Monday miscellany

"Patent Value": tomorrow's dialogue.  The event co-hosted tomorrow by the IPKat and the IP Finance blog, in which Intellectual Asset Management editor Joff Wild and our blogging colleague Neil Wilkof discuss the impact of patent litigation on the values of patents, still has a little room for late registrants -- but if you want to come you'll have to let us know by mid-day today.  Details can be found here.  And if you have already registered but can't come after all, do let us know, so our kind hosts at EIP can cater refreshments for the right number of people. Thanks!

E-CRIME: coming your way! The IPKat has been asked to highlight the commencement of a fresh new European project, called E-CRIME, which focuses on the economic impact of cyber-crime in Europe. Naturally he is delighted to oblige, even if in Merpel's opinion E-CRIME is just a teensy-weensy bit descriptive for a project focusing on cyber crime. You can find more about this project by reading the short note on it on the IP Finance weblog here or by clicking on to the E-CRIME website here.

Long-time friend and trade mark connoisseur David Goldring (Oakleigh IP Services) disturbed this Kat's pre-weekend reveries on Friday with the following message:

I spotted this mark [ie the mark displayed on the right] in this morning’s UK Trade Mark Journal No.2014/038 dated 12 September 2014: 

UK00003023916, 27 September 2013 (25) Image for mark UK00003023916 BOLLOX Class 25 - Adult male under garments, including boxer shorts and under pants. 4E Products Ltd Representative: Bingham, Ian Mark 

Perhaps this is one for the IPKat, to show the folly of the system?? Perhaps the word describes the examination procedure? Does it not offend Section 3(3)(a) [of the Trade Marks Act 1994, equivalent to Article 3(1)(f) of Directive 2008/95] as being contrary to public morality – "bollox" being the modern spelling of bollocks (especially in electronic media)? [if Google Search hits are a reliable reflection of modern spelling trends, the modern spelling has already overtaken the more correct original]  Also, is it not descriptive of the purpose – being applied for in respect of the goods/clothing in which testicles are contained/protected/worn?  Can you register ARMS for a sweater, LEGS for trousers or FEET for shoes? Surely registration of such words can and will offend a reasonable section of the public. 

Merpel recalls the words she wrote on this very weblog back in November 2008, commenting on an indignant guest post by Katfriend Sally Cooper concerning the UKIPO's willingness to tolerate applications for A*****E and Q***** (here)

" ... in the light of the [OHIM] Grand Board of Appeal ruling, in Case R 0495/2005 G Application of Kenneth (t/a Screw You) [2007] ETMR 7, it's difficult to say that there's such a thing as a sign that's inherently offensive and contrary to good morality right across the Nice Classification: while A*****E will be regarded by most consumers as extremely unpleasant for most classes of goods and services, it's possible to think of relevant consumers of specific goods and services who might find the concept a turn-on. ...".

This Kat feels that the Trade Mark Registry is not the best place to deal with issues of offensive branding. After all, failure to obtain trade mark registration doesn't offer any comfort or protection to the public: traders can carry on using brands like this which, precisely because they are offensive, or cause some degree of amusement to those who favour them, are always likely to some sort of market success.

Morocco: great place for an IP policy ...?

Around the weblogs.  Afro-IP's running series on African countries' IP policies has now reached number 34, thanks to Caroline NCube, this being the turn of Morocco.  The jiplp weblog warns of predatory publishers who are chasing IP authors (among others) in the hope of enticing them to pay to publish their works in journals of doubtful value.  On Class 46, Laetitia Lagarde reports a recent decision in which the General Court of the EU had to stretch the imagination a little in order to find genuine earlier use of one DELTA mark, in what might be reasonably viewed as a different form from that in which it was registered, in order to support what is probably a quite justified opposition to the registration of another DELTA mark, where both were in the general area of healthcare.  Finally, we discover from SOLO IP that that intrepid solo practitioner Barbara Cookson is now in Toronto, attending this year's AIPPI conference. It is rumoured that a Kat is among the Canadian pigeons too ...

Something to read. Volume 4, issue 3 of the Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property has now been published by Edward Elgar Publishing under the direction of the journal's Editor-in-Chief, our good friend and emeritus Kat Jo Gibson.  You can peruse its contents here.  Enjoy!  Incidentally, each issue offers free access to one of the articles published in it: this issue's special offer is "Intellectual property rights and benefit sharing from marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction: current discussions and regulatory options" by Claudio Chiarolla. You can access Claudia's article from the contents page above or just click here.