(no subject)

[heidi]

Required reading for the HP fandom, these days.

Especially you, tabithajones! She says, btw, that her 1997 article is outdated. Can you squee?

Comments

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

That sort of decision would never make it in the US because of the laches issue - does it not work the same way in the EC? Here, if you didn't take action for 20 years, and you *knew* about the infringer (or even should have known) you wouldn't be able to make that sort of a claim. One vaguely recent and easily googleable example:

Hubbard Feeds Inc. (Hubbard) owns an incontestable trademark for the configuration of a half-barrel container used to package its animal block feed products. When Hubbard realized Animal Feed Supplement Inc. (AFS) continued to sell animal block feed in half-barrel containers after expiration of a license between the parties, it waited over four years before bringing suit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that four years is sufficient for laches and that Hubbard was not likely to succeed on its infringement claim because: (1) it presented no evidence of actual confusion, (2) AFS places a large label on its barrels, and (3) paints them a different color. Hubbard Feeds Inc. v. Animal Feed Supplement Inc., 182 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 1999).

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

No, laches almost never works in English trade mark law, and, in fact, in a 15 year long career in intellectual property law I can hardly ever remember it being raised as a defence. It might work in the law of passing off, but four years would be way too short.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

It's 'cause your country is older :)

Actually, that's really interesting to know! Cool! (and no wonder it wouldn't likely be factoring into Neil Blair's take on HP fansites...)