Are we ready for Baby Googles?

In "Minnow Microsoft v the Google Giant", posted on the BBC website today, Rory Cellan-Jones writes on the competition-based complaint lodged by Microsoft with the European Commission. He explains:

"It's a familiar story - a scrappy little underdog launches a competition complaint in Brussels about the giant that dominates its industry. Ten years ago it would have been Netscape accusing Microsoft of abusing its monopoly power - today it's Microsoft charging Google with the same crime.

Microsoft's first ever competition complaint is not just a wonderfully ironic turn of events, it's a measure of how the balance of power on the web has shifted. A decade ago control of the desktop and what applications lived on it was still all important - now it's the control of search which delivers huge power and billions of advertising dollars to Google.

... Microsoft is determined that its Bing search engine should make serious headway. In Europe at least, that's not happening. According to Microsoft, Google has 95% of the search market. Now it claims that Google is using its power unfairly to maintain that dominance. Its complaint - which as Google points out is just an addition to an existing antitrust case in which a Microsoft subsidiary was already a complainant - is that the search company is putting walls around content that rivals need if they are to compete.

In a long blog post, Microsoft's chief legal counsel Brad Smith outlines a series of areas where he says Google is impeding competition. He claims that it's very difficult, for example, for rivals to get proper access to YouTube - owned by Google - for their search results.

He points to the Google Books plan - blocked by a US court last week - as another case where any other search engine will get poor access to valuable content, in this case millions of books.

And he says that Google uses its business relationship with leading websites to block them from installing competing search boxes on their sites. ..."

This member of the IPKat team is not surprised.  He has been telling his friends for the past four years that the only thing that can stop Google taking over the world, if people want to stop it doing so, is to focus on its crushingly powerful market position.  It is effectively impossible for any other business to compete with the combination of forces -- Google Book, Chrome, YouYube, AdWord and AdSense -- which together will inexorably drive so much individualised information into its marketing and advertising facilities that no other electronic or printed media will be remotely able to provide value for the money advertisers are prepared to spend in marketing their goods and services.

Is there a solution? It has always been axiomatic in European competition terms that the existence of a dominant position in a marketplace is not harmful unless it is abusive, but Google is so ominpowerful and omnipresent, and is such an essential facility for all traders in all markets at all times, that there is no way to deal with it other than by breaking it up into lots of Baby Googles that will be forced to compete with one another, by analogy with the Baby Bells and Standard Oil.

Goo-Goo Baby here

Rogue websites: a problem ... and a prize

If only cyber-pest control were so simple ...

The IPKat has made much in recent weeks of the difficulties faced by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in its battle with the World Intellectual Property Database (WIPD) over the latter's deceptive and misleading imitation website -- which remains obstinately online even several months after its existence was first reported (see earlier Katposts here, here and here, for example).  Interest is particularly keen in intellectual property circles because the WIPO is the United Nations agency charged with the promotion of intellectual property rights and it is its own IP rights that appear so difficult, if not impossible, for it to protect.  However, the issues at stake go far wider than WIPO since it could equally well have been any other UN agency that was the target of this infringing activity.

Let us take the following hypothesis.  This time it is not WIPO but its sister agency the World Health Organization (WHO) which faces a problem.   An imitation website, featuring an organisation calling itself the World Health Department (WHD), can be accessed on www.whd.biz [nb at the time of posting this item, that URL was a parked domain].  A logo closely similar to that of the WHO adorns the WHD's home page; the artwork and fonts are generally similar too.  There are no email, phone or fax contact details but, under "contact", an address in Prague, Czech Republic, is listed.  From this website the WHD offers "WHD-approved" medicines and pharmaceutical products. Some of these products are genuine pharma products with expired "use-by" dates; others are suspected of being counterfeit or of having no curative function. The WHD also sends materials to distributors and suppliers of pharmaceutical goods and to the health ministries of a number of developing countries; while carefully worded so as not to state that they are invoices for goods purchased, they look superficially as though they are.

Reports reach the WHO that this site exists and that its sales offers and not-quite-invoices have deceived or induced a number of businesses and recipients to place orders or pay money.  There are concerns that the activities of the WHD will place the health of consumers at risk, diminish the financial resources available for health in developing countries and damage the reputation of the WHO itself, since some people are convinced that the WHD is a service provided by it or under its auspices.

