Wednesday whimsies

An earlier draft -- or the current one?

Those Unified Patent Court proposals simply will not go away.  A new Draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute - Revised Presidency text, Brussels, was published on 2 September 2011. József Tálas (Sar & Partners, Hungary) and Steve Peers (Professor of Law, University of Essex) both kindly drew the attention of this Kat to its existence, but he was too busy writing about the old version (see Kat rant here) to get to grips with the new one.  You can peruse it for yourself here. Changes to the text have been underlined and explained, which makes life a little easier since the document is still 77 pages long.  While we're on the subject, EPLaw President Jochen Pagenberg has drawn this Kat's attention to an excellent, sincerely meant and constructive critique of the draft agreement which you can view here on PatLit along with some strongly supportive text.

The IPKat is waiting for
the book of the video of
the draft

The Unitary Patent won't go away either. From Gérald Sédrati-Dinet comes a video presentation in which he goes thoroughly through the issues raised by the proposed legislation on the unitary patent, stressing how important it is to draw carefully a good patent policy, pointing at drawbacks of the Commission's proposal and proposing some required amendments in order for the unitary patent to emerge speedily and safely from the drawing board into the harsh reality of modern Europe. You can access the video, which is less than 15 minutes long, here, or download it on Ogg Theora/Vorbis Free format -- oreven browse the slides at your own pace. Gérald would appreciate viewers' comments, of course.

A Google search for 'maple leaf'
and 'polar bear' retrieved this
piece of artwork

Lack of transparency of Court of Justice of the European Union proceedings is another of the Kat's favourite topics (see eg IPKat threatens European and Judicial Serenity" here), in which context he is pleased to draw to the attention of readers an email from the ever-relevant Professor Norman Siebrasse, who writes:

"It appears that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is more serene than the CJEU, as all submissions are available online. Here is a link to the practice notice, here is a link to the SCC policy for access to records, and here is a link to the submissions in an upcoming copyright (fair dealing) case. Note that hearings are also webcast".

It's not as though the Court of Justice faces delicate political, social and economic issues while the SCC does not.  Perhaps we Europeans have some big lessons to learn from Canada about our institutions and how they relate to us.


Around the weblogs. Starting with PatLit, the robotic octopus saga of the PCC Pages has now entered its 39th episode, with further consideration of the conflict between privilege and documentary disclosure.  The Social Interface is in interesting contribution to the outer margins of IP/IT, being an interdisciplinary blog on the social implications of technology: it's driven by a team of Australians of whom two are in colour, the others in monochrome.  Emily Goodhand has produced a neat, punchy account of revolutionary developments at Princeton in the battle between academics and publishers for the heart and soul of the former's research product: you can read it on the 1709 Blog here.

How is IP handled in your firm?

Managerial research is devoting increasingly more time to the question of how IP is transmitted through, and processed by, a company. The questions raised are both of a positive and normative nature. Researchers both map out the manner in which IP is actually transmitted and processed within a company (e.g., is it primarily the purview of the corporate IP department or is it distributed across various departments?) and consider whether alternative arrangements might enhance the value of IP for the company (e.g., should there a a top management position of "chief Intellectual Property Officer?).

However, there does not seem to be the same degree of attention to the parallel question with respect to law firms, namely how is IP handled across departmental and type-of-practice (contentious versus non-contentious) lines? IP enjoys a special status within a law firm practice. On the one hand, it is not a basic tool of the legal trade, such as contract law, which is part of every lawyer's basic legal training and which is part of every lawyer's practice, no matter what his field. On the other hand, unlike a field such as tax law, IP is not sufficiently technical (patent drafting and prosecution being the exception) that a lawyer will eschew dealing with the subject if he or she is not a specialist in that field. It is a bold (and ultimately foolish) attorney who will deal with tax questions as opposed to seeking advice from a member of the firm's tax department. But what about IP matters?

Keeping in mind these two poles, IP seems to occupy a middle position. IP is not a core law school subject; some students take a course or two while others do not. Unlike contract law, therefore, it cannot be said that a familiarity with IP is part of the legal skill set of every freshly-minted law student. That said, there is a sense of accessibility to the subject-matter of IP (again, with patent matters perhaps being somewhat different) that comes from one's personal experience.

One encounters the subject-matter of copyright and trade marks every day; whether in print, online, over the airways or otherwise. We make numerous purchases each week based on the brand of the product; not only do we read, hear or watch copyright contents constantly but, as lawyers, we are ourselves creating copyright-protected contents. The subject-matter of IP are familiar and we are comfortable with them in our daily lives.


This all-pervasive familiarity with (at least) certain types of IP carries over to law practice. As such, it is difficult to argue that IP belongs (or should belong) to a high priesthood of practitioners authorized to dispense their wisdom on a need-to-know basis. Moreover, there is hardly any aspect of a law practice that does not find itself, sooner or later, with the need to deal with an IP matter. Unlike tax or environmental protection, IP questions arise constantly across a broad swathe of a firm's activities. And in that lies the rub: how exactly do, and should, these IP aspects be handled within a firm? A series of further questions arise:

1. Should the firm maintain a dedicated patent practice, being the one remaining vestige of the IP priesthood? If the answer is "no", then the issue becomes reasonably simple--to which patent boutique should the patent issue be referred?

2. Whether the answer is "yes" or "no", the next question becomes whether to support a separate dedicated "soft-IP group (namely trade marks and copyright) within the firm?

3. If the answer to 2 is "yes", the challenge is to delineate the fields of activity that are to be handled by the members of the group. Will they solely provide "IP support" to other departments, be the task a due diligence report, licensing agreement, or an employer-employee dispute, or will the firm's IP department also have its own areas of responsibility, separate and apart from its IP support activities?

4.If the answer to 2 is "no", the challenge is how provide the staff in the relevant departments within the firm with sufficient IP acumen so as to be able to provide a professionally responsible level of IP competency. A large law firm may be able to develop IP sub-specialists to address these needs, but perhaps at a cost of ignoring the training of personnel with a broader view of the IP landscape.

5. A smaller firm may not enjoy the sub-specialists IP option although, as noted, the circumstances of such a firm may in fact encourage the development of IP personnel with a broader view of the IP practice. Even so, there always remains the quandry of how to deal with the challenge of providing adequate specialization in such a context. Does the law firm "do the best it can", or does it seek to obtain IP specialist advice (from the dwindling number of IP boutiques) if needed?

Questions galore--any answers?

Daniels in the lions' den: can they avert a disaster of Biblical proportions?

Last Friday, while this Kat was at the LIDC Conference in Oxford, he was raging against the monstrous abuse of monopoly which resulted from the laws currently in place to protect the London Olympics and Paralympics in 2012 against anything that might be regarded as a whiff of competition.  Commenting on the (admittedly entertaining and well-presented) talk by the affable, unflappable Farisha Constable, LOCOG Brand Protection Manager, he said this:

"Usually when I, as a great enthusiast for IP rights, speak at a competition law conference, I feel like Daniel being thrown into the lions' den. However today, for once, I feel that I am on the side of the lions and that it is Farisha who is being thrown to them".   

By total coincidence, while the Kat was citing Daniel v Lions at the LIDC Conference, a whole group of Daniels was being cast to the lions the other end of Europe, in the lovely city of Warsaw.  The cause of this was the Academy of European Law's conference, The Future Unified Patent Litigation System in the European Union, "organised in the framework of the Polish EU Presidency of the EU Council" which was billed as providing

"... a platform for discussion on the new draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court presented by the Hungarian Presidency on 14 June 2011".

What, perchance was to be discussed on this platform? The programme explained:

"The objective of the conference is to analyse how issues raised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Opinion 1/09 on the previous version of the agreement regarding compatibility with EU law were addressed, as well as to promote an exchange of views between courts and practitioners on the functioning of the European Patent Court".

The event commanded an all-star line-up of speakers.  In case you were wondering, they were

• Margot Fröhlinger, Director, DG Internal Market and Services, European Commission, Brussels
• Dr Klaus Grabinski, Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) Karlsruhe
• Professor Sir Robin Jacob, University College London 
• Marcin Korolec, Undersecretary of State, Ministry of Economy, Warsaw
• Eurico Marques dos Reis, Judge of the Court of Appeal, Lisbon
• Kevin Mooney, Partner and Head of Intellectual Property, Simmons & Simmons, London
• David Rosenberg, Industry Affairs Manager, Corporate IP Department, GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford
• Thierry Sueur, Vice President, Intellectual Property and Vice President, European & International Affairs, Air Liquide (tbc)
• Maciej Szpunar, Undersecretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Warsaw
• Professor Winfried Tilmann, Of Counsel, Hogan Lovells International, Dusseldorf
• Vincent Tilman, Senior Advisor European Affairs, Eurochambres, Brussels
• Robert van Peursem, Judge, The Hague District Court
• Pierre Véron, Avocat, Véron&Associés, Paris

