Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: IPKatTrade mark registrations for shopping centres
By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

The UK IPO has issued a new Practice Notice (PAN 01/09) concerning acceptable trade mark specifications for the provision of shopping centre services.
Key points:
- registration can be obtained for both real and ?viritual? (i.e. online) shopping centre services
- the services which are brought together by the centre operated must be clearly defined and related to the primary activity of providing retail outlets, so terms like ?and other services? won?t do. However, the Registry is taking a wideish view of what a shoppinig centre will provide, e.g. language assistance, child care
- such a specification does not include a claim for the provision of the services which are being brought together (e.g. bringing together, inter alia, restaurant services, does not include a claim for the restaurant services themselves)
- the PAN doesn?t cover the bringing together of services in a manner other than a shopping centre ? these will be judged on a case-by-case basis
The IPKat welcomes the IPO?s flexible and realistic approach to what a shopping centre may offer. He?s puzzled though by a couple of things. First, virtual shopping centres are covered, but other forms of bringing together services aren?t. Is there really an accepted definition of what a virtual shopping centre is (and so what falls within the PAN)? What about price comparison sites? Google Shopping? Sites like Nectar which provide links to various shops with the aim of allowing you to collect reward points? Secondly, the PAN requires clearly defined services. Now normally the IPKat is all for clarity, but does it really matter here if the key services is a shopping centre: it?s the bringing together of retail services which will be the main focus when comparing similarity of services, particularly since the PAN explicitly states that any registration would not cover the other services being brought together per se.
Full post as published by IPKat on February 26, 2009 (boomark / email).
Trade Secrets
Former execs are hit with doctrine of inevitable disclosure.
Mark Eagleson
$63,725 restitution settles fraud lawsuit.
Pressure Cooker
Home Shopping Network pays $875,000 civil settlement for failing to warn customers about the dangerous product.
Ford F-150 Recall
alleging a hose in the F-150 and Lincoln Mark LT pickup trucks could affect braking power.
Trade Secrets
Razorsight agreed to pay $4.5 million settlement in infringement lawsuit.
Newspaper Publisher
Star Tribune must pay St. Paul Pioneer Press a $3.8 million trade secrets act violations settlement.

Path Intelligence FootPath(tm) mobile phone tracking - a few more details
Trade mark infringement: who can provide consent
'Alarming' rise in self-harming at detention centres
Keyword advertising & trade mark infringement
Path Intelligence - Phorm for shopping centres