The WHO has written to the person named as owner of the website and has asked him to cease and desist. The individual in question has neither ceased nor desisted and, since the site earns him valuable income, he is unlikely to walk away from it without a struggle.  Now the WHO comes to you and seeks advice, informing you that it does not hold any registered trade marks for its name or logo but that it is entitled to a degree of legal protection under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention on Industrial Property Rights. 

Your brief is to sketch out a responsible, affordable and legal plan for taking out WHD's www.whd.biz website as swiftly and efficiently as possible, ensuring that it attracts as little traffic until this is achieved and that, as far as possible, there is no repetition of this deception by its perpetrator. 

Please send your advice to the IPKat by email here, with the subject line "Rogue sites", by close of play on Sunday 6 February 2011.  The best entries will be hosted on this weblog and readers will be given the chance to vote for the winner.   The prize?  A brand-new copy of Alexander Tsoutsanis's excellent Trade Mark Registrations in Bad Faith, just published by Oxford University Press (details here).

Standards and Patents: a conference and a competition

The Fourth Annual Conference on Standards and Patents, organised by IBC Legal Conferences and which will be held in the Crowne Plaza London St James (whoever thought up that name for a hotel?), takes place on 16 and 17 November.  The IPKat is looking forward to it since he, his associated weblog PatLit and legendary US weblog Patently-O are among the event's many media sponsors.  The panel of speakers over the two days is unusually strong, featuring leading specialist patent judges, lawyers and patent owners, and contains many of the Kat's friends -- but that's not the only reason for attending. The programme itself addresses topics of great relevance in those industrial sectors where huge profits can be obtained if patent licensing policy, IP rules and competition barriers are all correctly sorted out -- while huge losses, market exclusion and commercial wipe-out can result if you get just one small thing wrong.  Topics covered include

• Patent pooling
• The market for patent portfolios
• Trolls and non-practising entities
• Paying for patent litigation and cost-shifting
• Competition law and policy issues in principle and in practice
• The impact of change on standards bodies

You can view the whole programme, and registration details, by clicking here.  Use this link and, as an IPKat reader, you'll be entitled to a generous 10% discount on the cost of registration.

In traditional IPKat fashion, there's a competition to go with the conference.  Win this and you will enjoy the benefit of complimentary registration, two networking lunches, four networking breaks and two cups of registration coffee. As for the competition, well -- it's time for poetry again!  Your task is to compose a limerick that begins with the words "A crafty inventor called Fred".  Closing date for entries is Sunday 24 October.  Email your entries to the IPKat here, with the subject line "Patent limerick".  Beware: the best entries will be published on this weblog ...

The next "must-have" accessory: competition

The second of this week's two IPKat competitions (the first is here) relates to the forthcoming annual conference, Intellectual Property in the Fashion Industry: Handbags at dawn! This enjoyable event, held in Central London on Tuesday 21 September, is chaired by IPKat team blogger Jeremy, who will be responsible for keeping order while a lively bundle of speakers provides news, views, advice and sage counsel on the state of play for IP in the fashion sector.

Right: when Tibbles got it home and took it out of the box, he was most annoyed to discover that it clashed with his natural fur colours ...

The rules of the competition are simple. You have been asked to nominate next year's "must-have" accessory for the smart and savvy intellectual property lawyer (male or female). What's needed is something that makes him/her look highly professional, dead effective and ultra-cool. Tell us what it is -- and why -- and can win the prize: complimentary admission to this exciting and thoroughly enjoyable event (plus a delicious lunch). To enter the competition, email the IPKat here, with the subject line "Accessory". Closing date is close of play on Sunday 5 September, so you'd better get your fashion brains working.

You can peruse the Handbags at Dawn programme here.

A menu fit for a ... patent attorney

The IPKat is launching some new competitions this month. The first is in honour of this year's Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys' (CIPA) Congress, IP in the New Decade, which takes place in the capacious yet comfy surroundings of the Lancaster Hotel, London on 30 September and 1 October. The prize for this competition is complimentary registration to this premier event -- giving you a wonderful opportunity to rub shoulders with speakers and dignitaries, patent attorneys, IP administrators and those friendly folk who are trained to tempt you to take just one more canapé ...

