It's quite interesting to find out which kernel releases that will be picked up by Patrick Volkerding for the next release of Slackware. I have added a new poll for that and the time frame for voting is two months from now. I have prepared 5 options which should be more than enough for the next development cycle to pick.

During the development cycle that lead to creation of Slackware 14.1, there were some kernel hopping between releases. Originally, the plan was to use the LTS kernel 3.4.x branch, but then Greg K-H decided to make Linux Kernel 3.10 to be his next LTS kernel and Pat decided to take  that chance to upgrade to 3.10 and picked it up as the default kernel in Slackware 14.1. I wonder what will happen during this cycle. Definitely fun to follow :)

Go vote!!

Two months ago, i asked about how people installed packages from SBo repositories and there were 139 votes so far. Thanks to all who have voted and here are the results:
Download and build manually 66 (47%) 
Using sbopkg 50 (35%)
Using sbopkg + sqg 23 (16%)

It seems that almost half of the voters would rather download the script and source manually instead of using automated tools such as sbopkg (and sqg). It's a matter of preferences and it's fine with that, but for those who would like to have easier experiences installing SBo packages, feel free to read my previous article in January about Managing SBo dependencies Easily through the use of sbopkg + sqg for building up the queues files for you.

Shorter Ole Perfesser Instapundit Glenn Reynolds: Some writers said mean things about another writer, which can only be explained by liberal fascism.

Fordham aftermath. Following last week's Fordham IP Conference [if you missed or avoided it, but your curiosity has got the better of you, the easiest place to start your overview is here], here are a few post-event items for you.

Fordham provides much food for thought

* This Kat has received several emails from readers who are asking when the final, corrected version of the transcripts of the Fordham sessions might be available. He doesn't know, but he can report that drafts of some of the sessions have already been transcribed and sent to participants for correction by 15 May -- so hang on in there, be patient. We'll let you know as soon as we hear anything concrete.

* A large chunk of the Fordham programme relates to copyright, a factor which has prompted fellow Kat Eleonora to prepare a handy summary on the copyright-flavoured 1709 Blog, here. If you want to know more, and engage in some serious interaction with other like-minded souls, there is still a space or two available on Eleonora' post-Fordham Copyright Catch-up, which takes place next Tuesday in Central London: details here.

* The IPKat's friends in Geneva at Intellectual Property Watch have posted a report on Fordham, "Fordham IP Event A Firehose Of Current IP Legal, Policy Debates", by William New. It's snuggling comfortably behind a paywall, but this won't deter IP Watch's dedicated band of subscribers.

* Two sets of PowerPoints from Fordham are now in the IPKat's possession. They are "Stop! in the Name of Law – How New EU Customs Laws Create Stumbling Blocks for Intellectual Property Owners" by Christian W. Liedtke (read here or download here) and IPKat team member Jeremy's "IP Pioneers" presentation (read here or download here).

Betty Boop, Kat and crab: this picture cries out for a witty caption ...

Around the weblogs.  It's all happening in the Southern Hemisphere right now: Jeremy Speres (Floor Swart, Stellenbosch) has joined the blogging team of Afro-IP. That blog now has two bearded Jeremys (Jeremies?), blogmeister Darren Olivier points out. Jeremy S has already opened his blogging account with this post on three recent South African trade mark cases. We wish him well. Meanwhile, on the biliingual IP Tango weblog, the charming and erudite Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera has posted "En Chile es posible renovar registros de marcas en 1 click con nuevo servicio del INAPI", here while, drifting to the Caribbean, this blogger notes an unsuccessful attempt to register the OLYMPIKUS trade mark in Costa Rica, foiled by the ever-viligant local Olympic Committee. Meanwhile, David Berry, writing for PatLit, discusses Octane Fitness LLC v ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184 (U.S. April 29, 2014) and Highmark, Inc. v Allcare Health Management System, Inc., No. 12-1163 (U.S. April 29, 2014) -- in which the US Supreme Court has doubtless endeared itself to many of our readers by making it easier for US courts to award patent attorney fees.  Over on the jiplp weblog newly-promoted Bristows partner Jeremy Blum (well done!) and his colleague Nicholas Round explain the recent British passing off and trade mark infringement action in Betty Boop, in which the judge, Birss J, considered the paradox that it's easier for a fictional character to gain protection against unauthorised merchandising than for a real one.  Finally, on Art & Artifice, Angela Saltarelli posts this intriguing French case on the right of an art expert to refuse to authenticate a putatively genuine work.

Another Factor package ...

Borders change. Infringement continues.  That's the message from fellow blogger and IP practitioner Michael Factor, who has come up with yet another surprise initiative.  As an Israel-based practitioner he has teamed up with a Palestinian lawyer who is qualified to practise both on the West Bank and in Gaza, to offer a seamless trade mark registration package for the three zones.  The pair will be putting in an appearance at next month's INTA Meeting in Hong Kong.  You can read more about this on Michael's IP Factor blog here. This Kat welcomes all constructive initiatives of this nature.

