SOMETHING FOR THE WEEKEND

Don't forget the limerick competition

Enter the IPKat's limerick competition and you can win free admission to the forthcoming conference in London on IP and the Fashion Industry, 27 September 2006. Details of the competition and the conference can be found here.


Would you like the IPKat served up on a plate?

Why bother chasing around for the IPKat's latest posts when you can get them automatically by email? If you'd like to be added to the IPKat's mailing list, just email him here and he'll do it for you.


Has Sisvel perfected the role of Euro-troll?

Simon Haslam (Abel & Imray) sent the IPKat this item relating to Sisvel's seizure in Germany of allegedly patent-infringing MP3 players made by SanDisk. Is Sisvel's action that of a troll, or that of a sincerely committed shepherd, looking after his flock of licensees as they compete for customers in the big wide world?

"We have 600 licensees and we have to protect their rights, and the rights of the patent holders",

said a Sisvel spokesman, adding that SanDisk could gain an unfair edge over competitors.

Comment by legal scholar, practitioner and blogger IP Geek here
More on Sisvel here


The case that put the Kat to sleep

Early this morning the IPKat tried, but failed, to post a blog on Case T‑6/05 DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH v OHIM, Defense Technology Corporation of America, decided by the Court of First Instance on Wednesday 6 September. The honest truth is that the case put him quite to sleep. but now, for your delectation, here's the full story.

DEF-TEC applied to register as a Community trade mark a figurative mark (click here and scroll down) that included the words ‘first defense aerosol pepper projector’. DTC, by buying the assets of a Wyoming company,thereby acquired the ‘first defense’ mark. DTC opposed DEF-TEC's application, arguing under Art.8(3) of Regulation 40/94 that DEF-TEC was its agent and had applied, without DTC's consent, to register a sign almost identical to its own US marks.

The Opposition Division upheld the ground of opposition under Art.8(3), its decision being upheld by the Second Board of Appeal. DEC-TEC then appealed to the CFI and argued that the contested decision was wrong because the President of the Wyoming company had made a declaration giving clear and specific consent for DEF-TEC to arrange to register that mark. This being so, even if DTC bought the Wyoming company, it could not have acquired any trade mark rights that had been waived before the company sale was concluded. The CFI allowed DEF-TEC's appeal and annulled the Board of Appeal's decision. Regardless of whether the Wyoming company told DTC of the declaration, the consent remained effective.