Unbeknownst to the cast, and to the 80 or so participants, there was also an envoy from the Republic of Katland, who sent back this report:

"The purpose of the conference, declared the Polish Minister opening proceedings, was to "look at the Court from the point of view of users - the Judges, lawyers and entrepreneurs". [Is 'entrepreneurs' a euphemism for 'litigants'? If so, the needs of plaintiffs -- who make the decision to go to court -- and defendants, who have little option to go when sued, may reflect different points of view. In any event, why are judges and lawyers listed ahead of the litigants? This reflects a poorly-focused mind-set, say Merpel] Unfortunately, this message had clearly not reached Winfried Tilmann who, speaking next, immediately informed the conference that "there was no political will in Council or in Parliament to re-open [the December 2009] package deal". He concluded with the dark warning that speakers should "resist the temptation to fight old battles". Plainly precisely nothing of consequence was up for discussion in his opinion, which begged the question: what actually was the point of the conference?

A succession of speakers then largely toed the Tilmann line. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, these were led by the German speakers such as Judge Klaus Grabinski. But French support too came from Thierry Sueur. While he sensibly urged that the Court be allowed to decide the language of proceedings, he implored Poland not to be afraid to push the Court agreement through, saying "let's not look for perfection" [Heaven forfend that one should even consider such a thing, adds Merpel. No-one really wants a perfect patent litigation system, do they?].

Then at last, (likening himself to Daniel entering the lions' den) Kevin Mooney pointed out a few of the fundamental flaws in the proposed arrangements, notably that no-one had explained how the Court was supposed to be funded, following withdrawal of the Commission's financial support (so central to the 2009 draft) consequent upon the ECJ's March 2011 opinion.

Following this lead, the touch-paper was well and truly lit by Judge Robert van Peursem, with a typically Dutch piece of plain speaking. Deeply critical of the proposals, he saw no reason to stick with the 2009 Council conclusions, saying it was not just a case of mending some details. He said that the "politicians should start to listen to the users" [If only! They scarcely listen even to one another ...]. Expressing strong support for the "excellent" British "Concerns of Principle" paper [on which click here] and the equivalent Swedish paper, he implored the Commission to "listen to those expert voices sincerely, not politely, or not at all". So strong was his condemnation of the proposals, that he declared that he "would seriously consider to decline to take part in this system as it stands", saying also that he spoke for the majority of his first instance colleagues.

Never a man to be outshone, Sir Robin Jacob described all amendments to the litigation proposals since the EPLA proposal as retrograde, and warned of the dangers of creating the "patent equivalent of the Euro". He said that if he were a user he would certainly opt out.

Noble support for the Daniel cause came next from David Rosenberg, who declared himself a wholehearted supporter of a unitary court, but only if it was better than the present system -- which this was not. He observed that it was important to get it right for innovation, not for politicians. It was not just a political project and if it had to take more time, so be it. This was not a case of following the advice of Macbeth (right) that " If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly": That, he pointed out, was said in relation to the killing of a king, whereas for this project, a more apt exhortation would be "when it is done, it should be done right".

So what did Margot Fröhlinger make of all this in her speech? Dishearteningly she said that some aspects of the agreement such as bifurcation and composition of panels "could not be improved". She was "surprised" at the criticism. This envoy from Katland was not alone in his surprise at her surprise. Robert van Peursem pointed out that he had made precisely the same observations at five different conferences [This just goes to show how foolish it is for members of the IP community to believe that their expertise and experience have any value in a world of convenience and expediency]. It was impossible to put any questions to Margot Fröhlinger, however, to ask her if having now heard these criticisms, she would listen, or whether she would follow the Tilmann line. Instead, the subsequent "debate" consisted mainly of a series of attacks on the Daniels by various of the faithful lions. Thierry Sueur described the dissenting speakers as "isolated" (a suggestion strongly rebutted by Robert van Peursem) and astonishingly responded to Sir Robin Jacob's plea not to "do a Euro" by describing the Euro as a "great success". This perhaps summed up the attitude of some: that criticism (no matter how constructive) is quite simply heretical to the political project that the unified court has become, and those heretics deserve to be thrown to the lions.

