Rihanna tops

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 8 March 2013

Do You Know How Much Swatch Is In Your Watch?

Posted on 07:54 by Unknown
Swatch seems to have a
'Made in Cat' brand ...
Can there be another country whose name is identified with a greater array of products of quality and excellence more than Switzerland (Swiss; Suisse)? For the daily palate, there is Swiss cheese and Swiss chocolate; for the outdoors type, there is the Swiss pocket knife. But surely the crown jewel is the luxury watch business and the designation "Swiss Made", where it is reported that the appellation can nearly double the price of a watch. What follows is for those of you who either are wearing a Swiss watch or wish that you were, which means, more or less, all of us. Be warned-- all is not quiet on the "Swiss Made" front. As reported both by The Economist ("Time is money") here and Reuters ("What Puts the Swiss in a "Swiss Made" Watch?) here, the Swiss parliament is currently considering amendments to the law governing what "Swiss Made" means. Even if you think you know the answer, read on—you may be surprised.

The debate centres on a change to the current "directive", which provides that a watch must contain at least 50% Swiss manufacture of the value of the watch movement parts to be eligible for the designation. This means that a manufacturer can in principle import all of the ancillary parts of the watch, such as the dials, cases and hands, and still satisfy the requirement, provided that at least 50% of the watch movements are made in Switzerland. As such, says the chairman of the Swiss watch federation, "watches produced almost entirely in China can be sold legally under the "Swiss Made" label." The result is that "[s]ome complain their Swiss watches are not as Swiss as they should be", he added.

The lower house of the Swiss parliament proposes to raise that minimum amount made in Switzerland to 60%, while the upper house wants the amount to remain the current 50%. What is crucial in both cases is that the proposed percentage will apply not only to the watch movements, but to the overall value of the watch. So what are the economic consequences? It depends upon who you ask. Some say that the change as proposed will enhance the quality of the watch by ensuring that "more" of it is actually made in Switzerland. "Not so fast", says others. Since the determination is to be made on the basis of the overall value of the watch, and given the high cost of almost everything in Switzerland, including the manufacture of watch movements and the like, the result might be that certain Swiss watch manufacturers will be more inclined to import even more low-cost components, making minimum use of Swiss-originating components. Here, the value of the expensive Swiss components will be integrated with cheaper "non-Swiss" components. The paradoxical end-game might be that raising the percentage requirement and making it apply to the overall value of the watch will make the ultimate product even "less Swiss" than before. "More" might actually mean "less". If so, could there be a threat to the prestige of "Swiss Made" as the designation applies to watches.

Blancpain
If that were not enough, there is also another dynamic at play here—the role of the Swatch company as the source of watch movements for 70% of all Swiss watch makers, rising to 90% for the balance springs. This means that no only does Swatch sell watches at the retail level (including brands such as Blancpain and Omega in addition to the Swatch house mark), but it is also the main supplier for the inner parts of watches manufactured by others. Swatch is now seeking a way to reduce the extent to which it supplies such components to other manufacturers. The Swiss Competition Commission has been called in to regulate this process. But sooner or later, Swatch will materially reduce its role as supplier of components. As such, certain competitors will face the possibility of either seeking to buy up smaller component manufacturers (some watch makers are reportedly already doing so), which might drive up the price of such components, or import more of them from abroad, thereby taking the risk of further eroding the allure of the "Swiss Made" designation for watches.

All of this recent flurry of attention to the operative meaning of "Made in Switzerland" raises an interesting trademark-related point. Classic trade mark law puts generic designations outside the pale of legal protection. But that pale is not as hermetically sealed as one might think. A generic domain name, with an unassailable registration, may be worth a lot of money. In a roughly analogous fashion, the descriptive designation "Made in Switzerland" has been impregnated with value when applied to goods under certain terms and conditions. Sanctioning genericness under various legal guises is alive and well.

This Kat has to run out now--he just checked, it is already after midnight on his Made in Switzerland "Swatch" watch.

More on Swiss cheese here.
More on Swiss chocolate here.
More on Swiss army knives here.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in generic names, Swiss Made, watches | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Milan Court of First Instance rules in favour of Guess in the Gucci/Guess saga
    IPKat team members' keyring Can IP litigation stories be as appealing to the general public as Italian gossip characters'  weddings ...
  • Losing its fizz: the end of the Euro-Bud dispute?
    Could this be the final decision in the Battle of the Buds?  Today the General Court gave its ruling in regard to four cases which have been...
  • Wake up and smell the coffee: Arnold J gets real with consumables and indirect patent infringement
    What happens when coffee and Kats combine - something too cute to drink The AmeriKat loves many things. Fresh lemonade. Kittens' paw pa...
  • IP blogging: a couple of ethical issues
    Information received from anonymous sources The IPKat regularly receives correspondence from impeccable sources who wish to disseminate info...
