Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat

Intellectual Property Law

: IPKat

Is UK business too complacent to IP crime? IBIL Dilution seminar

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jNpn3w_WsyY/SUkdxSuf81I/AAAAAAAAADI/DGZ-bYQjobQ/s1600-h/crimecat.jpg"img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jNpn3w_WsyY/SUkdxSuf81I/AAAAAAAAADI/DGZ-bYQjobQ/s200/crimecat.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5280784770746282834" border="0" //abr /span style="font-weight: bold;"Business attitudes to IP report/spanbr /br /The UK IPO has indeed been busy. They have a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/press/press-release/press-release-2008/press-release-20081217.htm"released research/a commissioned by its IP Crime Group that shows that 'shows that many businesses are not doing anything to ensure they protect their intellectual property'.br /br /This is a BAD THING it seems. In the words of the press release:br /blockquotepspan style="font-size:85%;"Intellectual property is at the heart of so many businesses. It needs to be understood, protected, and respected span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"[IPKat comment: does this remind anyone of the WIPO World Intellectual Property Day's theme that authors/creators 'deserve our admiration, our protection, and our respect'?] /span- both that which belongs to the company and the IP of others. It is therefore worrying that the research showed that:/span/pullispan style="font-size:85%;"4/spanspan style="font-size:85%;"0% of businesses surveyed took no practical action such as trade mark registration or employee training to ensure their and others IP is protected./span/lilispan style="font-size:85%;"A third of businesses surveyed were not aware whether goods sold on their premises by external traders were legitimate or not./span/lilispan style="font-size:85%;"Out of those who knew that employees were selling DVDs at work, nearly a fifth knew that these were counterfeit and still allowed such illegal activity to take place./span/lilispan style="font-size:85%;"Similarly, over a quarter of respondents do not make staff aware that they must not download ill/spanspan style="font-size:85%;"egal content at work./span/li/ul/blockquoteullibr //li/ulThe IPKat has his suspicions about this report, or at least the way that the IPO has represented its findings. For a start, the Kat thinks there's a not so hidden agenda emerging from the questions that have been asked - i.e. you think IP's important, so why do you allow your employees to abuse other people's? More fundamentally, there seems to be an assumption throughout this report and the way that it has been presented that employers should act as policemen, protecting other people's IP against their employees.br /br /He's not sure whether it's so worrying that 40% of businesses don't protect their IP. Many businesses just won't have IP at the core of their business. Your local newsagent isn't going to file many patents. He's not even likely to register a trade mark. However, there is protection in place (such as passing off) which comes into action automatically. When one looks at the statistics of business attitudes to infringement of other people's IP in the workplace, it doesn't look at bad as the IPO has suggested. Take for example the third point above - 20% knowledge of sale of fake DVDs. This has to be put in context. This is 20% of the people who knew that DVDs were being sold in their workplace. This was only 20% of those surveyed. In other words, 20% of 20% of the survey of 500 people (i.e. 20/500 if the IPKat's maths are correct) knew of such sales taking place.br /br /span style="font-weight: bold;"Dilution event at IBIL, University College London, Bloomsburybr /br //spanUCL's Institute of Brand and Innovation Law is hosting its Brands Seminar on 11 February 2009, 4.00pm for a 4.30pm start.br /br /The title is Trade Mark Infringement without Confusion: Dilution. Speakers are:br /ulliProfessor J Thomas McCarthy on the US perspective/liliProfessor Charles Gielen on the Benelux approach/liliProfessor a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jNpn3w_WsyY/SUkeYE0UrtI/AAAAAAAAADQ/hrnItcvzpEs/s1600-h/ucl+laws+logo.gif"img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 87px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jNpn3w_WsyY/SUkeYE0UrtI/AAAAAAAAADQ/hrnItcvzpEs/s200/ucl+laws+logo.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5280785437027512018" border="0" //aDavid Llewelyn on what the UK makes of it all./lilibr //li/ulIn the chair is Lord Justice Jacob.br /br /To sign up, please click a href="http://trade-mark-dilution-ipkat.eventbrite.com/"here/a, but be warned - places are going fast!br /span style="font-weight: bold;"span style="font-weight: bold;"span style="font-weight: bold;"/span/spanbr //span

Full post as published by IPKat on December 17, 2008 (boomark / email).