Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Intellectual Property Law

: IPKat

Wednesday whimsies

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

ADVERTISEMENTS

The bright, shiny new European Commission e-justice site, launched earlier this month, features a directory of legal professionals which includes lawyers, notaries and bailiffs, the IPKat learns from Kilburn & Strode's observant Nick Bassil -- but not patent and trade mark attorneys. Wonders Merpel, is this because they're not legal or because they're not professional?

Ten Questions -- and some pertinent comments. The "Ten Questions About Confirmatory Assignment" post by IPKat team member Neil last week has attracted some enrichment in the form of quality comment from readers: if you are involved in or concerned about confirmatory assignment issues, you may wish to revisit this article -- which you can do so by clicking here.

Augmented reality. The IPKat's dear friend Maximilian Schubert, convinced that "augmented reality" will soon become a part of everyday life, has a little idea which is very simple. Since this technology is novel, we must consider which legal principles govern it. Since keyword advertising plays a role, he argues that the principles developed recently by the ECJ (see IPKat posts here, here and here, for instance) could apply here too -- after all, it makes little difference whether a consumer searches for a "Canon S 90 price comparison" on a search engine or just points his smartphone's camera at a Canon S 90 camera while standing inside a store. In both cases he submits a query and receives results (which contain, or are displayed alongside, ads). If in principle both technologies are similar, the ECJ's keyword advertising doctrine will fit it neatly. Maximilian's thoughts (which you can read here) haven't advanced very far yet, but he'd love to hear the ideas of other jurists on this subject.

Since so many readers of this weblog side with the underdog in its battles with the overdog (if such a concept exists), the IPKat has decided to gratify them with the news that Mattel, owner of the iconic Barbie doll, has just seen its hard-won injunction against former employee Carter Bryant's Bratz dolls disappear. According to 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, the district court erred when it found that Mattel's employment agreement covered the idea for Bratz, wrote who concluded: "America thrives on competition; Barbie, the all-American girl, will too." The order was stayed pending the appeal (see the AmeriKat, here).

The apt illustration on the left comes from an earlier posting on this dispute from Counterfeit Chic, Susan Scafidi's lovely blog, that has been too quiet for appreciative Kats of late.

Full post as published by IPKat on July 28, 2010 (boomark / email).