  • Spain takes Parliament and Council to Court over Unitary Patent Package
    The battle between David and Goliath is entering the second round. Spain has brought two last minute actions before the Court of Justice (Ca...
  • Can it really be? Consumers sue for trade mark dilution
    "If it's clear, it must be water, vodka or gin", muses Miffy. "... Oh, my goodness -- it's actually beer!" Most ...
  • Friday fantasies
    Around the weblogs .  PatLit is hosting an appeal by Kingsley Egbuonu for UK intellectual property litigants to participate in his short onl...
  • Coming soon: CIPA and IPAG's Big Events
    Citius, Altius, Fortius ...  CIPA Congress: of turtles and early birds .  The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys' annual gathering ...
  • Challenges to EPO decisions: a rational basis for irrationality
    Sean Gilday When he posted "The IPKat and his Blogging Friends -- a 2013 Round-up", here , last week, this Kat concluded with a ca...
  • Which comes first - patent infringement or FRAND? "Patent infringement", says Birss J (Part I)
    The AmeriKat has figured out one strategy: keeping warm in the garden during the English summers (courtesy of Joe Delaney ) As a litigator, ...

Categories

  • .amazon (1)
  • §43(a) Lanham Act; App Store/Appstore (1)
  • #inta13 (3)
  • 2009 Belgian precedent (1)
  • 2012 statistics (1)
  • 35 usc 112(f) (1)
  • 3D trade marks (1)
  • abuse (1)
  • abuse of dominant position (1)
  • abuse of rights (1)
  • acquired distinctiveness (2)
  • actual damages (1)
  • ad campaigns (1)
  • added matter (1)
  • advertising (1)
  • advocate general's opinion (2)
  • AdvoKat (1)
  • aereo (1)
  • AGA Medical (1)
  • AGCOM (1)
  • agency (1)
  • AIPPI UK seminar (1)
  • AIPPI UK talk (1)
  • All Saints (1)
  • Allan Zelnick (1)
  • Allergan v Sandoz (1)
  • ALRC paper Copyright and the Digital Economy (1)
  • Alzheimer's Disease (1)
  • amazon (1)
  • Amazon Kindle Worlds (1)
  • Amazon.com (1)
  • America Invents Act (1)
  • AmeriKat (15)
  • analogue vs digital copies (1)
  • analogy (1)
  • anonymity of recipient of injunctive relief (1)
  • antibody (1)
  • anticounterfeiting (1)
  • antitrust law (1)
  • appeal (2)
  • appeal or rehearing (1)
  • apple (7)
  • Apple brand (1)
  • Apple stores (1)
  • Apple v Amazon (1)
  • apple v samsung (5)
  • applicable law on infringement (1)
  • application for stay (1)
  • appstore (1)
  • Arnold J (1)
  • array of objects (1)
  • art (2)
  • Article 10 ECHR (1)
  • Article 101 TFEU (2)
  • ARTICLE 19 (1)
  • Article 3(1) InfoSoc Directive (2)
  • Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29 (1)
  • Article 5(2) Directive 2001/29/EC (1)
  • Article 53(1)(c) CTMR (1)
  • Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation 207/2009 (1)
  • Article 8(4) CTMR (1)
  • Articles 2 and 5 InfoSoc Directive (1)
  • Ashby Donald and Others v France (1)
  • Assessment of importance of IP (1)
  • Association for Molecular Pathology (1)
  • at-risk launch (2)
  • attorney general (2)
  • Australian perspective (1)
  • author's original creation (1)
  • author's rights (1)
  • Authors Guild v Google (1)
  • authorship (1)
  • autocomplete (1)
  • Babycham (1)
  • backlists (1)
  • bad faith (3)
  • balancing fundamental rights in the EU (1)
  • ballon d'or (1)
  • Bambi (1)
  • Batmobile (1)
  • battle of the Buds (1)
  • battle of the tablets (3)
  • BBC radio programme (1)
  • Be Happy (1)
  • beer (1)
  • behavioural economics (1)
  • Belgium (1)
  • Best Practices in IP conference (4)
  • BGH (1)
  • bifurcation (2)
  • bilateral agreements (1)
  • Bill Patry (1)
  • BlackBerry (1)
  • blind people (1)
  • block exemption (1)
  • blogroll (3)
  • Board of Appeal (1)
  • Bobbi McFerrin (1)
  • Bohemian Rhapsody (1)
  • Book review (2)
  • book notice (1)
  • book notices (5)
  • Book reviews (1)
  • books (1)
  • borrowing from culture (1)
  • Boston (1)
  • Bowman v Monsanto (2)
  • Branding (2)
  • brands (1)
  • breach of confidence (4)
  • breach of injunction (1)
  • British Brands Group (1)
  • broadcasting (1)
  • broadcasting rights (1)
  • broken lines (1)
  • browsing (1)
  • brussels regulation (1)
  • Budweiser dispute (1)
  • Bundesgerichtshof (2)
  • Bunny dispute (1)
  • burden of proof (1)
  • but everyone else does it (2)
  • BuzzFeed (1)
  • cadbury (1)
  • call for help (1)
  • Canada (1)
