"I had one experience of (perhaps over-zealous) brand protection at the Olympics. As no liquids were allowed to be taken in unless under 100mls, I took to the sailing at Weymouth two empty plastic drinks bottles to fill with water once I got inside the venue. At security my first bottle was deemed unacceptable because it had a “Highland Spring” label on it. Clearly they thought this was a single-handed attempt at ambush marketing. So it was not allowed into the Olympics until the label was removed. However, since my second bottle was branded “Coca Cola” it was allowed to enter the venue unaltered.
Strangely a few days earlier “Highland Spring” was not considered a risk to Olympic Park and no labels were removed when I went to the swimming. They were selling unbranded Pimms at the venues. I am not sure how this is possible since the recipe is supposed to be a secret, so how could it be anything else? It was simply the same Pimms sold as 'No 1 Cup'”.
here on the jiplp weblog. Somewhat delayed but nonetheless welcome is The SPC Blog's post on the recent Neutrokine-a decision, which contains some interesting reflections on the timing of references of questions for preliminary rulings within the context of patent litigation here. Finally, there's a very thoughtful post on the 1709 Blog from Iona Harding, "Copyright Law and Alcohol Prohibition", commenting on Donald P. Harris's surprisingly effective comparison of two sets of laws which were markedly out of step with consumer expectations.
|Lookalikes -- or just |
Internet prosthetics. Via the ever-viligant Chris Torrero (thanks, Chris!) comes news of TinEye, which informs us as follows about its services:
“TinEye is a reverse image search engine. You can submit an image to TinEye to find out where it came from, how it is being used, if modified versions of the image exist, or to find higher resolution versions”.You can play around with it for your own amusement, and there is a paid-for version for commercial use. Fascinating, says the IPKat. But supposing it isn't your image that you're submitting, mewses Merpel ...
here with the subject line "Intern", appending a short CV, and he'll forward it to the firm concerned.
|When translated, this|
document turned out to be
a runic optician's eye-test chart
Ondansetron -- after such time as the patent for it will have expired. The trial court construed "offer" narrowly and said that no infringing offer had taken place; the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, ruling that there were no legislative grounds for giving the word "offer" a narrow interpretation -- and the Supreme Court agreed. Ruprecht and Daan (who acted for the victorious Glaxo in this case) have kindly let the Kats have a copy of an English translation of this decision, which you can read here.