But it was not all doom and gloom for those who would like to see a good agreement, not just an agreement at any cost. Reassuringly, the German view was far from universally supportive. Speaking from the floor, having curiously been deprived of a speaker's platform, Jochen Pagenberg voiced support for more debate on the issues, including revisiting exclusivity in purely domestic disputes and suggested a transitional period of 15 years or more. Even Margot Fröhlinger appeared to concede that the transitional and opt-out arrangements could in fact be considered further.

Daniel waited patiently to be eaten while the lions debated the benefits of bifurcation and pondered as to whether they should dine alone, in pairs or in panels of three ... 

So what will the next steps be? Almost certainly some decisions will never be overturned. The bifurcated system is here to stay. So too is the panel system of permanent local panels of two local judges and one guest judge. This combination will almost certainly lead to forum-shopping among the divisions of the Court. But other issues may yet be revisited: the transitional arrangements in particular. If improvement here could be negotiated, together with a concession that the Central Division could be used by patentees commencing infringement cases, that would make a considerable difference. Let us hope that the political imperative to do a deal - any deal - does not in Sir Robin Jacob's words leave us in 15 years' time with a system which is more expensive than the present one. Whatever the outcome, however, the Daniels deserve a great deal of thanks for their efforts in Warsaw. The lions certainly know now, if they did not know it before, that they are in for a fight to reach a better agreement".

SuperGroup: Fashion, Recession and IP

It seems quite a long time ago that this Kat confidently described intellectual property as the most recession-proof area of legal practice and, while he's sure he's right in principle, he can't say hand-on-heart that the facts are always as correct as the theory they're supposed to support.  Anyway, he hasn't been writing as much about IP and the R-word as perhaps he should have, so he's grateful to his respected friend Fredericka Argent for penning the piece below, which reflects on the effect of recession on the balance between original design, investment and playing safe by copying:

SuperGroup: Fashion, Recession and IP 

Times are tough in business, and none more so in the fashion industry. Newspaper pages are filled with tales of woe: high street stores suffering from declining sales, lack of consumer interest and, in a few cases, insolvency. However, some stores are managing to buck the trend. Those that do tend to be either low cost ‘fast fashion’ retailers or, at the other end of the spectrum, luxury designer brands. It is rare to find a mid-range high street store that is truly flourishing in these austere times. And yet, one such retailer can claim to be doing just that – the all-conquering Superdry. 

Superwho? 

Superdry is the casual-wear label du jour. The brand is easily-spottable with its bright colours, contemporary designs and distinctive Japanese characters emblazoned on everything from T-shirts to rucksacks. It was set up in 2003 by the very un-Japanese-sounding Julian Dunkerton and, despite competition from similar style retailers on the market, such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Jack Wills and Uniqlo, to name a few, SuperGroup has recently revealed pre-tax profits of £50.2 million. Yet, even with success in the UK, Europe, the USA and Australia, SuperGroup is not complacent about the need to stand out amongst rivals in the highly competitive market for casual clothing. As such, it has adopted a tough approach to protecting its brand –- essentially, issuing legal notices to all those that seek to “copy” its designs. 

Cunningly disguised as cats,
Superdry bodyguards keep a
watchful eye out for unwanted
visitors

In 2009, The Times ran a story about Superdry’s approach to high street imitations: at a trade fair in Germany, the company employed two bodyguards to prevent unaccredited buyers from entering and photographing its clothing. SuperGroup claims – arguably sensibly – that it is cheaper to employ such methods than enter into legal battles. Overall, they spend around £1 million per year protecting their designs. Says Julian Dunkerton: “we are probably the most copied brand in the UK and these cases are becoming all too frequent... we are determined in protecting our intellectual property.” 

In January 2011, it was reported that SuperGroup was pursuing nearly 100 legal actions for breach of its copyrights or design rights. There have been some obvious infringers, such as ‘Superfly’ and ‘Silverdry’, makers of counterfeit Superdry products. But SuperGroup has been equally forceful about pursuing other, mainstream retailers who they believe have infringed either their copyrights or design rights in individual pieces of clothing. 

