Rihanna tops

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

Wednesday, 8 May 2013

Golden Balls and trade mark bullies: a timely update

Posted on 05:58 by Unknown
Is there such a thing as a "trade mark bully"? The issue of trade mark bullying featured on the International Trademark Association Meeting's programme this year as a Monday afternoon session in which, regrettably, the only participants were drawn from the United States -- a jurisdiction in which, it appears, bullying is perceived as a remote theoretical possibility and as an issue of professional ethics rather than commercial survival for small brand-owners. According to the programme:
"The concept of “trademark bullying” has been a hot topic recently and complaints of overly aggressive intellectual property enforcement are not new. But recently, legislation has been proposed to curb trademark bullying and the USPTO [that's the United States Patent and Trademark Office] (with INTA’s participation) has issued a report on the perceptions within the trademark community about the issue.

This panel of in-house and outside counsel will delve into the ethics of the issue and will examine the interplay between trademark bullying and professional responsibility rules. Speakers will look at the applicable bodies of ethics law and attempt to answer the question of when zealous representation crosses the line into unethical conduct".
If this hot topic was erupting when the programme was printed, its volcanic lava had turned to pumice stone by the time we got to Dallas.  Trade mark attorney Ron Coleman tweeted on an apparent mismatch of expectation and interest: this session was allocated one of the largest conference rooms available, but it was 75% empty. He added: "Balanced presentation at #TMbullying session despite inability to find an actual example of bullying ...".  Then, tweeting in his blog persona of @likely2confuse, Ron added: "Panel on #TMbullying over early. No one had a question for the panel".

This Kat dearly wishes that he had been there since, together with some of his readers, he has been working to help some of the victims of trade mark bullying on his side of the Atlantic, one instance of which fortuitously hit the headlines this very week.

Inez and Gus, outside their old shop,
display their merchandise
Over the years, readers of this weblog will have become familiar with the David-and-Goliath battle between katfriends and truly excellent people Gus and Inez Bodur, on the one side, and the mighty owners of the Ballon d'Or trade mark on the other (a selection of earlier posts involving Gus and Inez can be found here). While things may seem to have gone a bit quiet lately, there has been much activity behind the scenes.  As the Ham&High [real name: Hampstead and Highgate Express] reports:
"A couple locked in a five-year legal battle with the organisers of one of the world’s most prestigious football awards have taken their fight to use the trademark Golden Balls to Europe’s highest court.

Inez and Gus Bodur, who run sportswear brand Golden Balls, have spent the last five years defending the company’s trademark after the FIFA Ballon d’Or – a globally-recognised football award given to the planet’s best footballers – claimed Golden Balls infringed their copyright [explanatory note: it is a well-established tradition, almost bordering on a legal duty, for British journalists to confuse trade marks and copyright at least once in every published news item].

On Tuesday, the couple, both aged 49, flew to Luxembourg for a hearing at the Court of Justice of the European Union [The hearing was before the General Court. There remains the option of an appeal to the Court of Justice itself].

From Inez: a peck for Beck
Mr Bodur, who was forced to close the Golden Balls store in West End Lane, West Hampstead, in 2010 because of the costs of fighting the case, said: “The bottom line is that Ballon d’Or translates as ball of gold or balloon of gold – that is a direct translation. Golden Balls is plural and there is no similarity. There is absolutely no confusion to be made.”
The Bodurs, who live off Hendon Way, in Cricklewood, with their two children, obtained the trademark Golden Balls in 2001 and have sold sportswear using the brand ever since. Golden Balls clothing quickly took off and in 2002 film star Gwyneth Paltrow was spotted in Covent Garden wearing one of the brand’s T-shirts. After Victoria Beckham’s revelation that her nickname for husband David was “Golden Balls”, the Bodurs were quick to get in contact with the Beckhams. Said Mrs Bodur:
“Gus’s initials are GB and I also used to call him Golden Balls. It was just a joke between us and that was where the company name came from. We wrote to the Beckhams ages ago when it was revealed that it was David’s nickname and we have never had any legal issues with them.”
But in 2007 the couple were contacted by representatives of Ballon d’Or, an annual award given to one player considered the best in the world in the previous season, accusing them of infringing the award’s copyright and demanding they abandon Golden Balls altogether....
Fighting the case has cost the Bodurs around £100,000 [This is not a typo, says the IPKat, who would dearly like to know where all that money went ...], which they have funded from a 2007 deal to license their brand to entertainment company Endemol for the Golden Balls game show hosted by Jasper Carrott.
They won their original case against Ballon d’Or in OHIM, the European Union (EU) trademark disputes court [er, that's not quite what OHIM is, but never mind], in 2010.

But after a subsequent appeal OHIM handed Ballon d’Or trademark rights for a number of sectors in Europe, including television rights. ...

