Yesterday evening Professor Toshiko Takenaka gave the PatLit seminar, "Patent litigation in the US and Japan: what's the difference?" A brief report and link to her PowerPoint presentation can be found
here.
Just before he chaired Professor Takenaka's talk (above), IPKat team member Jeremy was giving a presentation, "From Pirate Bay to Pirate Party", at Informa IBC's International Copyright Law 2009 Conference. You can see his comments in brief and view his PowerPoints
here.
The Swiss have either, depending on your opinion, struck a brave blow on behalf of common sense or scored a monumental own-goal in terms of their credibility as a trade mark-protecting jurisdiction. What have they done?
They've ruled that iPhone [not to be confused with the eye-phone,
right] is a descriptive term and therefore unregistrable in respect of, er, iPhones ...
On the subject of eyes, the World Intellectual Property Organization can take some credit for
hosting a meeting on Monday with various United Nations specialized agencies on the need for closer inter-agency collaboration in favour of visually impaired persons (VIPs): an agreed VIP Initiative will aim "to facilitate and enhance access to literary, artistic and scientific works for the blind, visually impaired and other reading-disable persons ..."
[The IPKat is struggling to suppress the desire to express the hope that this will be of some benefit to the judges in the annual Turner Prize competition].
The topics of privilege, practising certificates and regulation of solicitors in the UK are raised by seasoned IP practitioner Filemot, writing on the
SOLO IP Blog. She says: "If you are happy that communications between you and your client can be disclosed in any subsequent litigation, then it does not matter. However if your practice is likely to involve giving frank advice as to infringment risks and freedom to operate you might want to keep your privilege".
Yesterday evening Professor Toshiko Takenaka gave the PatLit seminar, "Patent litigation in the US and Japan: what's the difference?" A brief report and link to her PowerPoint presentation can be found here.
Just before he chaired Professor Takenaka's talk (above), IPKat team member Jeremy was giving a presentation, "From Pirate Bay to Pirate Party", at Informa IBC's International Copyright Law 2009 Conference. You can see his comments in brief and view his PowerPoints here.
The Swiss have either, depending on your opinion, struck a brave blow on behalf of common sense or scored a monumental own-goal in terms of their credibility as a trade mark-protecting jurisdiction. What have they done? They've ruled that iPhone [not to be confused with the eye-phone, right] is a descriptive term and therefore unregistrable in respect of, er, iPhones ...
On the subject of eyes, the World Intellectual Property Organization can take some credit for hosting a meeting on Monday with various United Nations specialized agencies on the need for closer inter-agency collaboration in favour of visually impaired persons (VIPs): an agreed VIP Initiative will aim "to facilitate and enhance access to literary, artistic and scientific works for the blind, visually impaired and other reading-disable persons ..." [The IPKat is struggling to suppress the desire to express the hope that this will be of some benefit to the judges in the annual Turner Prize competition].
The topics of privilege, practising certificates and regulation of solicitors in the UK are raised by seasoned IP practitioner Filemot, writing on the SOLO IP Blog. She says: "If you are happy that communications between you and your client can be disclosed in any subsequent litigation, then it does not matter. However if your practice is likely to involve giving frank advice as to infringment risks and freedom to operate you might want to keep your privilege".
