Seminar ""Protecting your Intellectual Property in China" Liverpool, 14 Sep 2006

I appreciate that this is still a minority view but I believe that China stands very much where the USA stood before 1917 and the USA stands where the British empire stood at the time of the Boer war. That reality was brought home forcefully to me at the WIPO Arbitration & Mediation Centre meeting in Geneva last October when Francis Gurry, who also has responsibilities for the administration of the PCT, said that on present trends the bulk of the world's new technical literature will be in Mandarin or some other North Asian language within a very short time. If that is right everyone needs to take an interest in what's happening in China.

In this regard IPCEX (the IP Centre of Excellence) is organizing a free seminar entitled "Protecting your Intellectual Property in China" courtesy of its newest member, Kirwans of Liverpool, at 4pm on 14 September 2006 in The Boardroom, Martins Building, Water Street, Liverpool L2 3SX. I shall be chairing the seminar and my speakers include

Lastly, and definitely least, I shall be talking about IPR enforcement which will cover not just remedies available in this country against copies of outsourced products turning up in Bury market (of which I like many IP counsel have had probably far too much experience) but also arbitration and mediation and possibly even (as a very last resort) the feasibility of remedies under bilateral investment treaties through ICSID.

This seminar is free, ladies and gents, so there is no need to count the pennies. In fact you will probably get a cup of tea, a buttie and possibly even a glass of vino from our host, Kirwans commercial partner, Mr Michael Sandys, if he is feeling generous. If you want to come, please call Marianne Tuck on 0151 229 5600. The Martins Building is very central close to Moorfields and James Street tube stations (yes, Southerners, Liverpool does have an underground) and not far from the new NCP car park near the new civil and family courts at Moorfields.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br...
Read more

Copyright: Creation Records Ltd. v News Group

It is trite law that if two photographers take identical pictures of the same scene at the same time from the same position each of their photographs is an original work and neither infringes the copyright in the other. However, much of the skill of a photographer lies in his choice of subject and the arrangement of the scene. The question whether copyright subsists independently in such an arrangement arose in Creation Records Ltd. v News Group Newspapers Ltd . (1997) The Times 27 April.   The Facts A swimming pool at a country club was drained and various props including a white Rolls Royce motor car assembled for a photograph of a well-known group of musicians for reproduction on their album cover. Although the public was not admitted to the session certain fans of the group who happened to be there were allowed to photograph the scene before official pictures were taken. A freelance photographer who was booked into the club photographed the scene during the session. One of his pict...
Read more

"What is meant by "Due Cause" in s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act? The Red Bull Case

Image
Amsterdam   Source Wikipedia According to Wikipedia  Red Bull is the most popular energy drink in the world, with 5.2 billion cans sold in 2012. Its manufacturer, Red Bull GmbH , has registered the RED BULL mark has registered those words and their accompanying logo as word and device marks in trade mark registries around the world including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ( "BOIP" ) . The company registered that sign with BOIP for non-alcoholic drinks in class 32 with effect from 11 July 1983. After decades of massive sales and extensive advertising nobody could argue that that mark has a reputation within the meaning of art 5 (2) of the Trade Marks Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008   to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks OJ 8.11.2008 p 299/25).  S.10 (3) of our Trade Marks Act 1994   implements that provision. There is in the Net...
Read more