The competition is very simple. A much-appreciated feature of the programme each year is the Gala Dinner. Your task is to compose a full menu for this sumptuous banquet which consists entirely of items -- real or imaginary -- which are appropriate fare for the patent profession. Entries should be received by close of play on Friday 17 September. Please email your creative output to the IPKat here, with the subject line "Tasty Patent Menu". The best entries [says Merpel, are you sure you don't mean 'entrées'?] will be published on this weblog when the identity of the winner is announced.

More information on the CIPA Congress here; full programme details here; favourite canapés here.

The IPKat's next competition will be offering complimentary admission to this year's Handbags at Dawn: IP and Fashion conference (conference programme here). Watch this space for further details.

Letter from AmeriKat II: Bits 'n Bobs

Viacom v YouTube gets ******** ugly : The AmeriKat has previously reported on the amazingly brutal mudfight between Viacom and YouTube here, but the documents that were disclosed last Friday have been the cherry on the litigation disclosure cake. Favorite quotes include those "Google bastards" and, referring to companies who wanted their content removed from YouTube as "copyright cop a**holes". According to Ars Technica, the most interesting disclosure was a YouTube training manual that stated that "user generated content should never be monitored." All makes for entertaining reading, but one hopes that few swear words and hilarious catchphrases should not detract the court from the key questions in this case. For Google's news on this recent disclosure click here, for Viacom's version click here.

Superman litigation heats up, up, and away: Last Friday, Warner Bros. company, DC Comics, filed a copyright and interference with contract claim against Los Angeles attorney Marc Toberoff in LA federal court. Toberoff was representing the heirs of the Superman creators- Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster -in their battle with Warner Bros. The complaint alleges that the creators of Superman never terminated DC Comic's copyright to Superman and that their heirs agreed to royalty agreements for the duration of the copyright. The suit argues that Toberoff induced the families to repudiate the agreements and terminate DC's Superman copyright in an attempt to reclaim the copyright in the superhero. The complaint also alleges that Toberoff sought a financial interest in Superman by securing the families' claims by orchestrating

"a web of collusive agreements concerning the Superman copyrights with the heirs to the co-creators of Superman...By these agreements, Toberoff purported to secure a majority and controlling financial stake in copyright interests in Superman...and preclude the heirs from freely entering into new agreements with DC Comics for the continued exploitation of Superman."

Toberoff replied to the complaint:

“Having lost repeatedly on the merits over the last five and a half years in 'Superman’ litigation. Warner Bros. and their new attorney Dan Petrocelli have now launched a libelous personal attack against me and my clients.”

Warner Bros. stated:

“DC has spent decades working constructively with our talent and creators and we look forward to a speedy resolution of these matters so we can continue to share Superman with all his many fans for generations to come.”

Warner Bros. have hired Daniel Petrocelli (O'Melveny & Myers) to fight the contractual terminations between DC Comics and the heirs. Petrocelli was the attorney who aided Disney's win in the merchandising right battle against the heirs to Winnie the Pooh.

USPTO Announce Workshop: Two weeks ago, the USPTO announced that on 26 May 2010 they will hold a joint public workshop on "the intersection of patent policy and competition policy and its implications for promoting innovation." That is not an overly broad topic at all, says the AmeriKat. Kappos and Friends will be in attendance, including Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division Christine Varney and FTC Commissioner Edith Ramirez. Kappos had this to say about the workshop:

“Since innovation is the only sustainable source of America’s competitive advantage, the relationship between intellectual property, which captures the value of innovation, and competition policy, which maintains a dynamic
marketplace for innovation, is of paramount importance. This conference is designed to explore the relationship between competition policy and intellectual property policy and how it fosters innovation.”

The morning panel will consider the challenges posed by the patent backlog and its affect on competitive strategies of applicants, as well as considering the impact of the Supreme Courts 2006 opinion in eBay Inc v MercExchange. The afternoon panel will consider the role of patents impact on industry standards and competition.

Heroes gets sued: Graphic novel author, Jason Barnes (aka Jazan Wild) has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against NBC Universal alleging that season 4 of the popular TV show Heroes copies plot details from his novels Carnival of Souls. The suit states that the first two episodes "introduce a traveling carnival virtually identical to that in [Barnes']s original, copyrighted works" including the replication of Jamaican Vodoo witchdoctors. NBC Universal told Entertainment Weekly that they believed the lawsuit to be "meritless". For a side-to-side comparison of the two click here.