Changelog v1.11.3

How to get on High Ranking Business Directories

Imagine how many more customers would find your business/website if it was listed on the YellowPages, Yahoo Local, Bing Maps, Facebook Business Listings, MapQuest, FourSquare and Yelp sites and over 50 more based on the local Jacksonville market area.

Then Imagine how high your website would go up on Google if each of the above sites listed had a link to your website. That is 60 plus well known and highly ranked sites linking to your site. Increasing the opportunities that customers will see you by having a higher ranking position on Google.

How many times have you searched for a business on Google and saw Yelp, Facebook or the YellowPages come up in your search results. Take advantage of this opportunity  and be everywhere your customers are looking. People new to a city, especially younger people, use the above mentioned social review sites to help them find new places that they will use and need on a regular bases.

  Get your Business Listed on all these sites and more here.

The Ninth Chamber of the General Court gave judgment today in a fierce battle over a Community trade mark application in Case T‑170/12, Beyond Retro Ltd v OHIM, the other party to the proceedings being a US company, S&K Garments, Inc., which was victorious in the Board of Appeal.

Vintage cats enjoy a sip of vintage wine

This, as readers might guess, is another of those unbearably and protracted Community trade mark (CTM) oppositions. Back in October 2008 S&K secured an international registration, designating the European Community, for the word mark BEYOND VINTAGE for ‘jewellery, precious stones and watches’ (Class 14), ‘clothing accessories, handbags, purses and wallets’ (Class 18) and 'clothing’ (Class 25). In November 2009 Beyond Retro opposed, basing its opposition on its own earlier Community word mark BEYOND RETRO for, inter alia, ‘clothing, headgear and footwear’ (Class 25). Said Beyond Retro, given the similarity of the marks and the fact that both were for clothing in Class 25, there was bound to be a likelihood of confusion among the relevant class of consumers [presumably people in Europe who wear clothes, guesses Merpel, who is greatly attached to her own fur coat but wears nothing underneath]. This likelihood should bar registration of BEYOND VINTAGE under Article 8(1)(b) of the CTM Regulation.

Beyond Retro use the "V" word too ...

The Opposition Division generously upheld the opposition for goods in Classes 18 and 25, but rejected it for the goods in Class 14. In March 2011 S&K Garments and Beyond Retro both filed a notice of appeal and, in January 2012, OHIM's Fourth Board of Appeal upheld S&K's appeal on the ground that there was no likelihood of confusion, and dismissed Beyond Retro's appeal for much the same reason. The Board of Appeal, defining the average end consumer as being "reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect", agreed with the Opposition Division that S&K's goods were identical or similar to the ‘clothing, headgear and footwear’ covered by the earlier mark and confirmed that there was no similarity between 'clothing, headgear and footwear' and ‘jewellery, precious stones and watches’. Both marks consisted of English language word elements, which would be recognised as such and understood by some folk in the EU but not by others. There was a low degree of visual and phonetic similarity between the marks for both the English-speaking and non-English-speaking public and. as for non-English-speakers, there was no conceptual similarity between them either. Accordingly there was only a low degree of similarity because of the difference in their conceptual (lack of) meaning. Finally the Board of Appeal found, in contrast to the Opposition Division, that the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark was normal for the non-English-speaking public, and lower than average for the English-speaking public.

Today Beyond Retro's application to annul the Board of Appeal's decision was upheld. According to the General Court:

89 ... it is apparent ... that the Board of Appeal’s analysis regarding the comparison of the signs was also carried out with regard to the English-speaking public. The Board of Appeal found, as it did in respect of the non-English-speaking public, that there was a low degree of visual and phonetic similarity. By contrast, as regards the conceptual comparison, unlike what it found as regards the non-English-speaking public where it concluded that there was no conceptual similarity, the Board of Appeal found that there was a low degree of conceptual similarity between the marks at issue.

90 That latter finding concerning the conceptual aspect of the comparison might, to a certain extent, have been capable of giving rise to a change in the Board of Appeal’s findings on the likelihood of confusion with regard to the English-speaking public compared with the other part of the relevant public.

91 That analysis is not capable of being called into question by the fact that the Board of Appeal also categorised the distinctiveness of the earlier mark as lower than average in respect of the English-speaking public, as OHIM maintained at the hearing. The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies, for the Board of Appeal, not only taking into account the distinctive character of the earlier mark, but, above all, weighing up the various relevant factors regarding the similarity of the goods and that of the signs and their interdependence, as is apparent from settled case-law ...

92 The statement of reasons for the contested decision does not show that the Board of Appeal carried out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion as regards the English-speaking public. That omission, as regards a legal consideration having decisive importance in the context of the decision, makes it impossible to understand, in a clear and unequivocal manner, the conclusion attached to the reasoning followed by the Board of Appeal in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion concerning that public.

93 In that regard, ... the Board of Appeal failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons.

94 It follows that the contested decision, in so far as it concerns the goods in Classes 18 and 25, is unlawful on account both of the infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009, as regards the existence of a likelihood of confusion with regard to the non-English-speaking public, and of the infringement of the obligation to state reasons, as regards the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion with regard to the English-speaking public.

While she is not normally a betting Kat, Merpel is confident that we have not yet heard the last of this litigation.