INTA Report and Micro-Rant, Day 4, 20 May
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/47271/47271b1d92c922f8680eccbf0469c470797a6b50" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7467f/7467f25c44b60b3636921cb6c4bc935dd7658b31" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7fd4/c7fd437cefd2ea410d919af7063428402a6d09b3" alt=""
The next session the Kat attended, and the last for 2009, was also his biggest disappointment -- partly because it was the session he had most looked forward to. This was on the exciting topic of "Latest developments in internet law and the impact of blogging on trademarks". The fault was not with the speakers. Rachel Matteo Boehm (Holme Roberts & Owen) and Ian Ballon (Greenberg Traurig) were clearly knowledgeable and had obviously gone to some considerable effort to provide current and authoritative information. The problem was in the session itself. There was nothing to warn the audience that this session was a throwback to the USTA -- the old United States Trademark Association -- and that it was aimed at local attorneys who wanted to collect their CLE points rather than to the members of the International Trademark Association who had come to enhance their understanding of problems that do not belong exclusively to the United States (the words "CLE" were mentioned twice in the presentations, but the Kat doesn't recall any mentions of other countries at all).
[Beginning of micro-rant]: The IPKat does not know who designed this element of the programme and how it was decided to handle it the way it was handled, but he has the following messages for the person or persons unknown:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7768e/7768e9403ab9266a7b49e2afb7c9aa00609c011f" alt=""
1. The internet is not owned by the United States; nor is it coextensive with the territorial borders of the United States.
2. Neither the internet nor disputes arising from its use are exclusively governed by United States law.
Right: angry kat piccie by Piez
3. An international organisation such as the INTA owes it to its members to provide an approach to subjects which is not parochially focused solely on the legal issues of any single jurisdiction.
4. There is no valid reason for excluding, in a session at an international gathering of this nature, any reference to developments in France and Germany -- two civil law jurisdictions which have a rich and varied body of case law and jurisprudence on the trade mark/internet interface.
5. It is worth questioning the wisdom of the INTA circulating under its own logo, for the benefit of this audience, a shortlist of trade mark-related weblogs. This creates the appearance of endorsement or approval of certain weblogs by the INTA, yet it omits some of the leading trade mark weblogs entirely. No non-English-language blogs are listed (for example Le petit Musée des Marques is omitted, despite its influence and popularity in the French-speaking world and its archive going back to 2004; Germany's MarkenBlog is not there. Nor is Boek 9 from the Netherlands, Lvcentinus in Spain or the exotic, colourful bilingual Catch Us If You Can !!! from Italy). The hugely popular Spicy IP, from India, is also absent -- as is the poor little IPKat ...[end of micro-rant here].
Now that he has typed this all up, the IPKat is already feeling a lot happier. The rage is abating. As is well known, the IPKat is hugely fond of the INTA and does all he can to persuade his friends (and his not-yet-friends) to join it. He has participated in its workings for many a long year and fervently hopes that this micro-rant will mean either or both of two things: that sessions intended for the whole membership will be better balanced, and/or that sessions intended for our US colleagues who seek CLE points will be clearly flagged as such.
And now for something lighter ...
The IPKat's INTA Oscars
Best session: since modesty prohibits the IPKat speaking the truth about his own session on privilege and ethics in cyberspace, he will gallantly nominate the session on due diligence: the good humour, natural presentation skills and narrative exegisis of the speakers turned a traditionally turgid subject into quite a zappy one.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9d500/9d5009a2a7ace14f92d1af6f8bf7e139cd8f712b" alt=""
Coolest venue: The Waterfront, Pier 70 -- it's almost inconceivable that lawyers work in this lovely location, with its comfortably blazing log fire, the breathtaking views and the amusingly simple death-trap of highly polished pebbles, though rumour has it that those employed at Graham & Dunn are capable of doing so.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/92579/925793d46bd08adea025f8d16f8a41a24b4b88d4" alt=""
Nicest person: Cathy Lee, the ever-smiling wheelchair-bound attendant at the Convention Center who had a cheerful word for even the gloomiest participant.
Most annoying example of arbitrary exercise of power: the posting of sentries around the bottleneck between the registration area and the reception zone in order to encourage two one-way systems for those entering and exiting, thereby narrowing the bottleneck still further.
Most-desired object: the glorious white full-sized unicorn you can see through the window of the FAO Schwartz concession, Macy's -- for which the IPKat is still yearning ... [you fool, says Merpel: if unicorns don't exist, how can you tell if this one's full sized or not?]