That new WIPO logo

As many of his readers may have noticed, while the Kats were at play yesterday, celebrating World Intellectual Property Day, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) unveiled its new logo. According to WIPO's press release,

"The new logo reflects the Organization’s dynamism and innovative spirit [Merpel asks mischievously, is that why there's a huge empty space in the middle of it?], and is a powerful symbol of WIPO’s revitalization and strategic reorientation [?]. It is based on a graphic representation of the WIPO headquarters’ building [prior art!], an iconic structure familiar to all WIPO member states and stakeholders. The color blue links the Organization with the United Nations [and Chelsea Football Club: click here for a stirring rendition of "Blue is the Colour"]. The seven curved lines represent the seven elements of IP, as set out in the WIPO Convention:

* literary, artistic and scientific works,
* performances of performing artists, phonograms, and broadcasts,
* inventions in all fields of human endeavor,
* scientific discoveries,
* industrial designs,
* trademarks, service marks, and commercial names and designations,
* protection against unfair competition, and all other rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields [doesn't leave much out, does it?].

The gathering sweep of the curves is inclusive - WIPO is an open forum, welcoming all stakeholders and points of view. The dynamic, upward pitch of the curves represents ideas, movement, and the progress which comes from innovation and creativity. This rests on a strong foundation, the name and acronym of the Organization, representing its long-standing role at the center of international IP policy. The logo’s clean modern lines reflect the trust, reliability and efficiency which are key to WIPO’s corporate image".

The IPKat, who actually quite likes the new logo and really didn't care much for the old one, has resisted the churlish urge to invite readers to seek out any earlier registered marks that use similar curves, but is instead happy to offer a complimentary one-year electronic subscription to the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) to anyone who can suggest the best alternative explanation of the logo to what offered by WIPO itself. Entries, please, to the IPKat here, by close of play on Sunday 30 May.

Conference and competition: a reminder!

"Ownership and Control of IP Rights: guidance on the complicated issues which arise with these increasingly important assets" is the title of a one-day conference, organised by CLT Conferences and held in Central London on Monday 10 May 2010. Topic covered are

* Ownership and Control of IP: What are the Key Issues?
* Ownership and Control of IP in Joint Ventures and Collaborations
* IP and Abuse of Control
* Commissioned Works and the Special Position of the Independent Contractor
* Inventions and Innovations Created by Employees: who Owns, who Controls?
* Extra Remuneration for Employee Inventors: When is An Employee Inventor Entitled to Additional Remuneration?
* Ownership and Control of IP: Practical Guidance for Acquisitions

The full brochure and speaker details can be seen here. There's even a "Compose an Anthem" competition (here), for which the prize is complimentary admission. IPKat team blogger Jeremy is in the chair. See you there?

"I love IP Dispute Resolution because ..."

Earlier this week the IPKat offered readers the chance to win a free place to this week's IP Dispute Resolution & Conflict Management conference, which is being held on Thursday and Friday, 25 and 26 March, in Central London. To recap, this conference is an opportunity to hear advice from some high-profile speakers, including Lord Justice Jacob and Anthony Robb-John (easyGroup IP Licensing). All readers had to do was to say, in ten words or less, how they'd complete the following sentence: "I love IP dispute resolution because ...".

Curiously, although the IPKat received many entries, very few of them commended themselves to him as showing the sort of profound insight that we expect from Lord Justice Jacob -- whose name, by sheer coincidence, appeared in quite a few of them.

Chris Atkinson, annoyed at missing out on last year's haiku competition, gave us this: ""I love IP dispute resolution because ...

Everyone's a winner, baby,

that's no lie!...
Edmund Irvine disagrees".

But that's no haiku either, according to the classical rules for their composition [For the benefit of anyone wondering who Edmund Irvine is, it's Eddie Irvine, motor racing driver and ultimately successful litigant].

Chris Reps (an ITMA student member) offers: "I love IP dispute resolution because … despite revolutions, time is still money".

Pete Sadler (patent attorney, Reddie & Grose) suggests this: "I love IP dispute resolution because ... everyone loves a bargain".

And now for the winning entry:

Robert Carolina (Origin) was obviously speaking from the heart when he offered this: "I love IP dispute resolution because ... it so often produces irrational, counterproductive, emotion-driven, business decisions", citing in support, though not as part of his 10 word allocation, "the ruinously expensive and (in my opinion) irrational behaviour of RIM management in the famous US case of NTP v RIM".

