FRIDAY MISCELLANY

From the European Court of Justice next Thursday

The IPKat has spotted two Community trade mark (CTM) decisions that the Court of First Instance will be handing down next week. They are:

Case T-278/04 Jabones Pardo v OHIM - Quimi Romar (YUKI). This is an appeal by the owner of a national word mark YUPI for goods in class 3 against two decisions of the Board of Appeal to allow only in part its opposition to registration of the word YUKI as a CTM for goods in classes 3, 5 and 28.

Case T-32/04 Lichtwer Pharma v OHIM - Laboratoire Lafon (Lyco-A). This is an appeal by the applicant, who is seeking registration of the word mark Lyco-A ifor goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30. The Fourth Board of Appeal made the applicant pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal in the opposition proceedings brought by the owner of the earlier national word mark LYOC for goods in Class 5.

Diary of forthcoming decisions from the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance here


Alas, poor Orrick

Law.com reports that San Francisco law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe has been able to retain its precious green O logo, following its merger with New York-based practice Dewey Ballantine - even though the latter has secured pole position for its contribution to the fused name Dewey Orrick.

The IPKat is impressed with Orrick's negotiating skills but wonders just how relevant that O is going to remain, a couple of years down the line, when everyone just calls the firm "Deweys" anyway. Merpel says, first-named partners are always remembered while others fade away. How many lawyers qualifying today will know who famously partnered Messrs Linklater or Bristow, or which names vanished when Clifford took his Chance?


Don't ask!

This comes via subscription service Lawtel: last week, in Yissum Research & Development Co v The Comptroller [2006] EWHC 2721 (Pat) Richard Arnold QC, sitting as a Patents Court judge, was asked to consider whether the reference of three questions relating to Supplementary Protection Certificates to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling was still necessary following the ECJ's ruling in Case C-431/04 Massachusetts Institute of Technology last May. Said Richard Arnold QC, the second and third questions could be safely withdrawn but the reference should go ahead on the first question, for which the answer was not clear from the earlier ruling. The reference was as follows:

"The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities is requested on the following questions which arise on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products1 (hereafter "the Regulation"):

1. In a case in which the basic patent protects a second medical application of a therapeutic agent what is meant by "product" in Article 1 (b) of the Regulation and in particular does the application of the therapeutic agent play any part in the definition of "product" for the purpose of the Regulation?

2. Does the term "combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product" within the meaning of Article l(b) of the Regulation mean that each component of the combination must have therapeutic activity?

3. Is there a "combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product" where a combination of substances comprising two components of which one component is a substance with a therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other component renders possible a form of the medicinal product that brings about efficacy of the medicinal product for that indication?"

The IPKat looks forward to finding out what "product" really means, though he always finds it a little depressing when we have to ask a court to tell us the meaning of an ordinary word in everyday use. Merpel says, but we all have to define our terms - for example, what do you mean by "use"?


Macrossan to appeal

According to an item on the LexisNexis Butterworth subscription service today, inventor Neal Macrossan (right) is seeking to appeal to the House of Lords against the Court of Appeal's highly publicised refusal of his earlier appeal, noted here on the IPKat weblog.


StopSpamAlliance

The attention of the IPKat has been drawn to the existence of the StopSpamAlliance. This newly-formed group, according to the website, is

"a joint initiative to gather information and resources on combating spam. This initiative was undertaken by APEC, the EU's CNSA, ITU, the London Action Plan, OECD and the Seoul-Melbourne Anti-Spam group. [IPKat note - I feel sooo ignorant when people keep using acronyms I don't know].

In line with the WSIS Tunis Agenda - asking members to "deal effectively with the significant and growing problem posed by spam" and calling upon all stakeholders to adopt a multi-pronged approach to counter spam - the StopSpamAlliance pages link to initiatives in the field of anti-spam legislation and enforcement activities, consumer and business education, best practices, and international cooperation.

A "common agenda of events", featuring the international events on spam and relating threats organized by the involved organizations is also available".

Right: the IPKat responds to yet another email from a rich, terminally ill person who wants to perpetrate a fraud on the Central Bank of Nigeria if only the Kat will send him some money first.

The IPKat cherishes the notion that spam might be effectively dealt with. Merpel adds, does this mean I won't keep getting emails from Salim Spencer, Hamza Ahmed, Amos Zongo and all those other nice people whose names keep getting through my anti-spam filter?