Oxford University Gets Opposition To Its Attempt To Trademark 'Oxford' For All The Things
Furnished content.
Fresh off our post discussing the EU refusing the famous St. Andrews Links golf course a trademark for "St. Andrews" due to that term being primarily a geographical location, we have a similar situation in Europe centering around Oxford University's attempt to trademark "Oxford" for a whole swath of categories. And, just to make what might seem like a banal trademark opposition a little more spicy, much of this has to do with Brexit.The university wants to trademark the city's name on more than a hundred products from stickers and pencils to DVDs and bibles.However the move has sparked concern that if granted, makers of maps, tickets, newspapers, journals and 122 other goods could potentially face a bill for using the word ‘Oxford’ in the wrong way.The application to the Intellectual Property Office has so far garnered three objections. And that number is likely to grow, with several objectors thus far essentially running to the press in a call to arms for anyone who could be targeted by the university if this application is granted. All of the objections make the same argument: Oxford was a city before it was a university and locking down the name of a city for broad categories such as those requested in the application is a big no-no in the EU. Just like in the case of St. Andrews, this makes sense. If the application is granted, it could be used as a weapon by Oxford University to keep any shopkeeper in Oxford from selling stickers with the word "Oxford" on them. That obviously isn't the point of trademark law.Interestingly, however, the school already has a trademark in the EU. It probably never should have been granted one. This trademark application is for the UK, as the school attempts to get its business in order in anticipation of Brexit.Oxford University Press (OUP), a division of the university, lodged the application in October as the world-renowned institution looks to sure up protection of its 'brand' ahead of Brexit.The university currently has a trademark in the EU, however, if the UK withdraws, as is currently planned in March, a new trademark would have to be sought for the UK. It would be nice if the UK IPO could handle this better than the EU, actually, and recognize the problems of granting a trademark for a school that itself is named after the town in which it resides.For its part, Oxford University is making a lot of noise about its promise not to keep people from using the term "Oxford" and to only go after other entities that are "infringing on its rights." That's the whole rub, of course, in that after the trademark is granted, legal teams far too often err on the side of protectionism, including in cases where protectionism isn't warranted.The EU got this one right with St. Andrews. Hopefully the UK gets it right as well.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:13am on 18-Dec-2018
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Why Is Congress Trying To Pass An Obviously Unconstitutional Bill That Would Criminalize Boycotts Of Israel?
Furnished content.
As we've noted in the past on articles discussing this topic, I recognize that people have very, very, very strong views on both Israel and the whole "BDS" movement, and (trust me) you're not going to convince anyone about the rightness or wrongness of those views in our comments. However, even if you support the Israeli government fully, and think the BDS movement is a sham, hopefully you can still agree that an American law criminalizing supporting the BDS movement is blatantly unconstitutional.It is true, if horrifying, that a bunch of states have passed such laws, all of which are quite clearly unconstitutional as well. Challenges to the state laws in Kansas and Arizona have already been (easily) successful. There are other legal challenges against the other laws, and they will almost certainly be tossed out as well.The impact of these laws is absolutely ridiculous as well, even barring Houston residents from receiving hurricane relief if they didn't sign a pledge promising not to boycott Israel. That's so plainly a First Amendment violation, it's amazing that so many states have followed suit. And it's depressing that Congress is looking to do the same:Earlier versions of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act would have made it a crime possibly even subject to jail time for American companies to participate in political boycotts aimed at Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories when those boycotts were called for by international governmental organizations like the United Nations. The same went for boycotts targeting any country that is friendly to the United States if the boycott was not sanctioned by the United States.Last week, the ACLU saw an updated version being considered for inclusion in the spending bill (though this text is not publicly available). While Hill offices claim the First Amendment concerns have been resolved, and potential jail time has indeed been eliminated as a possible punishment, the bill actually does nothing to cure its free speech problems. Furthermore, knowingly violating the bill could result in criminal financial penalties of up to $1 million. Were this legislation to pass, federal officials would have a new weapon at their disposal to chill and suppress speech that they found objectionable or politically unpopular. Boycotts are clearly a freedom of expression issue. The entire point of these kinds of boycotts are to express your views on something happening in the world. To say that it's illegal to support a boycott is crazy. And it's even crazier that the US would pass such a law banning the boycott of a foreign country. This is made even crazier by the fact that it's quite obviously legal to call for a boycott of a state within the US. The Intercept's recent article highlights the insanity of this situation using NY Governor Andrew Cuomo:One of the first states to impose such repressive restrictions on free expression was New York. In 2016, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order directing all agencies under his control to terminate any and all business with companies or organizations that support a boycott of Israel. If you boycott Israel, New York State will boycott you, Cuomo proudly tweeted, referring to a Washington Post op-ed he wrote that touted that threat in its headline.As The Intercept reported at the time, Cuomo's order requires that one of his commissioners compile 'a list of institutions and companies' that 'either directly or through a parent or subsidiary' support a boycott. That government list is then posted publicly, and the burden falls on [the accused boycotters] to prove to the state that they do not, in fact, support such a boycott.[....]What made Cuomo's censorship directive particularly stunning was that, just two months prior to issuing this decree, he ordered New York state agencies to boycott North Carolina in protest of that state's anti-LGBT law. Two years earlier, Cuomo banned New York state employees from all non-essential travel to Indiana to boycott that state's enactment of an anti-LGBT law. So, according to Cuomo, you must boycott North Carolina and Indiana, but it's a crime to boycott Israel. That's... messed up.Again, even if you think that the BDS movement is really anti-Semitic, you should at least be able to understand the serious First Amendment problems with any such law. And the idea that Congress might try to slip something through during the lameduck session before the new Congress starts suggests even they know how ridiculous such a law would be.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:13am on 18-Dec-2018
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|