|North Sea oil: more lucrative than IP?|
A student from a small, non-mountainous European country which is celebrated for its chocolates and waffles is currently studying for a Masters degree in intellectual property law in London. He writes:
|In training: the IPKat prepares|
for the 2012 Sleep Marathon
"Dear IPKat, I am writing my dissertation about Ambush Marketing, particularly about the London Olympic Games Act and whether this Act violates article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of commercial speech). This is a more difficult question than I first thought. The issue of Art 10 and anti-ambush marketing laws (such as those protecting the London Olympics) have not been subject to judicial consideration as far as I am aware [This is true, says Merpel, but the Games are still a year away and there hasn't been much opportunity to litigate the laws in question]. Do you have any idea if this is correct? [Yes, I do, says the Kat -- but I'll give readers a chance to air their opinions first] Is it even crystal clear that Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human rights
In my view the freedom of expression issues arise by virtue of the severe restrictions on the ability of local businesses to make reference to a major event taking place within the community. There may be other issues as well -- certainly the time and space restrictions on commercial expression by anyone other than official sponsors in certain zones and corridors around event venues may be suspect [might the laws in question be a disproportionately anticompetitive response to the need to protect investment, wonders Merpel ...].
Do you have any idea if there is any case law or statutory provision which could prove there is an infringement of art.10 as regards the London Olympic Games Act?".Readers -- this is your chance! If (i) you hate the Olympics, (ii) love the Olympics but hate the ambush marketing provisions or (iii) want your name to be gratefully acknowledged in an LLM dissertation, please post your comments below.
|If you thought this could be you|
after 14 July -- think again!
esomeprazole The patent at issue, EP 1 020 461, relates to the S-enantiomer of the well-known blockbuster gastric acid secretion inhibitor omeprazole, in a specific purity grade (> 99.8 enantiomeric excess). Stada and Sandoz sought to invalidate the patent for lack of inventive step, insufficiency and inadmissible added matter -- but the District Court thought otherwise. The interesting thing here is that the patent was revoked last month in opposition proceedings before the EPO, but the revocation was not brought to the attention of the District Court since the case was already closed and awaiting judgment. The IPKat's friends Marleen H.J. van den Horst and Jaap Bremer (BarentsKrans NV), who represented Stada in the Dutch proceedings, have kindly gone to the effort of rendering the District Court's decision into English and you can read it here.
|Never mind photography -- primates|
have been churning out literary
works ever since the invention
of the typewriter ...