Okay, Robert. Now you can go to the conference and see what the experts say about converting irrational client behaviour into handsome profits ...

Owning and controlling IP: another event, another competition

There's a conference coming up on 10 May under the title "Ownership and Control of IP Rights". With a London venue and a stellar cast, it should be fun. It's also a slightly historical event, being the first conference to carry the new "IPKat-approved" legend. Conference booking and programme details can be viewed here.

To mark this event, which carries 6 CPD points, the IPKat is running another competition. The prize, as usual, is complimentary entry and lunch (the regular fee is £495 + VAT). The rules are simple. Since Monday 26 April is World Intellectual Property Day 2010, the IPKat is looking for an Intellectual Property Anthem which we can all sing [subject to copyright clearance?asks Merpel] on the day itself.

Right: the Cats' Chorus prepares to sing the Intellectual Property Anthem

The closing date for entries is Sunday 18 April. Please send your compositions to the IPKat here, stating clearly whether you might face dismissal if your name appears among the ranks of authors of the best published entries. Note: this competition is also open to employees of WIPO ...

National anthems downloadable here

Worst renditions of the Star-Spangled Banner here and here

Longest national anthems here and here (or why everyone's praying that Greece will never play Ukraine in the World Cup Final ...)

You thought your legal qualification would save you from a job stacking shelves ...?

The IPKat is keeping an eye out for further developments in the litigation between the popular Guernsey-based UK high-street optician chain Specsavers and Wal-Mart's UK presence Asda, in a row over alleged trade mark infringement and copycat advertising. According to Times Online, Specsavers says Asda's use of the slogan "Be a real spec saver at Asda” is calculated to mislead customers and damage its business. It also objects to the use of Asda's logo (left) which, it maintains, is confusingly similar to its own (right).

Yesterday Mr Justice Kitchin (Chancery Division, England and Wales) ordered an April 2010 trial on the basis that there was sufficient evidence to believe that Asda’s campaign could threaten Specsavers’ reputation to bring the trial forward. Specsavers’ had argued that it should be held as early as January. Hugh Cuddigan (counsel for Asda) is however reported as having informed the court that its solicitors (Pinsent Masons) would need additional time to prepare their client's defence since they would be stacking supermarket shelves over Christmas. Apparently a Pinsent Masons team has agreed to work for Asda free of charge for three days during the Christmas period in order to understand its business better. Asda also preferred the later date because its lawyers planned to conduct a wide-ranging survey of Asda shoppers to determine whether they had been misled by its advertising. The IPKat interjects at this point that the Pinsent Masons website, which makes no apparent reference to this item at the time this article was posted, leads with the impressive banner "Welcome to Pinsent Masons: the Global 100 law firm that's working hard to make it easier for clients". Indeed it is.

As a gesture of Christmas goodwill, Asda plans to stop using its “Be a better spec saver” slogan after this week -- but that's about as far as the goodwill goes. The supermarket will continue using the “elliptical lozenges” logo in its stores and on its website despite Specsavers’ complaints.

By a felicitious coincidence, as the Optician reports, counsel for Specsavers is ... Adrian Speck.

The IPKat wonders what Asda would have to make its shoppers pay if it charged its shelf-stackers out at their usual hourly rates.

Merpel says, there's a copy of the just-published 9th edition of the Butterworths Intellectual Property Law Handbook for the best law firm-related caption to go with the Asda staff photo on the right. Please email your caption to the IPKat with the subject line 'Asda'. Closing date, midnight on Sunday 8 November. This competition is open even to employees of Asda and Pinsent Masons.

The End of Lawyers here

Copying without Infringing: a competition!

It's no secret that the IPKat is already getting ever so excited about the forthcoming Copying Without Infringing conference, scheduled for 24 November with IPKat team member Jeremy in the chair (click here for the full colour brochure). As in previous years he has twisted the arms and various other parts of the organisers' respective anatomies in order to procure a complimentary place plus delicious lunch and conference notes -- worth £495 plus VAT -- to anyone fortunate enough to win this year's competition.

The rules of the competition are simple. Please compose a haiku, according to the traditional Japanese rules, on one of the three subjects (all of which have something to do with the borders of infringing/non-infringing use of IP rights):

* fair dealing/fair use;

* the Bolar exemption;

* use of trade marks as AdWords.