  • Capitol Records (EMI) v ReDigi (2)
  • Card and board games (1)
  • Case C-128/11 UsedSoft (2)
  • Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle (2)
  • Case C-170/12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (1)
  • Case C-283/11 Sky Osterreich v Osterreichischer (1)
  • Case C-348/13 BestWater International (1)
  • Case C-466/12 Svensson (1)
  • Case C-521/11 Amazon.com (1)
  • Case T-396/11 (1)
  • Case T-442/08 CISAC v European Commission (1)
  • Case T-498/10 (1)
  • Case T-579/10 (1)
  • cDna (1)
  • celebrity rights (2)
  • Champagne (1)
  • change of company name (1)
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1)
  • chiang (1)
  • China (2)
  • chocolate (1)
  • chocolate bunnies (1)
  • CIPA Congress 2013 (1)
  • Civil procedure (1)
  • CJEU (1)
  • CJEU reference (14)
  • CJEU references (4)
  • CJEU ruling (9)
  • class certification (1)
  • class headings (3)
  • co-authorship (1)
  • co-ownership (1)
  • Code of Public Health (1)
  • Coexistence agreements (2)
  • coexisting trade marks (1)
  • Colin Kaepernick (1)
  • collecting societies (1)
  • color trademarks (1)
  • Combigan (1)
  • combination products (1)
  • comment (1)
  • commercial ecosystem (1)
  • commercial exploitation (1)
  • communication of information (1)
  • communication to the public (2)
  • Community design infringement (1)
  • Community patent (1)
  • Community plant varieties rights (1)
  • Community registered design (4)
  • Community trade mark (13)
  • Community trade mark application (1)
  • Community trade mark opposition (1)
  • competition (2)
  • competition law (3)
  • Competition result (1)
  • composite marks (1)
  • compulsory licences (1)
  • computer language (1)
  • Computer mouse (1)
  • computer software patents (1)
  • computers and printers (1)
  • conference (2)
  • construction (1)
  • consultation (2)
  • consultations (1)
  • consumables (1)
  • Consumer response to perceived change in branded goods (1)
  • contempt of court (1)
  • contractor (1)
  • contributory infringement (2)
  • conversion (1)
  • cool (1)
  • copyright (20)
  • copyright and freedom of expression (1)
  • copyright and puns (1)
  • copyright boundaries (1)
  • Copyright exceptions (3)
  • copyright hub (2)
  • copyright in tattoos (1)
  • Copyright infringement (9)
  • copyright law (1)
  • copyright levies (1)
  • copyright levy (1)
  • copyright licensing (1)
  • copyright reform (1)
  • copyright registration (1)
  • copyright term extension (1)
  • correlation of patent filing with public debt (1)
  • cost (1)
  • Costs (3)
  • costs budgeting (1)
  • costs order (1)
  • council (1)
  • Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)
  • counterfeit drug products (1)
  • Cour de Cassation (1)
  • course syllabus (1)
  • Court of Appeal (2)
  • court of appeals (1)
  • Court of Justice of the European Union (1)
  • covenant not to sue (1)
  • covenants not to sue (1)
  • CPVO (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • credibility of witnes (1)
  • criminal libel (1)
  • Croatian accession (1)
  • crowd-funded litigation (1)
  • crowdsourcing (1)
  • CTM (1)
  • CTM appeal (1)
  • cybersquatting (1)
  • damages (1)
  • damages enhancements (1)
  • damages for infringing an invalid right (1)
  • data and market exclusivity (2)
  • data supporting utility (1)
  • David Kappos (2)
  • David Latham (1)
  • David Stone (1)
  • Debate (1)
  • Decision No 6095/2013 Gucci v Guess (1)
  • declaration of non-infringement (1)
  • deer (1)
  • defamation (2)
  • definition of format (1)
  • Derek Seltzer v Green Day (1)
  • descriptive sign (1)
  • design and trade mark overlap (1)
  • Design around (1)
  • design patents (1)
  • Design protection (1)
  • designs (1)
  • devoid of distinctive character (1)
  • digital afterlife (1)
  • digital goods (1)
  • dilution (1)
  • Dilution Act (1)
  • Directive 2010/13 (1)
  • Directive 2011/77/EU (1)
  • disciplinary proceedings (1)
  • Disclosure (3)
  • dissatisfied inventors (1)
  • Distance learning in copyright (1)
  • distinctiveness (1)
  • divisional application (1)
  • Divisional patent applications (1)
  • divisionals (1)
  • DNA (1)
  • doctrine of equivalents (1)
  • domain name (1)
  • domain name registration (1)
  • domain names (1)
  • Don't Worry (1)
  • dormant therapies (2)
  • draft online copyright enforcement regulation (1)
