 |
Fledgling IP practitioners waiting for their TIPLO dinner:
even if it doesn't come "cheep", it's a good deal cheaper ... |
That TIPLO (The Intellectual Property Lawyers Organisation) dinner on 2 March, which the IPKat mentioned last week (click
here and scroll), is back on the agenda again. Following an impassioned plea from the Kat, TIPLO has agreed to offer a special discount to bona fide students, trainees and recently-qualified IP professionals who are not TIPLO members and could not be expected to fork out £135 for its delicious delights. The idea is that the next generation of leaders and activists within the UK's IP community should be encouraged to step forward and rub shoulders with those whom, in years to come, they will surely replace. For these eager young souls, registration is available at a just-above-break-even point of £60, which is pretty good. For registration details, and anything else you need to know, click the TIPLO site
here [nb the discount details aren't given on the online booking form] or email Renate Siebrasse
here. Merpel adds, young IP professionals should all be joining IPSoc ("The Society for Junior IP Practitioners") too. The IPSoc site is
here and you can email the membership secretary
here.
Around the blogs. First, it cannot have escaped the attention of any patent-oriented readers that, after several years as part of the IPKat's team, Tufty the Cat has followed in the great tradition of Rudyard Kipling's
Cat That Walked by Himself and has gone solo! The Kats all wish him the best of luck with his
new blog and are sure that he'll be a great success.
Meanwhile, PatLit's series on the Patents County Court for England and Wales, the PCC Pages, reaches its
16th installment, in which the question is posed as to whether a defendant can find ways of making the proceedings inappropriate to be handled by a patent attorney so as to force them back into the more expensive Patents Court. The
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice's jiplp weblog publishes the
March 2011 editorial, "The Panda Plan: China's March to Progress" which, as the title suggests, is about current Chinese initiatives on the IP front. Finally, The SPC Blog -- which is closing in on its 1,000th email subscriber -- has posted information on two very recent decisions in which Novartis has successfully sought injunctive relief in respect of its Valsartan product in
Belgium and
France.
 |
Eminent football scholars discuss the finer points of
database protection for football fixture lists, seeking
a clear solution with no ifs and "butts" |
The name may be a little awkward to remember without a piece of paper in front of you from which to read it, but Case C-604/10
Football Dataco Limited, The Football Association Premier League Limited, The Football League Limited, The Scottish Premier League Limited, The Scottish Football League and PA Sport UK Limited v Yahoo! UK Limited, Stan James (Abingdon) Limited, Stan James PLC and Enetpulse Aps is a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the following questions:
"1. In Article 3(1) of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases what is meant by "databases which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation" and in particular:
a) should the intellectual effort and skill of creating data be excluded?
b) does "selection or arrangement" include adding important significance to a pre-existing item of data (as in fixing the date of a football match);
c) does "author's own intellectual creation" require more than significant labour and skill from the author, if so what?
2. Does the Directive preclude national rights in the nature of copyright in databases other than those provided for by the Directive?"
This case UK's Intellectual Property Office says: "If you would like to comment on this case please e-mail
policy@ipo.gsi.gov.uk before 21 February 2011".
The IPKat has learned that, now that brand promotion through product placement is to be permitted from 28 February in the European Union, British regulatory body Ofcom is requiring that the product placement logo depicted here be shown for at least three seconds before and after the screening of any television programme in which products are placed by an advertiser.
According to Helen Dunne (editor of CorpComms Magazine), the display of this logo will signal to viewers that brands have paid to appear on a television programme. Broadcasters can slightly adapt the logo, subject to brand guidelines, to enable use on either lighter or darker backgrounds. Some programmes (current affairs, news, consumer advice, children's and religious programmes made for UK audiences) remain restricted from carrying paid-for products.
The "other" PCC in the United Kingdom -- the one that isn't the Patents County Court -- is the Press Complaints Commission. The two bodies don't have a vast amount in common, particularly when it comes to teeth. The Patents County Court has been fitted with a new set recently and is giving them plenty of exercise. The Press Complaints Commission, in contrast, is often characterised as being relatively toothless and on the whole reluctant to use what few teeth it has -- but that doesn't mean that, when the occasion is right, not biting is the right response. In this context, readers might want to take a look at
this post on a non-IP blog, the idiosyncratic rant-site GrumpyHatLady & Chums, entitled "Twitter, Privacy and Copyright". This post defends the Commission's correct finding that newspaper reportage of Twitter content which was publicly posted, while also reviewing Twitter's copyright policy.
