Thursday thingies

Forthcoming events.  Apart from the usual treats that are listed on the IPKat's Forthcoming Events page, there are some more exotic attractions in store for readers of this weblog.  One such attraction takes place on 19 August in one of this Kat's favourite watering holes, the venerable Old Nick, in Holborn's lovely Sandland Street. This Kat thinks it's some sort of musical event and that sums raised are to be put to some sort of charitable cause. If the poster on the right were a patent, it might be in danger of being revoked for insufficiency -- or might the person skilled in the art think it reasonable to try?


Cecil the Lion R.I.P.  Over the past few days this Kat has received a considerable degree of correspondence concerning the late, lamented Cecil the Lion and, in particular, the fact that a number of applications to register the words "Cecil the Lion" have been made by parties hitherto unconnected with the most popular mammal to have seen the light of day in the beautiful but oft-troubled land of Zimbabwe.  It is true that no blogpost has been published on this event, but this Kat has actually posted something along the lines that follow, on the Facebook page of European trade mark organisation MARQUES.

It is not at present clear to this Kat how many applicants have sought to do this, or which jurisdictions have been targeted-- if that be the right word -- for registration. However, it seems to him that large numbers of lions and other wild animals are killed annually in similar circumstances in their native habitat. their deaths attracting little or no individual attention. This is because they are generic animals -- ordinary common-or-garden lions, antelope, giraffe and so on. Cecil is different because he is not a generic lion but a branded one: he represents an image, a value, and indeed a relationship with a consuming public of animal-lovers and conservationists. It is this which has caused so much attention to be focused on his death, with so much media attention and criticism -- and it is also this, the fact that Cecil is a brand and not any old lion, that makes businesses want to register his name as a trade mark, notwithstanding the fact that they may have no connection with him whatsoever.

Around the weblogs 1. The 1709 Blog has issued a call for help from any reader who can supply information concerning the use of copyright as a means of tackling revenge porn: any jurisdiction will do, but European cases are preferred. There's also an action-packed CopyKat round-up from Ben Challis.  Over on PatLit, there's news of Portugal's official commitment to the Unified Patent Court, assuming that the controversial court comes into existence.  plus a very gratifying post from Dave Berry on an Illinois judge's insistence that patent law submissions before him be brief, expressed in non-technical language and devoid of patent law jargon.

UnFitbit

Around the weblogs 2. The Aistemos blog looks at information-rich wearables maker Fitbit and asks why patent analytics aren't more widely used in the mix of criteria that go to predicting the company's performance and share price. Laetitia Lagarde on Class 46 reports on a Community trade mark spat between two Alexes, in which the General Court confirmed what this Kat had always believed -- that "children's bath toys" and "sporting articles" were neither the same nor similar goods. IP Tango pacemaker Patricia Covarrubia offers her summer thoughts on geographical indications. Finally, Class 99 spots news from the IP Factor weblog that Israel finally has a draft on the table for a new design law to replace the British Mandate ordinance of 1922.



Confused by those wet-wipes? Following the IPKat's blogpost last week on the ongoing passing-off action between Gama Healthcare Ltd v Pal International Ltd. in which Gama objected that Pal's wet-wipe packaging would lead people to think it was theirs, this weblog ran a short, sweet sidebar poll to ask whether readers might be confused between the claimants' Clinell's packs and the defendants' Medipal ones.
A gratifyingly large number of readers interrupted their holidays for at least ten seconds in order to click their view on the subject. Of the 541 who responded, 378 (that's just fractionally under 70%) said they thought the packs were confusingly similar, while just 163 (marginally over 30%) considered that they weren't.  This Kat thinks this shows that the claimants can hardly be blamed for suing.  Merpel thinks this shows that marginally over 30% of readers are trade mark attorneys and their friends. But that's another matter ...