  • dubbers' rights (1)
  • due cause (1)
  • due diligence joke (1)
  • dvr (1)
  • E-commerce directive (1)
  • eastern district of texas (1)
  • eBooks (1)
  • ECHR (1)
  • Economics (1)
  • eli lilly (1)
  • emails as information (1)
  • embedding (1)
  • employer-employee (1)
  • employment (1)
  • endowment effect (1)
  • England and Wales (6)
  • english court (1)
  • enhanced cooperation (3)
  • Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (1)
  • Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (4)
  • entitlement proceedings (1)
  • EPA (1)
  • epi (1)
  • epo (4)
  • EPO appeals (1)
  • epo consultations (1)
  • eqe (1)
  • equitable remuneration (1)
  • Ericsson (1)
  • Essex (1)
  • estoppel (2)
  • EU (1)
  • EU Commission (1)
  • EU copyright (1)
  • EU copyright policy (2)
  • EU customs (1)
  • EU law-making (1)
  • EU patent (3)
  • EU patent package (1)
  • EU patent proposals (1)
  • EU trade mark law (1)
  • EU trade mark reform (1)
  • European Copyright Society (1)
  • European Court of Human Rights (1)
  • European Court of Justice (1)
  • European legislative process (1)
  • european parliament (1)
  • European Patent Institute (1)
  • European patent law (1)
  • European Patent Office (1)
  • European Qualifying Examination (1)
  • european trade marks (1)
  • european union (2)
  • European unitary patent (6)
  • evidence (1)
  • evidence of consent (1)
  • evidence-based copyright reforms (1)
  • Evil Empire (1)
  • examination results (1)
  • exceptions/limitations to right of reproduction (1)
  • excluded subject matter (1)
  • Exclusions from patentability (2)
  • exhaustion (1)
  • exhaustion of rights (2)
  • expert (1)
  • extended collective licensing (3)
  • extended passing off (1)
  • Facebook (1)
  • fair compensation (3)
  • fair use (6)
  • fair use poll (1)
  • fairytale (1)
  • fait maison (1)
  • fashion design (1)
  • fast-track patents (2)
  • Faulkner (1)
  • FDA (1)
  • federal circuit (1)
  • Ferrero (1)
  • financial retribution (1)
  • First Amendment (1)
  • First sale (1)
  • first sale doctrine (4)
  • first-to-file (1)
  • first-to-invent (1)
  • fiscal practices (1)
  • fleas (1)
  • Flora (1)
  • Florian Mueller (1)
  • flowcharts (1)
  • floyd j (1)
  • Forbes (3)
  • Fordham 2013 (10)
  • Fordham 2013; EU copyright (1)
  • Fordham 2013; news aggregators (1)
  • Fordham Conference 2013 (1)
  • Formulaic songs (1)
  • Forthcoming events (1)
  • framing (1)
  • france (4)
  • France Brevets (1)
  • FRAND (5)
  • FRAND licences (3)
  • FRAND licensing (2)
  • free speech (1)
  • freedom of art (1)
  • Freedom of expression (1)
  • French agreement (1)
  • French chefs (1)
  • Friday fantasies (18)
  • Frommer's (1)
  • Fross Zelnick Lehrman and Zissu (1)
  • FTA (1)
  • functionality (3)
  • functionality of computer software (1)
  • G logo (1)
  • GAO (1)
  • General Court (1)
  • generic names (1)
  • generic top level domains (1)
  • generics (4)
  • genes (1)
  • genetically modified wheat (1)
  • Genuine use of trade mark (1)
  • geographical indication (1)
  • geographical indications (3)
  • geographical indications of origin (1)
  • George Alexander Louis Windsor (1)
  • Germany (9)
  • Gita Hall May v Lionsgate Entertainment (3)
  • glaxo genentech (1)
  • Gleevec (2)
  • Glivec (3)
  • golden balls (1)
  • goods in transit (1)
  • goodwill (1)
  • google (3)
  • Google Adwords (1)
  • Google autocomplete and related searches (1)
  • Google Books Library Project (1)
  • Google Inactive Account Manager (1)
  • Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1 (6 February 2013) (1)
  • Google News (3)
  • Google News agreement in Belgium (1)
  • Google Tax (1)
  • gorillas (2)
  • Got Milk? campaign (1)
  • graduated response (1)
  • Greek yoghurt (1)
  • Griggs v Evans (1)
  • grounds of appeal (1)
  • Grumpy cat (1)
  • gTLDs (3)
  • Gucci trademarks (1)
  • Hargreaves review (1)
  • Hargreaves Review of IP and Growths (1)
  • harmonisation (1)
  • harmonised trade mark law (1)
  • hash oil (1)
  • hearing (1)
  • high-fashion brands (1)
  • hold up (1)
  • Hollande (1)
  • Honest (1)
  • honest descriptive use (1)
  • honest use of own name (1)
  • Hong Kong (1)
  • Hooper Report (1)
  • Hrdy (1)
  • Hungary (1)
  • hybrid audience (1)
  • Hyperlinks as copyright infringement (1)
  • IBM (1)
  • ICANN (2)
  • ILO (1)
  • image marks (1)
  • Image rights (1)