Some examples of recent cases: 

·         May 2009: The Guardian ran a piece covering SuperGroup’s allegations against Primark, accused of copying key features of Superdry’s famous leather jacket, ‘Brad’, as worn by David Beckham. A financial settlement for an undisclosed sum was agreed out of court and Primark agreed to stop producing the jacket. 

·         January 2011: The Telegraph reported that SuperGroup was awarded £45,000 in the High Court against a Lancashire fashion group, Rhodi, who it claimed had breached design rights in their range of Lumberjack-style hooded shirts. Rhodi did not file a defence and, following judgment in SuperGroup’s favour, they were ordered to cease and desist from selling the infringing shirts and surrender their stock. 

As recently reported by The Daily Mail, the latest focus of Superdry’s litigious attention is the Arcadia Group, owned by Sir Philip Green. One amongst this group is the store, Burton, which currently sells a ‘Navy Wool 2-in-1 Funnel Coat’ coat (right) that SuperGroup deems to be an infringement in the design rights of its ‘Jermyn Street’ trench coat. SuperGroup has issued a writ through DKH Retail Ltd, its subsidiary, against Arcadia Group, alleging ‘close similarities’ between the two competing coat. It claims that ‘various small and immaterial alterations’ have been made to Burton’s coat in an attempt to ‘avoid a charge of blatant copying’. SuperGroup is seeking damages from Arcadia Group as well as the destruction or delivery-up of the offending goods. 

Protecting the design 

Clothing has always been a tricky area when it comes to intellectual property protection, partly because fashion is so transient that the period of protection may outlive the clothing line itself. Designs in the UK can be protected by copyright and/or a design right. An unregistered design right, like copyright, arises automatically. Alternatively, a design may also be registered under UK or European Community law. 

Without access to the court documents, it is not possible to know the scope of protection around the Jermyn Street trench coat. It seems likely that as an international company, SuperGroup would choose protection as a registered design under the Community Design Regulation 6/2002. A design will be protected under this regime if it is ‘new’ and has ‘individual character’ (Article 4(1)). Registered design protection lasts for up to 25 years and would give SuperGroup the exclusive right to exploit their design and prevent unauthorised copying. 

Comments on the legal battle 

I am in two minds about SuperGroup’s case against Arcadia. On the one hand, I look at the two items in question and see a fairly generic men’s woollen coat, which could have been designed by any one of the many mainstream high street stores. I also wonder how ‘creative’ a designer can really be when designing a coat that has to look simple, serve a functional purpose and fit the average man. 

On the other hand, perhaps the reason why I, as a consumer, think that the coat is generic is because of the abundance of copycat men’s winter coats on the market. This would point to a fundamental lack of creativity in the retail industry at the moment and widespread and open counterfeiting. Certainly, this is something that Dids McDonald, CEO of ACID (Anti-Counterfeiting In Design) seems to think. Regarding the Superdry v Primark battle, Dids had this to say: 

“The investment incentive is not there for some retailers do the design, research and development; instead retailers look at what’s selling – and it tends to be design-led companies that bring out the hottest stuff – take it, change it a bit and hope that’s OK.  To bring a product to market takes time, investment and creative skills.  There are a lot of companies out there that are free-riding on another’s designs as a fast track to market. It has to stop!” 

It is sad to think that this may be the case. The fashion industry contributes some £21 billion to the UK economy and this year’s London Fashion Week has shown how the UK breeds some world-class designing talent. For all designers – be it creators of high fashion clothing or those creating everyday wear for the big retail chains, intellectual property is one of their most important and valuable assets. Where this asset is threatened by rivals perhaps they should be encouraged to robustly defend their rights. 

However, it is important not to confuse counterfeiting with healthy competition which, from a consumer’s point of view, leads to choice in the market. A balance must be struck in the protection of design rights: counterfeiting – be it blatant or subtle – is unacceptable. It is with regret that I read reports, such as that by the UK’s IP Crime Group detailing the high levels of counterfeiting in clothing in the United Kingdom. But, equally, I would question whether all of SuperGroup’s claims against its rivals can be strictly justified. Are Burton’s designers lazily free-riding on the success of a popular Superdry coat, or is this simply a case of two designers creating similar but independent articles of clothing in response to consumer demands? Only time will tell how (or indeed, if) this question is answered. In the meantime, I’d be interested to hear readers’ thoughts on this matter.

