IPITevents » Trade mark

RSA – Chinese IP law symposium

Jordan — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:53:31 +0000

The Royal Society of Chemistry is having an event on Chinese IP law. The focus seems to be primarily on patent law and (naturally) chemistry with likely some trade mark prosecution and enforcement as well. From the event description, speakers include IP expert and frequent speaker Sir Hugh Laddie:

The keynote speakers will be Sir Hugh Laddie (former Senior Patent Judge) and Jiang Zhipei, the chief IP Justice of the Supreme People’s Court of China (subject to visa approval). Other speakers will include leading legal and patent practitioners from the PRC.

“Enforcement of IP in China” Gordon Gao and Dixon Zhang, Fangda Partners, Beijing and Shenzhen. Fangda Partners specialises in IP dispute resolution, including IP litigation. Gordon Gao prosecuted the first ever trademark infringement case in Shenzhen that lead to the imprisonment of the perpetrator. In 2007, Gordon was ranked as the leading IP lawyer in China by Chambers Global. He has a PhD in chemistry from Stanford University and a JD from Hastings Law School (University of California, San Francisco). Dixon Zhang has extensive experience in IPR-related administrative enforcement, investigation, judicial protection, litigation, and filing and registration in the PCR. Dixon has an LL.B from Fudan University, School of Law.

“Patent prosecution strategy in China for inventions in biotechnology” Barbara Fleck, Marks and Clerk Barbara is a European Patent Attorney and Chartered Patent Attorney. She works in all areas of Biotechnology and Life Sciences and has particular experience in the field of plant-related inventions, including genetically modified organisms and Plant Variety Rights.

The event will take place at the UK IPO offices and is an all day event. Full details and registration at the RSC site: Chinese IP Law Symposium

Ensuring Consumers “Get What They Want”: The Role of Trademark Law

Jordan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:06:28 +0000

This one is invite only, but I thought it useful to flag up in case you can wrangle an invite: “Third Annual Intellectual Property Lecture at Emmanuel College: Ensuring Consumers ‘Get What They Want’: The Role of Trademark Law” by Prof. Graeme Dinwoodie. Dinwoodie is Chair in Intellectual Property Law at Queen Mary, University of London and Professor of Law, Associate Dean and Director of the Program in Intellectual Property Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law. Find out more on the CIPIL event site.

Trade Mark Dilution: Putting an end to (all the) confusion

Jordan — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:09:57 +0000

This ambitiously titled conference from CIPIL will look at trade mark dilution, and features Lord Justice Jacob, Professor Graeme Dinwoodie (Chicago-Kent/QMUL), Professor Martin Senftleben (Free University of Amsterdam), Richard Arnold QC , Dev Gangee (London School of Economics), Emmanuel Baud (Latham & Watkins), David Llewelyn (White and Case), Professor Ansgar Ohly (University of Bayreuth), and Dr Jennifer Davis (University of Cambridge). The whole things is quite reasonably priced at £80.00, with (I’m glad to see) special rates of £60.00 for academics and £30.00 for starving students.

From the conference website, it looks like they will be tackling quite a few issues:

What is the difference between a well-known mark and a mark with a reputation?

What is the relationship between ‘reputation’ of a mark and brand values or brand image?

When are two marks so similar that a consumer will make a ‘link’ between them? What is meant by ‘detriment to distinctive character’? Is it possible to identify when such detriment will occur? Will it only occur in relation to invented marks? Will it ever occur by use of a similar mark? Does the concept of detriment imply ‘unfairness’?

What is meant by ‘detriment to repute’?

What is meant by ‘unfair advantage’? Does ‘unfair advantage’ require harm ‘present or prospective’ to the trade mark owner? Does the notion of ‘fairness’ allow for a balancing of ‘freedoms, rights and interests’?

When is a sign used ‘with due cause’? Has this notion been construed too narrowly?

How does the concept of dilution mesh with the requirement of ‘trade mark use’ (or at least that the use ‘jeopardise the essential function(s?) of the mark’?

Does parodic use take unfair advantage of the repute of an earlier mark? Do the exceptions apply to such use? Will article 10 of the ECHR be brought into play?

What justification, if any, exists for the broad protection offered to trade marks? What problems would a broad construction of s. 10(3) cause?