  • Imatinib (1)
  • immunity (1)
  • implied contract (1)
  • implied endorsement (1)
  • indefiniteness (1)
  • india (2)
  • Indian Supreme Court (2)
  • indirect patent infringement (2)
  • indiscriminate collection of levy (1)
  • individual character (2)
  • industrial espionage (1)
  • Infopaq string of cases (1)
  • information from anonymous sources (1)
  • infringement (5)
  • infringement. construction of claims (1)
  • Innocent (1)
  • innovation and copyright (1)
  • insufficiency (5)
  • INTA (1)
  • INTA 2013 (3)
  • INTA Meeting 2013 (1)
  • INTA Scholarships (1)
  • Intelellectual Ventures (1)
  • Intellectual Property and gender (1)
  • Intellectual Property Bill (1)
  • intention to create legal relations (1)
  • intention to target (1)
  • interflora (1)
  • interim injunctive relief (1)
  • interim relief (1)
  • internal market (1)
  • international law (1)
  • internet browsing (1)
  • internet streaming (2)
  • INTERPOL (1)
  • interpretation (1)
  • invalidation (1)
  • invalidity (4)
  • invention (1)
  • inventive step (3)
  • IP (1)
  • IP + retail (1)
  • IP and apps (1)
  • IP and Digital Entertainment conference (3)
  • IP and Digital Entertainment conference: Part IV (1)
  • IP and innovation (1)
  • IP and Retail conference report (2)
  • IP and Retail Conference: session 3 (1)
  • IP and Retail Conference: session 4 (1)
  • IP and retailers (1)
  • IP blogging and ethics (1)
  • IP driven growth (1)
  • IP fiction (1)
  • IP in family history (1)
  • IP lawyer (1)
  • IP license (1)
  • IP Licensing (1)
  • IP litigation (1)
  • IP Minister (3)
  • IP ownership (1)
  • IP rights (1)
  • IP Translator (8)
  • IPAG Conference 2013 (1)
  • IPKat 10th birthday event (2)
  • IPKat/1709 blog joint poll (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPO consultation (2)
  • IPO consultation procedure (2)
  • IPO logo (1)
  • IPO parody reports (1)
  • IPO patent opinions (1)
  • IPReg (1)
  • Ireland (3)
  • irony (1)
  • isolated dna (1)
  • ISP liability (4)
  • issue estoppel (1)
  • Italy (3)
  • ITC (3)
  • jackson reforms (1)
  • Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy (1)
  • Japan (1)
  • Jeremy Phillips (1)
  • Joachim Low (1)
  • Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 QC Leisure (1)
  • Joined Cases C-457-460/11 VG Worth (1)
  • joint authorship (1)
  • judge koh (1)
  • Judicial appointment (1)
  • jury awards (2)
  • justification of patents (1)
  • Kaepernicking (1)
  • Kat opinion (1)
  • Kate Moss (1)
  • Katnews (3)
  • Katonomics (1)
  • Katpoll (1)
  • Keywords (1)
  • Kirtsaeng v Wiley (2)
  • Kit Kat (1)
  • knowledge of earlier mark (1)
  • knowledge workers (1)
  • Knut (1)
  • later evidence (1)
  • law firm branding (1)
  • law reform (1)
  • Law Society of Ireland (1)
  • lease (1)
  • Legal Board (1)
  • legal reasoning (1)
  • Lescure (1)
  • Let's Plays (1)
  • Lex Google (1)
  • lex specialis (1)
  • licences and exhaustion (1)
  • Licences for Europe (3)
  • license without fixed term (1)
  • licensing agreements (1)
  • likelihood of confusion (1)
  • likelihood of congfusion (1)
  • likeness (2)
  • limited liability (1)
  • literary figures (1)
  • litigation (2)
  • live sports (1)
  • Loi Hadopi (1)
  • Lookalikes (3)
  • lord justice kitchin (1)
  • louboutin (1)
  • Lundbeck (2)
  • macros (1)
  • Mad Men lawsuit (2)
  • MadMen (1)
  • making (1)
  • makro (1)
  • Malarone (1)
  • Managing Intellectual Property (1)
  • Mark Cuban (1)
  • marks spencer (1)
  • Marrakesh (1)
  • massively multiplayer online games (1)
  • Max Planck Institute (1)
  • Mayer (1)
  • means for (1)
  • Meher Baba (1)
  • merial (1)
  • Merpel (1)
  • metatags (2)
  • microsoft (1)
  • Minnesota (1)
  • misappropriation (2)
  • Miscellany (1)
  • misleading and deceptive conduct (1)
  • mobile technology (2)
  • MODDERN Cures Act (2)
  • Monday miscellany (24)
  • Monday miscellany II (1)
  • monsanto (1)
  • moral rights (1)
  • motorola (1)
  • MPHJ (1)
  • mr justice birss (4)
  • multi-forum dispute (1)
  • multi-territorial licences (1)
  • music copyright (1)
  • mylan (1)
  • myriad (2)
  • Myriad Genetics (3)
  • Myth/Fact IPO note (1)
  • names as trade marks (1)
  • nascar (1)
  • national IP systems (1)
  • Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v Sweden (1)
  • nestle (1)
  • Netflix (1)
  • New York Yankees (1)