Ayang Merinda Putri Exotic Poses

He began his career as a model, Ayang Merinda Putri finally decided to migrate and seek his fortune in the capital city. At least been about 3 years often face wara-wiri in several adult men's magazine Indonesia and Asia.
His career in the world model can be said not just run smoothly. Because the parents were angry and had forbade him to take pictures vulgar.
In fact he claimed to have expelled by her parents from the house being caught vulgar picture taken for a product.
Unintentionally, she finally went into the acting world with his debut film premiere 'Angel Jakarta' and get the lead role.
Now Ayang've felt all of the entertainment world ranging from modeling, acting and ftv wide screen, as well as several times into commercials for a product.
The former cover girl prefers the 2004 model line as a way of life. Because according to him, easier and easier to find the money.
Ayang sexy eyes are open does not have to dress or vulgar. Therefore, although only with a mini dress that was simple, he remained confident will look sexy.
According to some close persons, Ayang a sexy body parts are the eyes and lips.
Even so, he still feels that he has a high sex appeal.
Since sitting dibangku junior grade 2, Ayang have started getting their own money from their work became a model.
At least 73 awards already shaped trophy or plaque from a variety of race fotogenic and so forth.

Gallery Photo's Ayang Merinda Putri :

Monday miscellany

Friday came and went -- and the IPKat was too busy chasing his tail to notice that he hadn't posted his usual reminder to check the Forthcoming Events page. There are plenty of seminars, events, conferences and other social gatherings listed, so do take a look!


Around the weblogs.  First, congratulations to IP Finance on securing its 1,000th email subscriber! Now for the serious stuff. This week's A to Z tour of official African intellectual property websites takes Afro Leo to the Republic of Djibouti, where online is evidently not the place to be.  New PatLit blogger Michael Thesen has got off to a roaring start with two excellent posts on calculation of damages via the licence analogy and the private and social costs of patent trolls.  Online publication of next month's issue of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice is the excuse for airing the editorial on jiplp: it's "L'Oréal, eBay and tyranny of the unknown". 1709 Blog's Ben Challis reviews some big issues relating to the new Facebook Music service here. IPKat blogger Jeremy's soulmates in pedantry on IP Draughts wax lyrical on the problems of using "will" or "shall" in contracts, many of which can be cured by using "must".

Feeling FRANDly?  The Oxford University Press quarterly Journal of Competition Law & Economics (JCLE) is something that catches this Kat's attention from time to time. Every so often it features an article that is of great interest to the IP community. One such article in the current issue (vol.7, no.3) is "Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Terms: a Challenge for the Competition Authorities" by Mario Mariniello (a member of DG Competition's team). According to the abstract,

"Standards contribute to increase welfare to the extent that they reduce production costs and increase products' value to consumers. The adoption of a standard can, however, raise competition concerns. After the adoption of the standard, the chosen technology may lack effective substitutes. The owner of an intellectual property (IP) right essential to the technology may indeed use the additional market power that may be gained through standardization (competitors being absent ex-post) to charge higher prices to “locked-in” licensees. To mitigate such a hold-up risk, standard setting organizations usually require patent holders to disclose their relevant IP rights ex-ante and/or to commit to license IP on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. This article suggests a methodology to assess whether FRAND commitments are violated, from a competition perspective. The proposed methodology extends the framework proposed by Cecilio Madero and Nicholas Banasevic by outlining four necessary conditions for an ex-post licensing behaviour to be considered anticompetitive, in violation of FRAND commitments".

There's no algebra and plenty for IP strategists to think about, which makes a pleasant change from some law-and-economics pieces this Kat has unsuccessfully sought to read in recent years.

ICANN has now launched a micro website for new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), which you can access here, and is also promoting a six-minute video which you can view here. ICANN President and Chief Executive Officer Rod Beckstrom says it will be “the definitive source for any and all information relating to the gTLD program, for applicants, potential applicants or simply the curious”.  If any domain-name savvy reader would like to put this definitive source through its paces and review it for this weblog, this Kat would be happy to hear from that good soul.


