the wrong venue.  Readers have had similar experiences.  One lawyer writes:
Not many hotels share
this name ...
"Just read your post on the IPKat. So true. My taxidriver certainly was confused between the two hotels when I asked him to take me to the Palomar and mentioned an address which he challenged, only to find out that ‘his’ address was for the Solamar. And, in an attempt to go to the CMS reception I walked into the Omni hotel where my puzzled look was quickly replied by one of the staff saying that I probably was looking for the Omnia San Diego, which is a club, a few blocks further on 6th Avenue".
And the IPKat received this missive from a correspondent who owns up to being senior in-house counsel to a well-known chain of hotels:
"Thank you for the blogpost – I think it is becoming more common for hotel companies to have conflicts within their own ranks than to have problems with competitors.  We are seeing a lot of these kinds of problems as we open additional hotels in areas where we already have a presence (although usually the conflict is due to the geographical components of individual hotel names, not to the name of the brand)".  
Duly noted. Now that the Kats have spotted these problems, will someone please be kind enough to do something about them?

19 inch plush tiger, from
FAO Schwarz (looks better
in the flesh ...)
Around the weblogs.  On the 1709 Blog, Ben Challis writes on the hitherto unknown streaming royalty arrangements between Sony and Spotify, while Andy Johnstone updates readers on the reasoning of Judge Kozinski's court in the difficult Innocence of Muslims litigation in Cindy Garcia v Google. PatLit invites patent-y readers to participate in the Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co survey on attitudes towards Europe's new unitary patent system and unified patent court [you don't have to be European to have an opinion -- or to express it, this Kat can confirm]. Elsewhere on the same weblog David Berry revisits the latest US case law on "divided infringement", Akamai v Limelight, where the alleged infringement is split between two or more parties rather than being monopolised by a single infringer. On SOLO IP, Barbara Cookson flags an initiative by fellow solo practitioner Roman Cholij who, wearing a slightly different hat, has put together a Cambridge conference programme on Patents on Life [this Kat has heard a rumour that outspoken fellow blogger and IP soloist Michael Factor may be speaking ...]. Finally, fellow Kat Neil has produced a blogpost for IP Finance that reflects his customary elegance and eloquence on hard times for the FAO Schwarz brand as the iconic toy shop leaves its flagship site for pastures green.

Fresh news from Lisbon.  Since this Kat's earlier post on the outcome of the past couple of weeks' negotiations on the international fate of geographical indications and appellations of origin, 11 countries have already become signatories to the Lisbon Agreement's Geneva Act. They are, in order of signing, Peru, Romania, Togo, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Congo, France, Gabon, Hungary, Mali and Nicaragua.  However, the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement will not enter into force until three months after five eligible parties have deposited their instruments of ratification or accession. Thanks go again to MARQUES GI Team vice-chair Keri Johnston (katpat!) for letting us know.
Thursday thingies Thursday thingies Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, May 21, 2015 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Might be worth a glance at the latest news from as well. Very strange!


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.