  • New Zealand (1)
  • news aggregators (1)
  • newspapers's headlines and snippets (2)
  • Newsweek magazine (1)
  • NFL Players Association (1)
  • nice classifications (1)
  • Nike (1)
  • Nike Pro Tattoo Tech (1)
  • NLA v Meltwater [2013] UKSC 18 (1)
  • non practicing (1)
  • notion of fair compensation (2)
  • Novartis (3)
  • novelty (4)
  • novelty-only prior art (1)
  • NPE (1)
  • NPE's (2)
  • npes (1)
  • nugtella (1)
  • nutella (1)
  • obviousness (4)
  • Occlutech (1)
  • offensive trade marks (1)
  • OHIM (1)
  • OHIM Board of Appeal (1)
  • Olympic trade marks (1)
  • omnipharm (1)
  • One Direction's Best Song Ever (1)
  • online advertising (2)
  • online content (1)
  • online copyright (2)
  • online copyright infringement (1)
  • online defamation (1)
  • online details of registrable transactions (1)
  • online drug sales (1)
  • opposition (4)
  • opposition grounds (1)
  • OQT (1)
  • originality (1)
  • Orphan works (4)
  • own name defence (1)
  • owners vs lesses (1)
  • ownership of IP rights (1)
  • packaging (1)
  • PAE (1)
  • Parody (2)
  • part-time employment (1)
  • Passing off (7)
  • patent (7)
  • patent assertion (1)
  • patent assertion entities (2)
  • patent claims (1)
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (1)
  • patent discosure (1)
  • patent examiners (2)
  • patent exhaustion (1)
  • Patent fund (1)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • patent injunctions (2)
  • Patent litigation costs (1)
  • patent monetization entities (3)
  • patent prior art (1)
  • patent rankings (1)
  • patent reform (1)
  • patent standards (1)
  • Patent statistics (1)
  • patent trolling (1)
  • patent trolls (5)
  • patentability (9)
  • patentability of computer programs (1)
  • patentable subject matter (2)
  • patented soybean seeds (1)
  • patently absurd (1)
  • patents (11)
  • Patents Act 1970 (1)
  • Patents County Court (3)
  • patents court (1)
  • payment (1)
  • PCT (1)
  • PDO (1)
  • peer assessment (1)
  • performance (1)
  • performance rights (1)
  • perpetual license (1)
  • personality right (1)
  • Personality rights (1)
  • PGI (1)
  • pharmaceutical industry (4)
  • photographs (1)
  • pirate bay (1)
  • plain packaging (2)
  • PME (1)
  • poisonous divisional; divisional application; priority application; Article 54(3) EPC (1)
  • poisonous divisional; divisional application; priority application; Article 54(3) EPC; Section 2(3) Patents Act (1)
  • poisonous priority (1)
  • polar bear cub trade marks (1)
  • Poll results (1)
  • Prägetheorie (1)
  • precedent H (1)
  • preliminary injunction (3)
  • prepatory committee (1)
  • press freedom (1)
  • principle of exhaustion (1)
  • print edition (1)
  • prior art (2)
  • priority (2)
  • priority based on US provisionals (1)
  • PRISM logo (1)
  • Privacy (1)
  • private copying (3)
  • privity (2)
  • privity of estate (1)
  • privity of interest (1)
  • Product placement (1)
  • professional conduct (1)
  • Professor Mark Lemley (1)
  • proof of use (1)
  • Proposal for a Directive on collective rights management (1)
  • proprietary interests in infringing goods (1)
  • Prosecco vs Prošek (1)
  • prosecution history estoppel (1)
  • protectable subject-matter (1)
  • Protection of Geographical Indications (1)
  • protocol on privileges and immunities (1)
  • pseudonym (1)
  • public performance (1)
  • publication (1)
  • Pun competition (2)
  • puns as copyright subject matter (1)
  • pursuit of alleged peer-to-peer file-sharers (1)
  • PwC (1)
  • quality patents (1)
  • Queen's Bench Division (1)
  • radio interviews (1)
  • rapper (2)
  • ratification (1)
  • readers poll (1)
  • rebroadcasting (1)
  • Recent publications (1)
  • redaction (1)
  • ReDigi (1)
  • regional agreements (1)
  • registered community design (2)
  • Registered Community designs (1)
  • registrability (2)
  • regulation (1)
  • Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)
  • regulation 44/2001 (1)
  • regulation 6/2002 (1)
  • Regulation 772/2004 (1)
  • relevant consumer (1)
  • renewal agencies (1)
  • rent-seeking (1)
  • replacement parts as patent infringements (1)
  • representation (1)
  • reprographic levies (1)
  • requirement of knowledge (1)
  • res judicata (4)
  • resale pf digital copies (1)
  • Resolution Chemicals (2)
  • reverse domain name hijacking (1)
  • reverse payment settlements (1)
