No. Community pages display Wikipedia articles about the topics they represent when this information is available, as well as related posts from people on Facebook in real time. At this time, there is no way for you to add your own pictures or edit information on these pages.”
“Users can easily be confused between official pages and community pages. For instance, when a user searches for Dr. Pepper using Facebook’s search bar, many “Dr. Pepper” pages pop up. The consumer can’t tell immediately whether it’s a community page, a fan page, or the official page…”
“Facebook’s Community Pages are an excellent example of why brand owners should take a proactive approach to social media and have a clear social media brand protection strategy in place. This is not only important for a brand owner to fulfill its duty to police the marketplace but also to ensure that a brand owner has current information about the constantly changing state of social media. There is little doubt that brand owners will continue to see many new developments in the social media space”
By way of an update on the “Darjeeling” Geographical Indications (GI) case we reported on some days ago, we have uploaded a copy of the decision on our site. This is a very interesting decision, not just because it is the first ever by an Indian court on the infringement of a registered GI; but also because it may have significant implications on the protection of GI rights in the country in the times to come.”
A detailed report on the decision is in the post. They summed up saying:
“The decision was categorical in stating that the word “Darjeeling” could not be exclusively claimed by the Tea Board despite its GI and TM registrations. Crucially, the court held, “Even for a case of passing-off, the use of “Darjeeling” by a person other than the plaintiff can be complained of if the word or the geographical indication has any nexus with the product with which it is exclusively associated upon the registration.”
This raises an obvious interesting but unanswered question: what defines “nexus” as referred to by the Judge above? What degree of similarity will convince a judge to offer a different decision on passing off?”
Remember the confusing “look & feel” of the WIPD (World Intellectual Property Database) site and the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation)? See our post “WIPD hopes to be confused with WIPO; spot the difference!” Well, we can now take a small breath of relief. The WIPD logo has been amended, diminishing the likelihood of confusion. WIPO’s actions must have had some effect!
You can check it for yourself and see whether it is still a cause for concern. See the screen shots below of WIPO and then WIPD’s home pages.
I read with alarm the IPKat post last week regarding the WIPD site.
“Friday fantasies“. Thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention IPKat.
The post concerns a website calling itself WIPD, which mimics the branding of WIPO and requests fees for dubious and badly defined services. Even the strapline is similar; WIPO = “Encouraging Creativity and Innovation” and WIPD = “Imagine Creativity and Innovation.” Whilst I easily found their list of fees, I couldn’t find the mechanism for processing them. Nonetheless the site is confusing in its content and closely follows the “look and feel” of the WIPO site, so at the very least it is compromising the integrity of the WIPO brand. See for yourself!
“The IPKat is horrified that scam-merchants such as WIPD should be enabled to masquerade as a United Nations Agency in order to deceive and rip off gullible patent applicants, from whom it seeks substantial funds for its worthless services…”
The IPKat called on “WIPO to do something about it“.. and that “all patent practitioners to be aware of this rogue enterprise.” I share IPKats disbelief that this is continuing. It is nothing if not ironic…
It was interesting to note on the law360 site that more businesses are now looking towards TMs to maintain their market exclusivity. In an item called, “Trademarks may help companies skirt patent woes” (free trail available to access full text) they talk about the increasing obstacles for securing and enforcement of patents as the reason behind “businesses seeking alternatives for intellectual property protection“.
They go on to say:
“People focus on the importance of patents, but forget that the trademark aspect of distinguishing products for consumers is also really important…it is consumers’ reliance on a product name that makes a difference on commercial sales, not on the exclusivity of the underlying product … part of the draw to trademarks compared to patents is that they can be obtained in months rather than years and they are generally not as expensive to file for or enforce”
Last week IP Tango drew my attention to some news from the South American continent that made me wonder whether the Bolivian government is being extremely strategic in its use of intellectual property, or not….
According to the item, Bolivia with the support of its president Evo Morales, have decided to start investing in the production of a new soft drink called “Coca-Colla Energy”. There are of course many discussions to be had around the inevitable accusations of trade mark infringements from Coca-Cola (even though it is difficult to see how Coca-Colla could really damage its better known sister)!
Whilst encouraging the local industry of a developing country is a good thing; coca is not going to sustain and feed the Bolivian population – and the Government wants to allocate 20,000 hectares to growing it! It is also highly likely that there will be reactions in relation to the narcotic issue. The International Narcotics Control Board has tried for years to ban coca leaf chewing, and could claim that the use of coca leaves in a different product should also be banned. However, it is interesting to see that Bolivia’s new constitution, drafted by the ruling Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party, recognises coca as “cultural heritage, a natural and renewable resource of biodiversity in Bolivia and a factor of social cohesion” and thus not a narcotic in its natural state…
Whatever the merits of this particular product and its obvious stance against a giant of global capitalism, the proposal raises interesting issues about alternative ways of exploiting IP for development; even if it is not quite ‘the real thing’!
The coffee retailer Starbucks has always vigorously protected its brand name. While this is a wise business decision, they sometimes go too far. In this case, a small roaster in New Hampshire (Wolfe’s Borough Coffee) created a blend they called “Charbucks”, referencing the darkness of the blend. Starbucks went after the small company and lost.
Starbucks has taken legal action against dozens of alleged infringers of their IP. Perhaps the most ridiculous was an attempt in 2006 to claim ownership of the term “double shot”. Matthew Williams (“I live coffee”) commented on http://www.coffeegeek.com that:
“I don’t think Starbucks (or any other company) should be allowed to trademark the name of a particular product that is based on a common usage idiom (units of measure in this case). Imagine a company making hotdogs trademarking “footlong” or a snack maker trademarking “cupcake.””