You can enter as many times as you want, but (i) the closing date for entries is midnight, Greenwich Mean Time, on 31 October; (ii) entries must be sent by email with the subject line 'Haiku'; (iii) anyone whose haiku consists of sycophantic praise for the IPKat, Merpel or Tufty will be disqualified, even if the entry is published; (iv) the IPKat will publish the best entries unless the person submitting expressly states that he or she will be dismissed for sending them. Merpel, recalling previous competitions, adds a hint: streams of conscience in the style of James Joyce are not considered haikus; nor are limericks.

Standard setting antitrust investigation dropped; Canada rejects business method patents

Rambus competition probe to be dropped

Forbes reports that Rambus and the European Commission have reached an agreement that will see the Commission dropping its antitrust probe into Rambus. The investigation has considered whether Rambus abused its dominant position by setting overly-high royalties for licensing DRAM patents that it was alleged were fraudulently set as industry standards. In return, Rambus will cap certain licence fees for 5 years and will ensure any fee cuts benefit the whole market. The agreement still needs the approval of other industry players.

Had this gone the whole way, the IPKat wouldn't have envied the Commission in trying to figure out what 'excessive royalties' are in this situation.



Canada rejects business method patents

Meanwhile, the Inquirer reports that the Canadian Patent Appeals Board has said a firm no to business method patents. Speaking in an appeal against a decision to refuse the registration of Amazon's One-Click method for buying goods online the Board said:

"since patenting business methods would involve a radical departure from the traditional patent regime, and since the patentability of such methods is a highly contentious matter, clear and unequivocal legislation is required for business methods to be patentable."

The IPKat is no fan of providing patent protection for anything as fundamental as business methods and welcomes the decision.

Conference and competition reminder

There are now just three weeks to the Thirteenth Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference. Organised by CLT and endorsed by the IPKat (team blogger Jeremy is by longstanding tradition in the chair), this event is held in Central London on Thursday 29 January and is packed full of excitement.

This year's programme has 10 individual speakers, a Celebrity Panel discussion and ends with a sponsored cocktail reception. Although it would be invidious to single out any of the speakers for special mention, this programme has some novelties this time around:

* Dawn Osborne (Rouse) offers the latest wisdom on internet-related trade mark infringements, ketwords, adwords and internet auctions;

* Ian Karet (Linklaters) will be laying bare some of the mysteries of patent infringement in the light of recent case law, also touching on the ongoing battle for the heart of software patents;

* Joel Barry (Olswang) is presenting some perspectives on current trade mark infringement, not forgetting the recent European Court of Justice ruling in Intel v CPM;

* Sean Dennehey (IPO) considers the road to IP reform following the Gowers Report and how the Intellectual Property Office has been engaged in this process;

* A panel of IP celebrity experts will be coming to discuss some of the latest issues.

You can read all the programme details and speakers' biographies, and find the booking form, if you click here. In previous years this event has been well worthwhile and highly rated by participants. See you there?

There's also a competition, for which the prize is free registration for this conference.  Now that the fight against counterfeits and IP infringements has become one of the major issues of our time and Superman, Batman etc have failed to defeat the evil perpetrators, readers are invited to invent some new Superheroes who might just do the job. Please send your entries (more than one entry per person is fine) to the IPKat here, with the subject line Superheroes -- and, please, no SuperKat... Closing date, next Thursday 15 January 2009. You don't have to attend the conference in order to enter the competition ...

Congratulations ... and a competition

The IPKat congratulates his friends Richard Ebbink, Ruprecht Hermans, Mark van Gardingen, Jan Brinkhof, Peter Burgers, from Dutch IP firm Brinkhof, for scooping two awards at Informa’s Worldleaders International IP Awards 2008 in the Europe/Middle East/Africa zone -- one award was for IP Law firm of the Year, the other being for Patent Litigator of the Year (Richard Ebbink). The photographic evidence suggests either that they had been transported to a location in Africa for their celebrations with Nelson Mandela or that they were waxing merry at Madame Tussauds.

The IPKat felt that this picture was good enough for a caption competition. What are the Brinkhof Boys saying? Or what words of wisdom has the illustrious Nelson Mandela just imparted? Do let us know! The winner gets free admission to CLT's Annual Intellectual Property Round-Up conference in London on 29 January 2009 (see programme details here). Entries to reach the Kat by email not later than 31 December 2008.