  • reverse product placement (1)
  • revocation (4)
  • Ricard (1)
  • right in one's own image (1)
  • right of attribution (1)
  • right of privacy (1)
  • right of publicity (1)
  • right to oblivion (1)
  • Robert Thicke's Blurred Lines (1)
  • rocket docket (1)
  • roundtables (1)
  • royalties (1)
  • Royalty rates (1)
  • rule 36 epc (1)
  • rules of procedure (3)
  • rules of thumb (1)
  • ruling (1)
  • same-sex marriages (1)
  • samsung (4)
  • scams (1)
  • Schlitz (1)
  • Schütz v Werit (1)
  • scope of infringement (1)
  • scope of protection (1)
  • Scotland (2)
  • Scream Icon (1)
  • search (1)
  • second circuit (1)
  • second-hand books (2)
  • second-hand digital files (2)
  • Section 1(2) (1)
  • section 112(f) (1)
  • Section 3(d) (1)
  • Section 5 Markengesetz (1)
  • section 60(2) (1)
  • self-replicating technology (1)
  • settlement (1)
  • Shield Act (1)
  • shutz v werit (1)
  • similarity of goods (1)
  • similarity of marks (1)
  • Sir Robin Jacob (1)
  • smart machines (1)
  • SMEs (1)
  • software and other subject-matter (1)
  • software directive (1)
  • software manuals (1)
  • software patents (1)
  • software transactions (1)
  • solanezumab (1)
  • solum (1)
  • song formats (1)
  • songs (1)
  • Spain (1)
  • SPCs (2)
  • Special 301 (1)
  • speedy patent grants (1)
  • Spicy IP (1)
  • Spider Man (1)
  • sports licensing (1)
  • spring breakers (1)
  • standard essential patents (7)
  • standard setting (2)
  • standard setting organisations (1)
  • state involvement (1)
  • state law (1)
  • state patents (1)
  • statement of objection (1)
  • statements of working (1)
  • statistics (1)
  • Statutory damages (1)
  • stay (1)
  • stay of proceedings (1)
  • stem cells (1)
  • Stieg Larsson (1)
  • Stop43 (1)
  • Student sponsorship (1)
  • sufficient skill labour and effort (1)
  • Sun Valley (1)
  • super injunctions (1)
  • superheros (1)
  • Superman (1)
  • Supplementary Protection Certificate (2)
  • Supreme Court (1)
  • Survey evidence (4)
  • swartz (1)
  • Sweden (1)
  • Swiss Made (1)
  • tablet computers (2)
  • tatau (1)
  • tattoos (2)
  • TechCrunch (1)
  • technical function (2)
  • technology transfer (1)
  • television (1)
  • terms of employment (2)
  • territoriality of copyright (1)
  • text and data mining (1)
  • thank you (1)
  • The 12 most disruptive names in business (1)
  • The Hound of the Baskervilles (1)
  • The Right to Share (1)
  • The Scottish Premier League Ltd v Lisini Pub Management Company Ltd (1)
  • The Strange World of IP Consents (1)
  • theft of patents (1)
  • theft of trade secrets (1)
  • three dimensional shape (1)
  • three-dimensional mark (2)
  • three-dimensional trade mark (1)
  • Thursday thingies (6)
  • tick the box (1)
  • tmdn (1)
  • toilets (1)
  • trade dress (1)
  • trade mark (2)
  • trade mark amendment (1)
  • Trade Mark and Design Network (1)
  • Trade mark application (1)
  • trade mark bullying (1)
  • trade mark classification (3)
  • trade mark conference (1)
  • trade mark confusion (1)
  • trade mark infringement (13)
  • trade mark opposition (4)
  • Trade mark registrability (1)
  • trade mark search report (1)
  • trade marks (15)
  • trade secrets (1)
  • trademark (2)
  • trademark infringement (1)
  • transformative use (3)
  • transmission (1)
  • Treaty (1)
  • Tribunale di Milano (2)
  • TRIPs (2)
  • triviia (1)
  • trolling (1)
  • Trolls (2)
  • TSG (1)
  • Tufty's Law (1)
  • Tushnet (1)
  • UK (1)
  • UK copyright reform (1)
  • UK IPO Private Copying report (1)
  • UK legislative reform (2)
  • uk patent infringement (4)
  • UK Unregistered Design Right (1)
  • UKIPO (2)
  • Ukraine (1)
  • unauthorised use of likeness (1)
  • unfair advertising (1)
  • Unified Patent Court (13)
  • Unified Patent Litigation System (6)
  • unitary patent (7)
  • unitary patent proposals (1)
  • Unitary patents (1)
  • United Kingdom (4)
  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1)
  • United States (15)
  • United States IP system (1)
  • United States patent litigation (1)
  • university property (1)
  • unmonopolisable therapies (2)
  • upc (4)
  • Urban Outfitters (1)
  • US (2)
  • us copyirght (1)
  • US copyright (1)
  • US copyright act (1)
  • US Copyright Office (1)
  • US fair use defence (1)
  • US false advertising (1)
  • US IP legislation (1)
  • US law (1)
  • US patent damages (1)