Better late than never, says the IPKat [and better early than late, says the ever-realistic Merpel]. On 29 July of this year the IPKat posted this report ("When is a secret not a secret?") on the decision of Mr Justice Arnold in LG Electronics Inc v Sony Europe Ltd, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc and Sony Corporation. In so doing, the Kat lamented that the decision, which looked like an interesting one, had not yet been posted on BAILII. Well, it has now and you can read it here, thanks to a tip-off from one of the Kat's most observant friends.

Believe it or not, here are even more events

Miffy demonstrates her patented
technique for looking awake and
interested in patent seminars ...

There's an IPKat seminar coming up on the afternoon of Thursday 3 November, 5.00pm to 6.30pm, in the pleasantly-equipped and conveniently-located London offices of Olswang LLP, 90 High Holborn. The speaker is Dr Galit Gonen (who heads up the European patents team at Teva Pharmaceuticals) and her subject is "Linkages between legal and marketing theories regarding secondary patents for pharmaceuticals".

A panel of sensible and well-informed people will comment briefly on the paper (which is based on Galit’s PhD thesis) before it’s thrown open to the floor for general discussion. Mr Justice Arnold (Patents Court, England and Wales), Professor Jo Gibson (Intellectual Property Institute and Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute) and Chris Stothers (IBIL and Arnold & Porter) will be there and the Kat hopes to confirm the presence of one of the stars from the Intellectual Property Institute's Economics Unit.

Refreshments will be provided and registration is FREE, which means it doesn't cost anything [Merpel explains, every time the IPKat runs a free seminar someone emails him to ask how much it costs to attend ...]. There is no registration form. If you'd like to attend, please email the IPKat here and tell him. He will acknowledge your email when he can, which may not be till next weekend.


"Football, Broadcasting and the Internal Market: Is a common audio-visual space in sight?"  That's a bit of a mouthful. It's also the title of a seminar which the City University is holding on Tuesday 11 October 2011, from 1730 to 2030pm, at its premises in Northampton Square, London.  IPKat team member Jeremy will be there. Although he's described as a speaker, along with Lorna Woods, Dan Wilsher and Jonathan Griffiths, he's just going to be giving a few thoughts on the commercial impact of next week's ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-403/08 FA Premier League and others v QC Leisure and C-329/08 Murphy v Media Protection Services.  To refresh readers' memories: the cases concern pub landlords, including Karen Murphy, who contracted with satellite service providers based outside the UK whose (cheaper) broadcasts included Premier league football. The football bodies have argued that this infringes UK copyright law. In reconciling intellectual property rights with the free movement of services, the Court has the potential to transform broadcasting in the EU.  Full details and registration here. This event is worth one CPD point for practising solicitors.

At last, an illustration
which is absolutely safe
from legal action from the
London Organising Commttee
for the Olympic Games

For those who are heartily fed up with events concerning patents, here's something completely different.  CLT are holding a one-day conference on Wednesday 26 October, Intellectual Property: the Olympics and the Paralympics Conference 2011, somewhere in Central London. Topics tackled by an all-star team of speakers, cunningly chaired by IPKat team blogger Jeremy, include the following:

• Legal Basis for Protecting the Olympics
• Legal Structures for Protecting the Olympics
• The Olympics and Trade Mark Law in the UK and Europe
• Transmitting the Olympics
• The UK’s Special Legislation: An Overview
• Ambush Marketing
• Advertising, Sponsorship, Keywords and Other Headaches

So if you think you, or one of your clients, may be likely to fall foul of the various intellectual property and Olympic rights that have been put in place for next year's jollities in London, click here for further details.

There's no point in keeping it secret, even if it is about privacy, but Professor Michael Birnhack (Tel Aviv University and a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies) is giving a lunchtime seminar  entitled “Theory of Privacy” on 12 October at 12.30pm. in Room 103, School of Advanced Study, South Block, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. All relevant details can be found here.

A little tipple for
the IPSoc youngsters ...

IPSoc, the bright, dynamic organisation for bright, dynamic IP professionals, has just announced its latest forthcoming event, a talk by Mark Chacksfield (8 New Square) on 10 October on "Patents -- Key Issues Update". Mark must be quite a talented young fellow since his web page proclaims that he specialises in all areas of intellectual property. Anyway, you can get all the details you need from the IPSoc website here. The venue is the London office of Hogan Lovells International LLP and there will be some pleasant refreshments for the youngsters. don't miss it!