Pharma patent report event; Ronaldo and Elvis trade marks

Pharma patents - the Commission's interim report @ UCL

It’s not too late to sign up for UCL Institute of Brand an Innovation Law’s seminar (developed in co-operation with Lord Justice Jacob) next Wednesday, ‘Patent practices in the pharmaceutical sector – the aftermath of the European Commission’s interim report’.

Speakers are

• Paul Denerley - AstraZeneca
• Ann Nielson - Bristol-Myers Squibb
• David Rosenberg - GSK
• Howard Rosenberg - Frommer, Lawrence and Haug LLP
• John Kallaugher - UCL & Lathan & Watkins

Mr Justice Barling, President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal is in the Chair.
The event is free, and kicks off at 5pm for a 5.15 start – you can sign up here.

Psychics stare into their footballs

It seems that Trade Mark Registry watchers have found a new use for their sport. Not content with predicting the latest extension of the Apple brand by watching out for marks in the form ‘iProduct’, they now are using their amazing mystical powers to predict the footballing future. In seems that one Mr Cristiano Ronaldo Dos Santos Aveiro, of Manchester, M16, has applied to register CR9 as a Community trade mark. The said applicant just happens to have always played for Machester United under the number CR7, and not the number 9. This has fuelled speculation that he is finalising a move to Real Madrid, where the present number 9 is to leave.

What puzzles the IPKat is that the application is for Class 43 ‘Services for providing food and drink; temporary and hotel accommodation’. Merpel wants to know, will C3PO be mounting an opposition claim?

'Return to sender' says Australian hearing officer

The IPKat was glad to read that Elvis Jelcic has succeeded in his Australian application to register ElvisFinance as a trade mark for financial services. Mr Jelcic’s application was opposed by Elvis Presley Enterprises, seemingly because consumers might believe that the business was endorsed by the late Mr Presley. According to the hearing officer:

The use only of the name Elvis next to the word FINANCE is not enough to cause a likelihood of deception or confusion. If the applicant were to embellish the mark with anything that would suggest Mr. Presley, such as guitars, the word King, white jump suits or suchlike, then the opponent might have remedies in another jurisdiction. However, I find that this ground of opposition is not established.

The IPKat is happy on two counts. What consumer would really think that the late rock ‘n’ roller would endorse financial services? Even the idea of his estate endorsing them seems unlikely – the link between a dead celebrity singer and finance is tenuous in the extreme. Secondly, Elvis is the applicant’s name (though technically, in the UK at least, this wouldn’t prevent an opposition) and is a ‘standard’ first name.

Les Chavs Françaises

AHN reports that Louis Vuitton has settled a French suit with Sony BMG regarding the use of mocked up Louis Vuitton products in pop videos. Britney Spears drove a car with a dashboard covered in Louis Vuitton logos, rapper Da Brat was shown playing with a Louis Vuitton beach ball and Reuben Studdard (the winner of American Pop Idol) was pictured in a jacket with a Louis Vuitton emblem on the cover of his album.

LVMH’s IP Director said:

"We are very pleased to have successfully resolved these matters in a manner that protects our brand and our customers.

We believe the terms of this agreement will provide strong enough protection to our brand worldwide and we are gratified that Sony BMG has agreed to educate its record labels about our trademarks and copyrights in order to prevent the misuses of our intellectual property in the future."

The IPKat finds the issue a little difficult. The Kat can see why an association with Ms Spears might not be the best way to further a luxury image, but can brands really afford to pick and choose their customers (and can they really do so on a day to day basis?). These were essentially fake goods, or at least goods that Louis Vuitton hadn’t made, but what if Britney and her pals were, say, featured in a video boarding a plane, carrying a genuine Louis Vuitton suitcase? The argument about preserving the brand’s image would still apply, but it would make it impossible for artists to use branded goods in their videos, their works of art, in films etc. Do we really want to make artistic expression so difficult (and do we really want to put so much power in the hands of the trade mark owners). In the real world, goods feature their trade marks conspicuously. Shouldn’t artistic expressions be able to reflect this?

The IPKat also notes with interest that, although the videos were American, the case was set to take place in France.

For goodness sake, don't anyone tell LVMH about this pop video