  • US patent infringement (1)
  • us patent litigation (1)
  • us patents (1)
  • US provisional patent claims (1)
  • US publicity rights (1)
  • US Supreme Court (5)
  • US trade mark infringement (3)
  • us trade marks (1)
  • US Trade Representative (1)
  • USA (2)
  • use of own name (1)
  • useful purpose (1)
  • user-generated content (2)
  • users rights (1)
  • users' rights (1)
  • USPTO (7)
  • utility (1)
  • utility patents (1)
  • validity (4)
  • VEGF (1)
  • vermont (2)
  • Victoria Beckham (1)
  • Video Games (2)
  • voss (1)
  • watches (1)
  • Wayback machine (1)
  • Wednesday whimsies (12)
  • wikipedia (1)
  • willfulness (1)
  • WIPO (2)
  • wisdom of the crowd (1)
  • WTO dispute resolution (1)
  • ysl (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (490)
    • ►  August (49)
    • ►  July (72)
    • ►  June (56)
    • ►  May (63)
    • ►  April (73)
    • ▼  March (62)
      • The interpretation-construction of patent claims: ...
      • Friday fantasies
      • Is It Time To Rethink IP Ownership?
      • You say "Aveda", I say "Uveda" ...
      • Get-up and go! Protecting interior features of st...
      • A Kat's perspective on Kirtsaeng: why is digital d...
      • Bunny dispute: Lindt vs Riegelein - BGH decides ag...
      • Spain takes Parliament and Council to Court over U...
      • HM Government provides £150,000 to fund the Copyri...
      • Famous feline Grumpy Cat seeks US trademarks
      • Another decision on broadcasting rights and footba...
      • Apple v Samsung, or FRAND, Japanese-style
      • Monday miscellany II
      • Monday miscellany I
      • A first look at WIPO's statistics on PCT applicati...
      • Fordham and quality patents: what do you think?
      • Perpetual Motion, Perpetual IP Licence, Perpetual ...
      • Spare parts, repairs and patented products: AIPPI ...
      • Wednesday whimsies
      • Everything you ever wanted to know about Community...
      • IP Pun competition: the winner
      • Licensing of a digital copy: does first sale doctr...
      • BREAKING NEWS! US Supreme Court decides Kirtsaeng
      • Novartis fails the priority test - more patents fall
      • Unitary patents in Europe: which law of infringeme...
      • All roads lead to Rome, as any evidence leads to p...
      • Monday miscellany
      • Iconic 1950s model sues MadMen over unauthorised u...
      • Patent filing and public debt: here's introducing ...
      • The arithmetic of unitary patents: does more mean ...
      • IPO's parody report: towards a new exception in UK...
      • Friday fantasies
      • gTLDs and anticompetitive behaviour: is there a mo...
      • Can a Course Syllabus Really Be University Property?
      • Testing times for the EQE exam committees
      • MF7 heads for Luxembourg ruling -- but can anyone ...
      • Wednesday whimsies
      • European Court of Human Rights decides the Pirate ...
      • Polar bear KNUT - the saga continues!
      • When Werit finds Merit: UK Supreme Court okays spa...
      • Yet More on the Unitary Patent - is there too much...
      • Bifurcation of European patent litigation: a pract...
      • URGENT: call for lookalikes -- can you help?
      • Monday miscellany
      • Hold-up and standard essential patents: leading ec...
      • Framed? Industrial “espionage” in Hungary may not ...
      • A dispute of Biblical dimensions: General Court in...
      • Do You Know How Much Swatch Is In Your Watch?
      • Copyright and car crashes: do sports have an author?
      • Playing Catchup - CJEU clarifies that streaming is...
      • AG Mengozzi on the notion of equitable remuneration
      • EPO divisionals: time to have your say
      • It's springtime, and it's time to fleece IP owners...
      • For once you can bank on being able to trade under...
      • Monday miscellany
      • "Send a Slovak!": INTA student sponsorship opportu...
      • Hong Kong heads for patent reform
      • Batmobile, batsman and barberships: a super trilogy
      • Seeds, strains and a touch of exhaustion: a reader...
      • Sir Robin Jacob acts as expert witness for Samsung...
      • Where has the "author" gone in Copyright? a Coda
      • The IPKat's 10th birthday: join our celebration!
    • ►  February (54)
    • ►  January (61)
  • ►  2012 (9)
    • ►  December (9)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile