Pharma patent report event; Ronaldo and Elvis trade marks

Pharma patents - the Commission's interim report @ UCL

It’s not too late to sign up for UCL Institute of Brand an Innovation Law’s seminar (developed in co-operation with Lord Justice Jacob) next Wednesday, ‘Patent practices in the pharmaceutical sector – the aftermath of the European Commission’s interim report’.

Speakers are

• Paul Denerley - AstraZeneca
• Ann Nielson - Bristol-Myers Squibb
• David Rosenberg - GSK
• Howard Rosenberg - Frommer, Lawrence and Haug LLP
• John Kallaugher - UCL & Lathan & Watkins

Mr Justice Barling, President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal is in the Chair.
The event is free, and kicks off at 5pm for a 5.15 start – you can sign up here.

Psychics stare into their footballs

It seems that Trade Mark Registry watchers have found a new use for their sport. Not content with predicting the latest extension of the Apple brand by watching out for marks in the form ‘iProduct’, they now are using their amazing mystical powers to predict the footballing future. In seems that one Mr Cristiano Ronaldo Dos Santos Aveiro, of Manchester, M16, has applied to register CR9 as a Community trade mark. The said applicant just happens to have always played for Machester United under the number CR7, and not the number 9. This has fuelled speculation that he is finalising a move to Real Madrid, where the present number 9 is to leave.

What puzzles the IPKat is that the application is for Class 43 ‘Services for providing food and drink; temporary and hotel accommodation’. Merpel wants to know, will C3PO be mounting an opposition claim?

'Return to sender' says Australian hearing officer

The IPKat was glad to read that Elvis Jelcic has succeeded in his Australian application to register ElvisFinance as a trade mark for financial services. Mr Jelcic’s application was opposed by Elvis Presley Enterprises, seemingly because consumers might believe that the business was endorsed by the late Mr Presley. According to the hearing officer:

The use only of the name Elvis next to the word FINANCE is not enough to cause a likelihood of deception or confusion. If the applicant were to embellish the mark with anything that would suggest Mr. Presley, such as guitars, the word King, white jump suits or suchlike, then the opponent might have remedies in another jurisdiction. However, I find that this ground of opposition is not established.

The IPKat is happy on two counts. What consumer would really think that the late rock ‘n’ roller would endorse financial services? Even the idea of his estate endorsing them seems unlikely – the link between a dead celebrity singer and finance is tenuous in the extreme. Secondly, Elvis is the applicant’s name (though technically, in the UK at least, this wouldn’t prevent an opposition) and is a ‘standard’ first name.