 |
LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETY
|
The Commonwealth Games Merchandising ProgrammeThe XVII Commonwealth Games are to be held in Manchester between 25th July and 4th August 2002 and will be the most significant multi-discipline sporting event held in England since the 1948 Olympic Games. The 17 different sporting events comprising the Games will be watched by an expected 1 million spectators and a global audience of over 1 billion television viewers. The Games will be the culmination of the Spirit of Friendship Festival, a series of cultural events and festivals to celebrate the Commonwealth and Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee. The large scale merchandising and retail programme which is to be launched in connection with the Games is one of the many business opportunities which will be open to local and national businesses over the next 18 months during the run up to the Games. Manchester 2002 Limited, the company responsible for the staging of the Games, is currently inviting tenders from companies interested in participating in the Games Merchandising Programme and expects to award the majority of its key licences before the end of February this year. As demonstrated by the success of the recent Sydney 2000 Olympic Games Licensing Programme, there is a very strong retail market demand for large event merchandise. The Games will provide a local, national and international arena, within which the retail community can showcase their products and brands. Unlike most traditional retail products, event merchandise is sought after by all types of consumers whose interest in the event has been captured, whether men or women, young or old, local or tourist. The key properties, which M2002 will be licensing, include the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games logo, the Games mascot "Kit" and mascot signature, the Golden Jubilee designations, the Team England logo and the pictograms adopted by M2002 depicting the 17 different sporting events. Licensing of these properties will be considered in relation to a wide product range, including general apparel, sporting equipment, accessories, jewellery, collectables, promotional items and concessions. In addition to the sale of merchandise at all Games venues and Games shops in and around Manchester, it is envisaged that merchandise will be distributed by licensees via other distribution channels such as retail shops, e-commerce, mail order catalogues and transport centres such as airports. M2002 will work with its licensees and major retailers to encourage the full exploitation of the various avenues for promotion and sales of its licensed products. Licences will, however, be restricted to distribution within the UK, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The selection of suitable licensees by M2002 is key to the success of the Merchandising Programme, which in turn is key to the success of the Games. Essential to the value of the Programme will be the high quality of the products distributed, their availability to the consumer at affordable prices and the presentation of a cohesive range of products to promote the Games. Factors influencing the choice of licensees for each product category will include previous experience in event merchandising, retail channels currently supplied and those sought, capacity for product development and manufacture, the creative and innovative nature of the products and the implementation of satisfactory quality control procedures. Above all, M2002 will be looking for licensees who are willing to work with M2002 and one another to make the programme a success. The Merchandising Programme will play a significant role in building public awareness and recognition of the Games and consequently will form a key part of the public face of the Games. Please contact Jason Harborow on 0161 817 2002 for further information. By Rachael Patten, Addleshaw Booth & Co and Jason Harborow, Manchester 2002 Limited Top President's Diary
Another year has begun and I wish you all a happy and prosperous 2001! As President of LES B & I and also Chairman of the Environmental Technologies Committee of LESI, I shall be attending the expanded LESI Directors' meeting to be held on Saturday/Sunday 27th and 28th January at Delray Beach. This is essentially a planning meeting with the Presidents from all the national societies and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of as many LESI committees as possible. An opportunity also arises in Delray for a European Presidents' meeting, where co-operation between the European societies will be discussed, including future pan European meetings, events and venues. Preparation for the Annual Lunch is now complete and I trust you will all enjoy this opportunity for networking. If you have not already made your reservation I encourage you to contact Renate Siebrasse (siebrasse@medtap.co.uk) immediately! This event has long been a highlight of the LES B & I calendar and combined with this year's morning meeting entitled, "European Patent Law - All Change?" is an ideal opportunity for you to catch up with the proposed changes and discuss their impact with other professionals. The outline program for the AGM on 28th/29th June, at St Catherine's College, Oxford, is complete and will be circulated shortly to all members. The speakers are being confirmed and with the conference content being of high quality, early booking is recommended to guarantee your place (and take advantage of the "early booking discount"!). I will be attending the Council meeting in January, followed by the meeting in Delray, the Scotland Region's Burns' evening and then the Annual Lunch. I hope to see you at one of these events if not all three! The next three weeks will be busy! Chris Goodman
Confident that your patents and trademarks will protect your IP…?Michael Beckett reported in the Daily Telegraph recently that companies asserting their legal rights too forcefully may find the law turning against them when trying to protect their trademarks and patents. It appears that the person being sued may turn on the company defending its IP on the basis of "groundless threats"! Lawyers seem unable to agree on how far a business can go to defend its legal rights, most saying that anything more than a standard letter drawing attention to the existence of a trademark or patent may provoke a business to counter-sue. Michael Gardener (of Wedlake Bell) reported that the burden of proof is on the person who issued the threats to show that there has been a clear case of abuse, which would have to be stopped by law. Some of the limits were set out in a case in March last year of L'Oréal v Johnson & Johnson, which has set a precedent for subsequent litigation. Mr Justice Lightman defined a threat as anything suggesting a person has trademark rights and intends to take legal steps to enforce them. One outcome of this case is that if a trademark turns out to be invalid or is likely to be revoked in a significant way then the trademark holder will be liable for the "groundless threats". The Institute of Trademark Attorneys has "reassured" its members by saying that none of this means that a trademark or patent cannot be defended! (From an article in The Daily Telegraph 2.1.01) |
Top
IP Awareness Group Report"Are brands good for Britain?" is a reprint of the inaugural brands lecture given by Tim Ambler of the London Business School. Brands provide consumer benefits of three kinds:
He identifies brand equity as "the upstream reservoir of cash flow before it hits the profit and loss account". Leading brand companies know that their brands are their most valuable assets but for others this truth is still to dawn. The performance of Britain in branding terms is assessed on a European and international basis. He identifies a price premium of a branded product as a form of risk insurance. We would rather spend £10 on a bottle of vodka we know will please us rather than £9 on a bottle that may not. Copies of the paper are available from British Brands Group, 8 Henrietta Place, London W1M 9AG; e-mail bbg@b-brands.prestel.co.uk. The second paper consisted of the bullet points of a MORI report commissioned by the Patent Office into the attitude of the general public to intellectual property. A group of 26 people from all backgrounds were assessed over a whole day regarding their awareness of and views about IP. The main conclusion was that IP has a low level of awareness and understanding amongst the general public. One participant thought that intellectual property related to "posh houses"! The language used in connection with IP is perceived as impenetrable and elitist and would need to be radically overhauled before any realistic campaign could be launched to improve nationwide awareness. The juxtaposition of the two papers highlighted the anomaly that our brand "IP." has no effective recognition factor amongst the general population…… Stephen Powell, Chair LES Education Committee Top
www.intellectual-property.gov.ukA 17 tonne industrial shredder greeted those attending the recent launch by the DTI of its Intellectual Property Portal website. The shredder was present to consume counterfeit CDs and other goods to emphasise the damage that counterfeiting causes to the U.K. economy. An estimated £8 billion is lost each year which, as one speaker observed, would pay for free dental treatment throughout the U.K. Opening the conference, and formally launching the website, Dr Kim Howells, Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, admitted that the concept of intellectual property rights was a difficult one to convey to the public. It was hard to overcome the widespread misconception that counterfeiting is a "victimless crime". He was followed by a glittering array of speakers representing organisations which supported the aims of the website to educate and inform. The author Joanna Trollope and Duncan Kenworthy, the producer of the film "Nottinghill", emphasised the importance of copyright protection. For example, full payment of royalties was essential to the film industry to finance the many films which were not a commercial success. Many of the speakers also identified the adverse effects of counterfeiting on levels of employment. Trevor Pearce of the National Crime Squad noted that organised crime was increasingly shifting from excise avoidance and drugs to counterfeited goods. Stephen Rubin representing the British Sports Industry and Digby Carter of the Crimestopper Trust noted that the addition of an anti-counterfeiting department to the Crimestoppers operation had resulted in increased detection. A pilot operation in the North West in 2000 was to be rolled out nationally in 2001. Dick Diploic appealed for central funding for legal actions instituted by Trading Standards Officers. Local authorities could not always fund the high costs involved. TSOs also needed extra powers for enforcement, in particular the right to have subscriber checks on the telephone accounts of suspected counterfeiters. Terry Onslow of the Crime Unit gave an example of copyrighted music and films and also viruses freely obtained over the web. Finally, Richard Puddephatt, Chairman of the Anti-Counterfeiting Group identified the particular dangers, sometimes fatal, of fake medicines and alcoholic drinks. The DTI website is intended to stimulate interaction. Have a look and let them have your comments. Stephen Powell, Chair LES Education Committee Top Trademarks on the Internet Irish and European jurisdictional issuesSome curious analogies are made when courts are forced to grapple with trademark infringement on the Internet. A recent English High Court decision described the Internet as an electronic telescope which enables the user-customer to focus on the activities of a foreign trader via that trader's website . The case concerned, inter alia, the alleged infringement of a United Kingdom registered trademark via the Internet by a trader operating in Ireland. Such decisions show that the European courts are still struggling with the idea of the Internet as a medium which affects rights from a distance. Some jurisdictions, including Ireland, have yet to witness litigation relating to web infringement disputes. Nonetheless, the judgements emerging from various jurisdictions suggest that similar principles are being applied in these cases as have been developed in the United States. In particular, two clear and overriding issues have arisen. The first issue is the degree of impact a website must have on a distant forum in order for the courts of that forum to exercise jurisdiction over the foreign website operator. The Internet acts as a global electronic marketplace. Its increased commercialisation has led to the widespread appearance on the medium of the definitive indicator of origin, quality and brand identification - the trademark. The medium presents a unique opportunity for traders resident in one jurisdiction to infiltrate or have an impact in the market of another jurisdiction without establishing a physical presence there. Where the operator of a website places a trademark on its site, how is the question of infringement to be determined? The second and related issue concerns the choice of forum in which to sue in respect of a breach of rights. In Europe, there are no harmonised rules which cover trademark infringement on the Internet. However, the Brussels and Lugano Conventions provide rules for the forum of inter-jurisdictional disputes within Europe. Relevant rules in the context of the Internet are that a defendant must be sued in the country of his or her domicile. In relation to tort proceedings (a category into which trademark infringement, passing-off and unfair competition suits would fall) suit may be brought in the place where the harmful act occurred, e.g. where the damage was suffered or where the infringing act took place. Further, some countries, including Ireland, recognise a registered trademark as a property right. Therefore, proceedings in relation to any alleged infringement of the trademark must be instituted in the country of registration . Clearly, the choice of forum dictated by the place of registration of a trademark or the domicile of the defendant is a straightforward exercise. The issue becomes difficult when the plaintiff must sue in the place where the harmful act took place. The Euromarket Designs case has provided a useful indication of how the European common law courts might deal with the issue of the type of activity necessary to make a defendant answerable to the courts of another jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a US corporation, was the owner of the registered trademark CRATE & BARREL in the United Kingdom in respect of household goods in Class 21. Despite having a profitable trade in the USA in the furniture and household retail sector, the plaintiff did not actually trade under their mark in the United Kingdom. The defendant began to operate a retail outlet in Dublin under the identical name "Crate & Barrel", selling furniture and other household goods. As part of its continuing advertising, the defendant set up a website under the domain name "www.crateandbarrel-ie.com". The home page of the website featured a picture of a piece of furniture, the words "Crate & Barrel" and the slogan "an emporium of furnishings and accessories on four floors". The plaintiff instituted proceedings in the United Kingdom alleging infringement of its statutory trademark rights by, inter alia, the defendant's use of the trademark CRATE & BARREL on a website which was accessible to UK residents. The plaintiff contended that the Internet is a globally accessible medium and that it followed that the defendants had used the plaintiff's trademark in the United Kingdom in breach of its rights. Any visitor to the site would assume that the retail services were available to him and were being provided by the plaintiff or an entity related to the plaintiff. In giving summary judgement on this point to the defendants, Mr Justice Jacob analysed the particular features of the defendant's domain name and website. He concluded that it was clear to a visitor of the website that Crate & Barrel as advertised thereon was a shop. Further, if the visitor could identify .ie as the country code of Ireland, he would know that the shop was located in Ireland. There was therefore no reason why a visitor to the site from a physical location in the UK would believe that the site was directed at him. Turning to his telescope analogy, the judge reasoned that, like a telescope, the Internet allows the user to look into the defendant's shop in Dublin without having physical access to the goods or services provided. Unfortunately, the judge declined to give a definitive decision on the issue at summary stage. In particular, he stated that the issue of whether the defendant had intentionally misappropriated the name of the plaintiff was one which could not be determined without a proper trial of the issue. In a similar case in Italy recently , the company Carpoint SpA was the registered owner of the trademark CARPOINT in Italy in respect of cars, repair services and other car-related services since 1996. The company also operated a website under the domain name www.carpoint.it. It subsequently came to the plaintiff's attention that Microsoft Corporation was operating a website within its "MSN" network which used the domain name "carpoint.msn.com". This website was used to sell cars on-line. Carpoint SpA took infringement proceedings against Microsoft in Italy, arguing that the latter's use of the domain name carpoint.msn.com was an infringement of its Italian trademark rights in CARPOINT. It sought an injunction preventing Microsoft from further using the trademark CARPOINT, inter alia, as a domain name or on the Internet. In its defence, Microsoft argued that the Italian court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case under the provisions of the Brussels Convention. In particular, it contended that the alleged harmful event had not occurred in Italy. The defendant operated its site from the United States, in the English language and from a server located outside of Italy. Further, the Microsoft site did not make any direct offer of sale to consumers located in Italy. In totality, Microsoft's use of the trademark CARPOINT was entirely outside the geographic location of Italy and could not be enjoined. In analysing Microsoft's argument, the judge stated that the resolution of the conflict between the Internet as a worldwide disseminator of messages and the issue of trademark infringement could not be solved "by imposing an absolute duty of abstention from the use of the trademark, which extends also to Italy, upon its rightful owner, when the rightholder does not introduce products into the country but simply gives notice of them through the Internet, which is a global communications method". The judge stated that it is insufficient that a trademark is contained on a website, which trademark is owned by another party in the place where the website is viewed. In denying relief to the plaintiff, the judge considered that there was no risk of confusion in the minds of the Italian public between the goods and services which the plaintiff offered under its trademark in Italy and those which were advertised via the defendant's website. The defendant's website was presented in the English language, the prices and taxes quoted for the cars were in US dollars and the site could only be accessed by a person having a residence and zip code in the United States. Interestingly, the judge emphasised the US decision in Bluenote . The general rule which has emerged from this and other US cases is that the mere availability of information on a website will not support, of itself, the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of a distant forum over the website operator. Something more than accessibility is required, namely, the active solicitation of customers or the active interaction of those customers with the defendant's website. This is a sensible view. If mere accessibility of a website containing a trademark was considered sufficient to attach jurisdiction, then theoretically worldwide clearance of prior rights would have to be undertaken before a given trademark was used on a website. The reasoning also indirectly recognises the territorial nature of the trademark: identical trademarks for the same or similar goods or services are legitimately owned and used by different traders in different jurisdictions. So, can mere availability of a trademark constitute infringement?. According to the Italian court in Carpoint, mere availability is not enough. However, without harmonising rules in Europe, the view taken will depend on the national court's analysis of its trademark rules. To take Irish law as an example, Section 14(4) of the Irish Trademarks Act, 1996 states that infringement of a registered trademark can occur by the use of an infringing sign "on business papers or in advertising". This sanction is not further qualified by reference to use of the sign on business papers or in advertising in the State. Theoretically, therefore, the placement of a trademark on a website as an advertising mechanism, which is capable of being viewed by Irish consumers and which trademark would infringe the rights of the registered owner in Ireland if such activity was physically carried on in Ireland, would constitute infringing use under Section 14(4). The UK Trademarks Act 1994 contains a similar provision. In the Euromarket Designs case, however, Jacob J. did not consider that the mere use and availability of the trademark in advertising on the Internet was sufficient. The fact that UK customers may become aware of the ex-jurisdictional activities of another trader is not enough to lure the sanction of the court. The case is, of course, different where real damage has occurred to the goodwill held by the trader under its mark as a result of on-line activity. The recognition of a right of action in such a situation has been recognised in the interlocutory decision of the English Chancery Division in the case of Mecklermedia Corporation v DC Congress GmbH . The plaintiff was the owner of the trademark INTERNET WORLD in the UK. The defendant, a German company (who used a German web server) was restrained from passing off in the UK its INTERNET WORLD trade show and exhibitions which were intended to be held in Germany but which were advertised in the United Kingdom via the defendant's web site. The action was legitimately brought in the English courts as the on-line acts of the defendant resulted in damage to the goodwill of the plaintiff in that jurisdiction. There is another interesting point to note with regard to the willingness of the courts to attach liability to a trader. In relation to the common law action of passing-off as recognised in Ireland and the UK, damage to the goodwill or reputation of the aggrieved trader must occur. The court in the Mecklermedia case gave clear recognition to the possibility of damage over the Internet. However, traditionally, the UK courts will not recognise the existence of a reputation outside their own jurisdiction. Rather, the view is taken that goodwill is established by virtue of a trading presence. It is instructive to note that the Mecklermedia case involved a UK resident plaintiff. If the plaintiff was not trading in the UK but chose to sue a defendant in the UK on the basis of damage to goodwill in the UK due to the availability of a website to UK consumers, the situation would have been very different. According to the precedents established in cases such as Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Budejovicky Budvar NP and Athlete's Foot Marketing Associates Inc. v Cobra Sports Ltd. , no damage to goodwill in the UK would be recognised. The situation is different in Ireland. In C&A Modes Ltd. v C&A (Waterford) Ltd. the Irish courts recognised that damage to goodwill can arise even in the absence of a trading presence in the country. It is therefore possible that a plaintiff could successfully sue for passing-off in Ireland where a defendant's web activities somehow damaged the plaintiff's goodwill there. Conclusion Historically, the trademark litigant has been able to determine the extent of their rights or liabilities in relation to the use of trademarks in commerce. The advent of trade on the Internet has meant that the substantive and jurisdictional lines must be redrawn. The jurisprudence concerning infringement of trademarks on the Internet is in its infancy in Europe. The courts are only beginning to evolve principles which will clarify the exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant where the only contact which that defendant has made with the subject state is through the mechanism of the Internet. Further, even where the court decides it may hear a case, the question of what type of activity on the part of the website operator will be sanctioned is still unclear. If the European courts follow the position adopted by their US counterparts, it seems likely that the operation of a "passive" website will not attract reproval. Further, it appears that a website's particular features must be analysed. Characteristics such as language, country/generic top level domains, currency, types of products and services offered and the ability of the foreign consumer to purchase goods via the website may all be taken into account. This seems to be where the decisions in the Euromarketing and Carpoint cases are leading. It will also be interesting to note whether the future cases will take into account particular principles which have evolved in individual member states in trademark infringement cases, such as illustrated in the C&A case in Ireland. The only statement anyone can make with certainty is that the new technological era will certainly provide challenges to judges and legislators in their attempts to balance rights and freedoms where the Internet is concerned. Anne P Bateman, A & L Goodbody Solicitors, Dublin. 1Euromarket Designs Incorporated v Peters (unreported, High Court, Mr. Justice Jacob, 2000) 2The case of infringement of a Community Trademark is easier to determine. An infringement action must be brought in the place of domicile of the defendant. If the defendant is not domiciled in the Community, suit must be brought in the place of domicile of the plaintiff. If neither the plaintiff nor the defendant are domiciled in the Community, infringement proceedings must be prosecuted in Spain, the seat of the Community Trademarks Office. 3Carpoint SpA v Microsoft Corporation (2000). Case reference not available at time of writing. 4Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v King 25 F 3rd (2nd Cir) 1997 5See Cybersell v Cybersell 130 F. 3rd (9th Cir.) 1997, , Zippo Manufacturing v Zippo Dot Com Inc. 92 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa) 1997 and Inset Systems Inc. v Instruction Set Inc. 937 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn) 1996. 6Unreported, Ch.D. 1998 7(1984) FSR 413 8(1980) RPC 343 9(1976) IR 198 Top New commission to examine the impact of IP rules on poor countries - Press release from Clare ShortIn December's white paper the Government announced that it will establish a commission, including international experts, to consider the future development of intellectual property rules so that they take greater account of the interests of developing countries. The commission will look specifically at: how national intellectual property regimes should best be designed to benefit developing countries, show the international framework of rules and how agreements might be improved and developed. Clare Short said, "Developing countries need to be able to provide protection for intellectual property if they are to encourage more research and investment appropriate to their needs. "But developing countries are concerned at the likely impact of intellectual property rules, such as the WTO's TRIPs agreement to which they signed up during the Uruguay round. "This new commission will examine these complex issues, and search for international agreements on intellectual property rules which are designed to safeguard the interests of poor countries. (The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) sets out minimum standards of intellectual property protection). Top Will the Viagra patent stand up in court?US pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer may soon be facing stiff competition to the blockbuster anti-impotence drug it sells under the registered trade mark Viagra, following a recent decision of the UK Patents Court. Pfizer's patent covering the use of a number of different compounds for the treatment of impotence, including the active ingredient of Viagra, was held to be invalid following an action for revocation brought by rival drug firm Lilly ICOS. The patent in question (European Patent (UK) No. 0702555) related to the use of a range of compounds that inhibit the enzyme phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5). Such inhibitor compounds alter intracellular messaging systems in smooth muscle cells of the penis, the upshot of which is improved blood flow and erection. One of these compounds, sildenafil citrate, is the chemical used in Viagra, and Pfizer has an earlier patent covering this compound itself. Lilly ICOS, in common with other major pharmaceutical companies, has been hard at work developing its own similar-acting impotence treatment to rival the hugely successful Viagra. However, realising that the monopoly rights afforded to Pfizer by the patent in question would stand in its way, Lilly ICOS sought its revocation, alleging invalidity. In the Patents Court, Mr. Justice Laddie held that the patent was indeed invalid, on the grounds of 'non-inventiveness'. In other words, the use of the PDE-5 inhibitors as anti-impotence agents was held to be obvious to a scientist working in the field in light of the research papers written on the subject before the date of the patent; Laddie J. rejected Pfizer's argument that the commercial success of Viagra was testimony to its inventiveness, and that the use of the active compound satisfied a long-felt want. Although Pfizer retains its patent protecting the active compound used in Viagra, the Court's decision clears the way for Lilly ICOS and other firms to market drugs that function in the same way as Viagra. However, it is thought likely that Pfizer will appeal this decision, and it therefore remains to be seen whether the judgement will stand up in the Court of Appeal. Top LES B&I Council Members - John M Roe - A ProfileJohn joined the Council of LES Britain and Ireland in 1997 and succeeded Chris Goodman as Secretary in 1999. He is currently a Business Development Manager for Mundipharma International Ltd, a pharmaceutical manufacturing company based in Cambridge. Born and brought up in East Yorkshire he attended Beverley Grammar School before studying pharmacy at Bradford University. After a short spell in both community and hospital pharmacy he returned to Bradford to study for a PhD in Pharmaceutical Technology. On completion of his PhD John began his career in the pharmaceutical industry with Beechams Biosciences Research Centre in Epsom. After two years at Beechams he moved to the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) where he reviewed product licence applications from pharmaceutical companies wishing to commercialise their products in the UK. In 1987 John turned from being the gamekeeper to the poacher. He joined Napp Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge (now Mundipharma International Ltd), where he took responsibility for compiling and submitting product authorisations to the MCA and other European licensing authorities. In 1990 John moved to the Business Development Department of Mundipharma to strengthen the department's technical/pharmaceutical knowledge base. He completed an MBA in 1993 and is now Senior Business Development Manager, responsible for the licensing and business development activities for Mundipharma's European business. Outside work and the LES John enjoys golf and aims to reduce his current handicap of 20 to single figures. He and his wife Jane have recently moved to a rundown Victorian house in the centre of Cambridge and are now involved in a rather time-consuming restoration project which, while helping him increase his DIY skills, does not allow him much time on the golf course. Before a knee injury John was a keen amateur footballer and still, sadly some may say, faithfully follows his hometown team Hull City. Top A Message from Sergey Dorofeev - LES Russia"LES Russia is delighted to invite all LES members, and indeed anyone else with an interest in licensing, to the first LES European conference to be held in Russia. The conference will take place between 15 - 18 September 2001 in St. Petersburg - cultural and historical pearl of Russia. The conference venue is the Taurida (Tavrichesky) Palace, which was built in 1790. The palace is an architectural treasure and one of the many gems of St Petersburg. It is also a reminder of the history of the great October revolution in 1917. Today, having been renovated, it has all the up-to-date facilities necessary for hosting international conferences. The conference, "Licensing: A Tool to Global Progress" will encompass the modern trends in licensing, IP legislation and practice and technology transfer. A number of Russian or Russian-based companies who are using advanced technologies and innovation and are active in licensing will be making presentations along with our other international speakers. St Petersburg is one of the most beautiful cities in the world with a large number of architectural and historical monuments and palaces, both in the city and outside it. Its history dates back to 1703, when the Russian Emperor Peter the Great decided "to open a window to Europe" and founded the town. For more than two centuries St. Petersburg was the capital of the Russian empire. With so many famous palaces and monuments, such as the Hermitage (part of the Emperor's Winter Palace), St Petersburg is justly known as "a museum under the open sky". LES Russia recommends that you embrace the opportunities offered by the conference to participate in the workshops, attend the lectures and benefit from the associated learning, take advantage of the many networking opportunities and soak up the atmosphere and charm of this wonderful city.
Sergey Dorofeev, LES Russia, email: dorofeev@gorodissky.ru Top Wilson Gunn announce their association with Gee & CoWilson Gunn and Gee & Co are pleased to announce that they have entered into association with effect from 1st December 2000. The two practices will continue separately for the present, but will benefit from shared facilities and an enlarged pool of patent and trademark professionals to cope with their expanding client bases. Both practices are well established and respected firms. Wilson Gunn dates from the nineteenth century and has offices in Manchester, Birmingham, Chesterfield and Stockport. Wilson Gunn is made up of the Manchester based Wilson Gunn M'Caw practice linked with Manchester trademark attorneys Wilson Gunn Roberts and the long-established Birmingham patent and trademark practice Wilson Gunn Skerrett. Gee & Co dates back to the early twentieth century, the practice being based in the heart of the London patent agent community. Gee & Co also has offices in Guildford. The association between the two firms will provide access to twelve qualified patent and trademark attorneys and six trainee assistants, the total personnel being about 60. The association provides one of the few dedicated IP organisations having offices in England's three major commercial cities: London, Birmingham and Manchester. Top New MembersCouncil has been pleased to welcome the following new members to the Society:
|
|
NEWS Exchange is circulated as a service to members of the Society. Editorial contributions and advertising/insert enquiries are welcome and should be addressed in the first instance to the editor. Editor: The Kudos Partnership Ltd, |