The couple expect a decision to be made by the court in July."
The last word naturally goes to Inez:
“We weren’t going to walk away and be bullied just because they have more money than us. If we do win this I would like to see the laws changed so that if small businesses are being bullied by large corporations they can get help with legal aid.”
Merpel isn't convinced that the provision of legal aid is the answer, since he worries that bullies might feel even more inclined to do their bullying if they feel that their victims -- whom they will still bully -- will have at least a cushion of comfort in the form of some public funding for their litigation costs. He is more inclined to the opinion that really vigorous pre-trial case management, seeking to steer the bully and his victim towards a negotiated settlement based on realistic commercial considerations, may be at least part of the solution.

This Kat just hopes that, next time trade mark bullying is on the programme, there will be at least one speaker who can relate at first-hand what it feels like to be bullied.  If INTA cares to get in touch, he can provide the organisation with the names and contact details of several intelligent, articulate souls who own their own trade marks and have been at the receiving end of some robust bullying. They too are part of the trade mark community though, like tens of thousands of their peers, they can afford neither the cash nor the time to join and participate in organisations such as the INTA.

Historical footnote: this is not the only occasion on which the Bodurs have faced some robust bullying.  Click here to find out who tried to bully them out of their figurative trade mark bearing the legend "Gussy the Ice Cream Van", depicted on the right.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in ballon d'or, golden balls, trade mark bullying | 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)
      • Does public interest defeat abuse of rights? Yes, ...
      • IP licensing--it's the analogy, stupid, or is it?
      • Still on "Licences for Europe": an insider's repor...
      • Thursday thingies
      • It all comes out in the wash: New Zealand grapples...
      • Best Practices in IP 2013: conference reports 4, 5...
      • Best Practices in IP 2013: a conference report 3
      • Best Practices in IP 2013: a conference report 2
      • An Australian artist's perspective on UK extended ...
      • Best Practices in IP 2013: a conference report 1
      • Wednesday whimsies (a little earlier than usual!)
      • "Say it with flowers": Interflora wins Dust-up ove...
      • Monday miscellany
      • Net gain for Dane: breach of confidence can't be i...
      • Is "Licences for Europe" already falling apart? Th...
      • Friday fantasies
      • Dreaming (Literally) about Patent Litigation and t...
      • The monetarisation of Let's Plays: an exercise in ...
      • "But everyone else does it": the Corporate edition
      • Can unfit copyright laws favour businesses' growth...
      • The Green Mountain state sues a Texas patent troll
      • Wednesday whimsies
      • Speedypats can be okay -- if handled with care
      • Huawei: the Duesseldorf court presumes to ask
      • Copyright and performance: reflections on a comple...
      • Focusing one's sights on invalid dependent claims
      • Quibbling over minutiae? Or has something been ov...
      • Monday miscellany
      • Hatching Europe's Unified Patent Court: who will p...
      • And 12 Points go to ... Ukraine
      • Friday fantasies
      • Framing of videos: Court of Justice to rule
      • The IP Lawyer's Nightmare: "But Everyone Else Does...
      • Carry-on over Cariou: when works are transformativ...
      • From Alice to Apple: patentable subject matter cro...
      • The IPKat gets Spicy - more detail on the Indian S...
      • Bowman v Monsanto: the US Supreme Court rules on p...
      • Wake up and smell the coffee: Arnold J gets real ...
      • Autocomplete: can Google turn bad news into good p...
      • The wrong tool for the wrong job: time to keep the...
      • Fighting Counterfeiting with Accessibility
      • Monday miscellany
      • Time to spare? Want to understand copyright a bit ...
      • F/RAND and SEPs: the EU Commission objects to Moto...
      • "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and Criminal Libel
      • The IPKat in despair - What is to be done when sen...
      • The IPKat visits INTA 3: some final thoughts and o...
      • A question for the UK government: will simpler IP ...
      • Milan Court of First Instance rules in favour of G...
      • Case T‑579/10, a list of dos and don'ts for trade ...
      • Golden Balls and trade mark bullies: a timely update
      • Wednesday whimsies
      • Seeing Red -- or back to the Futura: if life's a B...
      • Poisonous priority – how many ways can a patent be...
      • Patent seminars focus on differences in claim cons...
      • Allergan v Sandoz: when obvious is not obvious eno...
      • The IPKat visits INTA 2: do trade mark attorneys r...
      • The IPKat visits INTA 1: the Scholarship Sessions
      • State patents vs US patents: could addition by sub...
      • Breaking news: UK IP TRANSLATOR appeal ruling publ...
      • The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act: copyrigh...
      • There was always something there to remind me -- b...
      • Waiting for a lower court to rein in resale? You’d...
    • ►  April (73)
    • ►  March (62)
    • ►  February (54)
    • ►  January (61)
  • ►  2012 (9)
    • ►  December (9)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile