 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LICENSING EXECUTIVES SOCIETYBritain and IrelandNEWS EXCHANGE
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Developing and Implementing a Brand Protection StrategyAs the globalisation of brands continues so does the requirement for decentralised production networks involving subcontractors, licensees or both. Demands for increased production flexibility and reduced costs has meant that production has often been shifted to low cost regions, and proximity to market is also an issue. This can create complex and highly fragmented supply chains that may be subject to attack from several quarters. Brand protection is becoming an increasingly used term but what does it mean? Lawyers tend to view it in terms of intellectual property rights, copyright and trademarks. An investigator's focus will be on intelligence gathering. A supplier of security technology will see it in terms of his product range. All are valid aspects, but brand protection is more than any of these single-track approaches. A comprehensive brand protection strategy may take years to develop; it starts with the identification and definition of the risks to the company or brand, establishing what criminal activity is occurring and where. An audit of the current patent, copyright and trademark situation should indicate where further protection is required. Information from internal and external sources about counterfeits, diverted products, local market product and unauthorised or illegal supply routes should be analysed in order to estimate the nature, scope and potential financial costs of criminal activity. This analysis provides a basis for a specification against which the suitability of potential solutions can be measured. This specification should include consideration of cost restrictions. Once the nature and scope of the threat is established a team can be assembled, ideally involving all internal stakeholders. Good communication between them is important, as is external communication with law enforcement agencies and trade associations. Pilot schemes, restricted to a specific geographical area or a particular product, are often useful in establishing the effectiveness of a solution. Monitoring the pilot's progress allows realistic targets to be set and a full roll out of the solution can then be implemented with confidence. The principal modes of criminal activity are counterfeiting, tampering, diversion and theft, and it is quite common for the initial analysis to reveal that criminal attack is more extensive and more varied than was initially thought. For example, complete counterfeits are often mixed with diverted genuine product, counterfeit product in re-used genuine packaging and out-of-date genuine product. Tampering may be malicious, intended to damage a brand or the consumer, or it may involve the changing of sell-by dates on out-of-date product. Theft can include cargo theft, retail theft and smuggling. To address these issues there is a wide range of security devices and technologies available. Ideally the solution should be upgradeable, as no feature should be considered "unbeatable". Ongoing monitoring of changes in criminal activity should indicate at what point improved measures are needed. Tamper-evident technologies involve the incorporation of some deliberate weakness or susceptibility, causing an irreversible and obvious change if fraud is attempted. Authentication technologies are used to establish that a product is genuine. Tracking technologies provide information about a product's source, history and possibly destination. Authentication features can operate at different levels:
Tracking systems can provide information about an item's source, location and destination. The information carrier may be anything from a simple label with a barcode to an electronic or RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) device, possibly containing a microchip. RFID is a rapidly moving field, with much attention focused on the price of the tags, but it is important to remember that the readers and information management hardware and software are equally important parts of the system. To date, much of the benefit of these systems is in improving supply chain efficiency, with any security enhancements a bonus. The most effective technology strategies typically use either multiple features or multi-level devices. For example, a hologram may contain overt features such as a brand logo, covert features such as microtext, a forensic level biological taggant in the lacquer layer and a barcode for tracking purposes. In summary, the key points for a successful brand protection strategy are as follows: identify the risks, define the need, review the technology options and select an appropriate solution. Ensure that progress is monitored and communicated and be prepared to update or upgrade the solution. Martin Gomme, Technical Solutions Manager. Axess Technologies Ltd. mgomme@axesstechnologies.com
Top President's AGM Report
I am half way through my term of office and I wish to thank all Council members, including Stephen Powell who takes over the Presidency next year, for their support and challenging guidance. Many other people have been involved in donating their valuable time to LES and we exist with the help of many excellent people giving voluntarily of their time, energy and knowledge in keeping News Exchange and our meetings alive and I thank all these LES supporters. It takes great effort to maintain this forward momentum and there will be changes ahead as we grow the Society. One aim this year has been to try to encourage a greater participation by industry and to hold meetings that entice industrial licensing executives into LES and to concentrate on specific sector meetings such as Healthcare, which has been revived by Stephen Mansfield and Renate Siebrasse. We intend to run two Healthcare half-day meetings each year and we will facilitate other industry specific meetings. We would like to enhance our image by building on PR specifically to link LES to specific licensing achievements, to encourage use of LES and LESI web pages as a source of knowledge and communication. Hayley French and Barry Quest have devoted an enormous amount of time and effort over the past year to achieving a first class LES web site and I would encourage everyone to view the site regularly. To grow the Society, encourage greater industry participation, make LES more visible in the licensing community, and maintain our high standards of meetings and content of News Exchange will be a challenge in the future and we will need to engage more professional help. We are building a significant licensing tuition programme based on LESI teaching materials and I want to thank Stephen Powell, Chris Goodman and the many others who have dedicated a significant amount of time to creating these educational workshops. As President, I wish all new members of LES a warm welcome and I hope that you will enjoy and benefit from the Society as so many have done in the past. Please get involved in the Society and its Special Interest Groups as there is always a place for able and willing individuals. We need the members to continue writing articles for News Exchange and Les Nouvelles and to talk at meetings and suggest new speakers. We are honoured to have Mr Justice Robin Jacob agree to take on the role of Honorary President but as we welcome some we have to say farewell to others. Jeremy Brown, who is long standing member of Council and a past President, retires from Council this year and I wish to thank him for his skill and wisdom that he has brought to us over the years. We aim to be an open and transparent Council who have the needs of our members and health of the Society at heart and, again, I thank all of you who have contributed to making this Society a worthwhile organisation. Licensing is a rapidly growing market and LES must reach out into this market and service its needs. Christi Mitchell,
President's DiaryWe held a successful Annual Conference and Licensing Master class at Chelsea Village and I wish to thank all of you who were involved, either as speakers or organisers. We were honored that Jonas Gulliksson, Vice President of LES International joined us to provide the opening plenary session. The reception and conference dinner was held within Chelsea Village and our guest speaker was our recently appointed Honorary President, The Honorable Mr. Justice Jacob. Just before the meeting it was announced that in October Mr. Justice Jacob will become Lord Justice Jacob following his appointment to the Appeal Court. The meeting also provided us with the opportunity to thank our outgoing Consultant Director of Administration, Renate Siebrasse, for all her dedication and help to the Society. We made a little presentation to Renate and I really hope that the bubbles and music provide hours of enjoyment. Prior to the Chelsea meeting some of us were able to attend the LESI Annual Conference "Licensing in a Changing World" in Oslo. This is a wonderful location for a meeting in June with the very long warm days and the sun setting at 2 am. We now have our own summer break and will be commencing the London evening meetings again on September 10th. The LES USA and Canada 39th Annual Meeting will take place in San Diego - September 21-25. These meetings are well attended with a vast range of workshops to choose from and provide an excellent opportunity for both learning and networking. Christi Mitchell,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Top
IPR in Trouble?It wasn't that long ago that our greatest problem was how to make the general public aware of the existence of IPR. Now it is big news - and much of it unfavourable. LES needs to redress this We no longer see too many encouraging 'rags to riches on the back of an invention' stories. We read about rich corporations vying with each other to get richer - as in the just-started Reuters v. Bloomberg patent action. We are told about the affluent West oppressing the Third World by patenting and overpricing essential drugs and foodstuffs, and big corporations using patents (in some way not made clear) to help introduce Frankenstein products from GM crops to mutant life forms. The developed world is criticised for exploiting poor countries by control of their manufacture of branded goods. Naomi Klein's best-seller "No Logo" blames IPR for many of the world's troubles. The press seems to have seized on IPR as the new century's bête noir, as part of what seems to be a general distaste of entrepreneurial commercial activity. The latest big story relates to the Diana Fund/Franklin Mint litigation in the USA. The Fund failed to prevent sale of Princess Diana memorabilia in an action ultimately based on violation of Californian 'Right of Publicity' Law and also trademark infringement. This resulted in hefty costs, which could now be much supplemented by a malicious damage claim, which Franklin Mint is running against the Fund. The message is simply that a litigant should always be prepared for a possibly horrendous downside, especially in the USA where litigation is treated as a national sport somewhat on a level with Premier League Football! However, the debate seems to have extended into the wisdom and propriety of decent parties such as charities dirtying their hands on IPR protection and litigation. In the course of the action much was made of the horrors of 'over-protection'. The Times, in an article on 12th July, called it 'a tale of greed, pride and exploitation' leading to 'humiliation', and quoted from a Fund lawyer: "… the word 'brand'…sounds horrible…". Plus ça change! The Statute of Monopolies of 1624, which launched the world's present patent systems was introduced in response to 'bad press' over abuse of IPR. IPR is about wealth and knowledge creation, which generally leads to social benefit. In the public interest its effect is moderated which means that properly there will be grey areas of enforcement. But that doesn't undermine its value. The revenue obtained by the Diana Fund from merchandising apparently has significantly exceeded donations to the benefit of many charities, and is likely to continue to do so notwithstanding the litigation. That is the real world of licensing! Rather than focusing on the problems and demerits, it would be helpful to shift the balance back towards the benefits with more upbeat stories of licensing successes. Aux Armes LES! Barry Quest, Wilson, Gunn M'Caw
Top Licensing IPR in Business
Monitored by Dr Hayley French, TAYLOR WESSING (h.french@taylorwessing.com)
Top Arsenal v Reed - More Than Just a Question of TrademarksOn 21 May 2003, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgement in the lengthy court struggle between Arsenal Football Club and Matthew Reed. This judgement can be seen as a victory not only for Arsenal but also for brand owners in general (especially those involved in merchandising). However, the issue has now been cast into doubt by the subsequent judgement of the House of Lords in the criminal case of R v Johnstone. This subsequent judgement appears to contradict the Court of Appeal's reasoning in the Arsenal case. Quite apart from being important in a trademark sense, the Arsenal case also provides an interesting, if slightly worrying, insight into the interrelation between the national and the European courts. Given the moves for increasing harmonisation of intellectual property rights across Europe, such as the proposed European Patent, this is an aspect of our legal system that is of increasing importance. Background - Arsenal v Reed At the first instance trial in the High Court in 2001, Mr Justice Laddie found that Reed's unauthorised use of Arsenal's marks on merchandise would be perceived as badges of support, loyalty or affiliation to Arsenal, as opposed to indications of trade origin. In doing so, Laddie J held that there was no "trademark use" and therefore no trademark infringement. (The Judge also rejected Arsenal's passing off claim.) However, having made this decision, Laddie J then referred to the ECJ the question of whether a third party should have a defence to infringement on the grounds that Reed's use of the trademarks did not indicate trade origin. On 12 November 2002 the ECJ gave its decision. It stated that the essential function of a trademark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked goods by enabling consumers to distinguish the goods or services in question from others on the market without any risk of confusion. The ECJ pointed out that this protection does not extend to allowing a proprietor to prohibit the use of a mark if its use did not affect the interests of the proprietor. However, in this case it was decided by the ECJ that Reed's use of Arsenal's trademarks was liable to jeopardise the guarantee of origin and that this was the essential function of the mark. However, this was not the end of the story. Back in the High Court, Laddie J did not go along with this ruling from the ECJ. He held that the ECJ had made findings of fact in deciding that Reed's use of Arsenal's trademarks would be perceived by some customers as a designation of origin. This was contrary to the finding of fact already made by Laddie J and was outside the scope of the ECJ's authority, as only national courts have the right to rule on factual matters. The reference made to the ECJ was one purely on the law. Therefore, Laddie J concluded that his only option was to apply his interpretation of the ECJ's findings of law to the facts of the case before him. Laddie concluded that the public was not confused as to the origin of Reed's goods and that the essential origin function of the trademark had not been affected, and Reed's defence should therefore succeed. The case then went on to the English Court of Appeal, which overturned Mr Justice Laddie's ruling. In the Court of Appeal's view the ECJ had made it clear that that registration of a trademark gives a trademark proprietor a property right. Therefore, the relevant question is not whether a defendant has used the mark "as a trademark", but rather whether the use complained of is likely to damage the brand owner's property right, by jeopardising the guarantee of origin that constitutes the essential function of the trademark. The Court of Appeal found that Mr Justice Laddie went wrong because he focused unduly on the "trademark use" point, rather than asking himself the correct question, which was whether Mr Reed's activities were liable to jeopardise the guarantee of origin offered by the Arsenal marks. Had Laddie J asked himself this question, said the Court of Appeal, he would have reached the inevitable conclusion that harm was inevitable to Arsenal's mark. The Court of Appeal went on to say that Reed's use of the Arsenal marks was not "trademark use". While the Court of Appeal agreed that the Arsenal marks operated as "badges of allegiance", they also served to designate the origin of the merchandise to which they were applied, to a substantial number of consumers. Mr Reed has now petitioned the House of Lords for leave to appeal. R v Johnstone Conclusion Mr Justice Laddie's attempt to obtain clarification might be understood in the context of a history whereby the ECJ has failed to satisfactorily answer questions put before it. Therefore, Laddie J's reference in the Arsenal case might have been deliberately narrow in order to give the ECJ little room to stray from the point. Having said that, it was still the opinion of the Court of Appeal that Laddie J should have followed the ECJ's judgement in this case. The whole case raises questions about the ability of the national courts to receive effective guidance from Europe on technical questions of intellectual property law. The lack of specialist intellectual property judges in the ECJ is of particular concern, particularly in view of potential problems that may arise if a European Patent comes into existence. The thought of even more complex questions of patent law being batted to Europe and back emphasises the even greater potential future importance of this issue. Piers Strickland,
Top No Break for KIT KAT!Nestlé's further attempt to register the slogan HAVE A BREAK has again been rejected by the High Court , following opposition by Mars UK. Mars' successful opposition to its application under the 1938 Act, prompted Nestlé to re-file an application under the 1994 Trademarks Act for HAVE A BREAK in class 30 for "chocolate; chocolate products; confectionery, candy; biscuits". This, again, faced opposition from Mars on the grounds that the slogan was inherently unregistrable. The Hearing Officer upheld Mars' opposition on the basis that the mark was devoid of distinctive character under section 3(1)(b) and that the evidence of use claimed by Nestlé was not sufficient to prove the slogan had acquired a distinctive character. Nestlé appealed the decision to the High Court. Nestlé argued that had the Hearing Officer had the benefit of the decision in Proctor & Gamble v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (BABY-DRY), the opposition would have been ruled in its favour. Nestlé argued that the decision of the ECJ indicated that marks which are not directly descriptive of the relevant products are conferred an inherent distinctiveness, thus merging the hurdles of sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c). The High Court, in line with other recent decisions, dismissed this interpretation of the BABY-DRY decision. Instead, consideration of registrability under section 3(1)(b) is independent of section 3(1)(c). Therefore a mark which is not wholly descriptive under the BABY-DRY guidelines might nevertheless lack distinctive character. With regard to its claim of acquired distinctive character, Nestlé relied on evidence of use together with survey evidence. The evidence of use consisted almost entirely of material demonstrating use of the well-known slogan HAVE A BREAK-HAVE A KIT KAT. The High Court endorsed the Hearing Officer's decision that Nestlé could not found a claim of acquired distinctiveness in relation to HAVE A BREAK, given that the only use was as an element of a composite slogan. The survey evidence submitted by Nestlé was as a result of a doorstep survey of over 500 people, from which 30 carefully selected responses were filed in the form of statutory declarations. From this evidence, the Hearing Officer took the view that although a proportion of the public would be likely to suppose that a chocolate bar called HAVE A BREAK originated from the makers of KIT KAT, he did not believe the evidence demonstrated this to be a significant proportion. In the High Court it was noted that, in any event, the survey was a somewhat pointless exercise - the purpose of a survey is to provide evidence that, as a result of prior use of the mark, a significant proportion of the public regard products bearing the mark as originating from a particular source. In this case, as there was no use of the mark HAVE A BREAK (only use of HAVE A BREAK-HAVE A KIT KAT was adduced), Rimer J was of the view that the survey did not and could not show that HAVE A BREAK had acquired distinctiveness as a result of use. With regard to the nature of survey evidence, the High Court supported the Hearing Officer's view that oral evidence would be helpful in circumstances where the public are asked to elaborate on their response to survey questions. This avoids standardised declarations which, it was noted in some cases, were somewhat different to the original responses of the interviewee. However, it is hard to imagine circumstances where introducing oral evidence of 30 or more people before the Trademarks Registry is ever likely to happen, given the time and costs this will necessarily incur. In conclusion, the High Court considered that the Hearing Officer had reviewed the evidence with 'manifest care' and therefore rejected the Appeal. This decision provides useful guidance in relation to the collation of evidence and registrability. Practitioners should be aware of the reluctance of the courts to give weight to surveys conducted in a manner that could be construed as leading (or misleading) the interviewee in his or her answers. The discussion of the decision in BABY-DRY confirms the approach taken by the UK courts in narrowing the scope of impact that the ECJ's decision was first thought to have. Lisa-Jane Brown, Wilson Gunn M'Caw
The infringement of the Adidas 3-stripe TM by the Fitnessworld 2-stripe decoration. The ECJ opinion confirms 'dilution' (without confusion) is legitimate ground in assessing likelihood of infringement but puts limits on this. In particular, use as a 'decoration' may not be considered as trademark infringement. This draws attention to the importance, in appropriate cases, of supplementing trademark registration with new-style design registration. Background Adidas appealed, arguing in particular that "the Trademarks Directive provides protection, at least as regards marks with a reputation and/or great distinctive character, even where there is no likelihood of confusion, in cases where unfair advantage is taken of, or detriment caused to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark." ECJ Advocate Opinion: Barry Quest, Wilson Gunn M'Caw Top WIPO Intellectual Property Organisation Annual Report 2002The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) promotes the use of the intellectual property system as a tool for economic growth. Its responsibilities include the Patent Corporation Treaty (PCT) the Madrid System (for trademarks) and the Hague System (for industrial designs). The major part of its income comes from fees gathered from the use of these systems, particularly the PCT. According to the recently published 2002 Annual Report more than 114,000 international patent applications were filed worldwide and more than 22,000 international trademarks registered in that year. The WIPO Worldwide Academy (WWA) is devoted to training, teaching and research in the field of intellectual property through three main programs: Distance, Learning, Professional Training and Policy Development. WIPO takes its role in helping and developing least developed countries to protect their rights particularly seriously. To this end meetings are organised, seminars held and working committees established. In its role as disseminator of information on intellectual property WIPO issues publications on matters of interest in this field. For example, "Intellectual Property on the Internet: A Survey of Issues" was published at the end of 2002. The survey explores inter alia, "the impact of the Internet on copyright and related rights, trademarks, and patents" and examines international responses to these challenges and opportunities. This survey is available through the WIPO website at ecommerce.wipo.int/survey/. Also of interest are a series of helpful, free, booklets on intellectual property which may also be obtained through the website. One of these is entitled "What is Intellectual Property" and gives a broad overview of the various type of right available, why we have them, what they protect and how they are enforced. As practitioners will know, these rights are often confused and the guide provides a readable and useful summary covering patents, trademarks, designs, geographical indications and copyright. General definitions for each are given. This is no easy task in itself for, as the guide makes clear, the meaning of the terminology used may vary from country to country. Bill Downey, Wilson Gunn M'Caw
Top News from the RegionsLES - Bio-Indulgence in ScotlandLES Scotland held a very civilised workshop at the stunning Bonham Hotel in Edinburgh on 21 May 2003 - "The BioCream Tea". While allowing everyone the pleasure of utter indulgence in double cream, raspberry jam and crust-less sandwiches, this afternoon programme also provided a fascinating insight into the many different aspects of development and commercialisation in the biosciences field. Christi Mitchell of Medius Associates (and President of LES B & I) opened with an excellent review of the real reasons for the, often painful, due diligence process, and what should be sought and offered. David McBeath of Scottish Health Innovations Ltd (SHIL) provided an insightful introduction to the establishment of SHIL and the opportunities and challenges ahead for capturing, developing and exploiting IP arising out of the healthcare system and related academic instructions in Scotland. Much discussion followed both of these presentations from an audience which included healthcare workers, lawyers and venture capitalists! After adjourning for tea, there followed a welcome return to Scotland from former LES Scottish Secretary Monica Flynn, presenting the results of her research into the differing ways in which entrepreneurship is taught, performed and encouraged in three different institutions in the UK (Nottingham), the Netherlands and Portugal. Key points were spin outs from industry rather than universities in the Netherlands, the limited role of privately owned IP in Portuguese institutions, and the recommended model going forward for Nottingham of pre-incubator germinators giving students the early opportunity to acquire the necessary skills and commercial awareness. The meeting concluded with James Browning of GyneIdeas Ltd revealing (with occasional detail into the fascinating and life-improving gynaecological innovations that his company is developing) what it is really like on the coal face of moving from healthcare work to innovation and commercialisation, with particular insights into the pitfalls which may arise, and the key issue of getting, and maintaining, investor involvement. The committee of the LES (Scottish Branch) were delighted to have received sponsorship in kind from Northern Networking (professional conference organisers), whose excellent organisation and management made the event go so smoothly. The committee are also preparing another exciting programme for the next 12 months - details to follow in the next issue. Abbe Brown, McGrigor Donald LES Irish Section - NewsChange in Leadership Mr Arthur B Tomkins, Founder of Tomkins, Celebrates his 103rd Birthday and the 75th Anniversary of Becoming a Chartered Patent Agent Born in London in 1900 Mr Tomkins came to Dublin in 1930 with his family, where he founded Tomkins and Co. At a celebratory company dinner Ken Doherty, former Tomkins' employee and World Snooker Championship winner came along, to say "hello" to his one and only employer and to make a presentation to Mr Tomkins as a token of his employees' and friends appreciation and good wishes. For full details and a report of an interview with Mr Tomkins by Andrew Parkes, see: www.tomkins.ie LES B&I AGM and Annual Conference,
|
| President | Mel Jager | USA/Canada |
| Past President | Thierry Sueur | France |
| President Elect | Jonas Gulliksson | Scandinavia |
| Vice President | Luigi Saglietti | Italy |
| Vice President | Adam Liberman | Australia/New Zealand |
| Vice President | Ron Grudziecki | USA/Canada |
| Honorary Treasurer | Willy Manfroy | USA/Canada |
| Honorary Secretary | Barry Quest | B/I |
Worldwide membership continues to grow which suggests that LESI must be doing something right.
The next International Delegates Meeting is in San Diego in September, immediately after the Annual LES USA and Canada Conference. A number of B/I members will be attending. For more information about LESI, see: www.lesi.org. For information about the LES USA and Canada Annual Conference see: www.usa-canada.les.org. Contact LES B/I council (see www.bi.les-europe.org) if you are interested in knowing more or would like to get involved.
Report from Oslo
The first of this year's International Delegates Meetings took place in Oslo, immediately prior to the International Conference, which was held 15th - 18th June. Some 125 delegates attended from most of the national societies around the world. LES B&I was represented by:
| Christi Mitchell | President |
| Stephen Powell | Vice President |
| Chris Goodman | Immediate Past President |
| Jeremy Brown | Chairman, LES Awards Committee and Past President LESI |
| Fiona Nicholson | Past President LES B&I |
| Hayley French | Chair Website Committee |
| Renate Siebrasse | Consultant Director of Administration |
| Jennifer Pierce | Council Member |
Among the issues discussed were forthcoming International Conferences. Paris will host the next International Conference 28 - 31 March 2004. If you are looking to expand your opportunities in licensing then this is the place to go! LES conferences are excellent networking venues.
At the request of some of the smaller national societies, a presentation was made by Adam Liberman, VP LESI, on the possibility of admitting corporate membership. The question was discussed at length but eventually defeated with 33 votes against and 23 in favour. The main argument against the motion was that for a society of individual LES executives, corporate membership would not be appropriate and would, in effect, lose the societies members. If the smaller societies wish to give some of their members a rebate on multiple subscriptions this would be their own national decision and perfectly acceptable.
Aside from mundane administrative matters LESI can present an interesting microcosm of world politics. LES Croatia and LES India were admitted as new societies not without some dissent (are they really ready to join the international community?). Licensing societies in Hong Kong and Taiwan coexist diplomatically with LES China. LES USA/Canada, which once expressed concern at the formation (by B/I) of the informal LES Europe regional group, now use this model to help promote activity in south and central America. LES Colombia, Ecuador and Peru requested permission to change their name to LES Andean Community, the request was agreed by delegates.
Various committee chairmen reported on their activities:
- The Publications Committee announced that Les Nouvelles would accept advertising, for which a fee would be payable and that Jack Ott, former editor of Les Nouvelles, is preparing a history of LES.
- The Education Committee reported that various national societies are working on education/training programmes, in particular USA/Canada. As Christi Mitchell has already mentioned in the President's Report, Chris Goodman and Stephen Powell are building an excellent licensing tuition programme for LES B&I based on the LESI teaching materials.
- The Nominations Committee proposed the following LESI Officers, for 2003 -2004, for election in San Diego in September:
| President | Jonas Gulliksson | Scandinavia |
| Past President | Mel Jager | USA/Canada |
| President Elect | Willy Manfroy | USA/Canada |
| Vice President | Elisabeth Logeais | France |
| Vice President | Adam Liberman | Australia/New Zealand |
| Vice President | Ron Grudziecki | USA/Canada |
| Honorary Treasurer | David Braunstain | USA/Canada |
| Honorary Secretary | Barry Quest | B/I |
The host of the Oslo 2003 International Conference, LES Scandinavia, reported a record attendance of 540 registered participants. As an attendee I can also say that is was a very enjoyable and successful event!
Renate Siebrasse
Consultant Director of Administration
Top
New Members
Council has been please to welcome the following new members to the Society:
- Ms M Bleahene, TM Attorney, FR Kelly;
- Ms Deborah M Chambers, Senior Lawyer, Royal Mail Gp;
- Miss Nicola Ham, IP Lawyer, Royal Mail Gp;
- Mr Tim Heberden, UK. MD. Brand Finance;
- Dr Judith Hills, Senior Director, Bristol-Myers Squibb;
- Mr Charles M Howarth, Partner, Gordons Cranswick;
- Dr Sonja Jonas, Commercialisation Manager, MerseyBio;
- Mr Ilya Kazi, Partner, Mathys & Squire; ````````, IP Manager, Microscience;
- Mr Daniel Lord, IP Officer, TWI;
- Mr Colm D Murphy, Partner, Boult Wade Tennant;
- Mr Darren T Olivier, TM Practitioner/Attorney, Field Fisher Waterhouse;
- Mr John R Olsen, Partner, Field Fisher Waterhouse;
- Mrs Sue Scott, Consultant, Abel & Imray;
- Mrs Linda J Tigwell, Commercial & Marketing Director, Cranfield University;
- Dr Sunethra Wimalasundera;
- Dr Margaret J Woods, Tech. Transfer Manager,
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,
Emerson Court, Alderley Road, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 1NX
email:s.ireland@kudos-uk.com