Well, this is nothing new… the world turns always around sex, and the web economy as well.

It is plenty of data concerning the importance of the sex industry on the web (some are really well proposed).

A few days ago, and this is the last example, the domain name “porn.com” has been sold for US $ 9.5 millions to MXN Ltd., a company linked to downloadpass.com. This is the second largest domain sale overall, after… sex.com, obviously! FYI sex.com was sold for US $ 12 millions.

“The sale of Porn.com further reinforces the growing trend of businesses that place a high strategic value on generic domains related to their industry” said the Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Moniker.com, and it stresses once again the overall importance of the porn industry for the web and its economy.

Its seems that the porn market bubble is not going to burst.

This is the kind of decision that makes me doubt about IP! I actually have not seen the full text yet, but the article published by Italy’s most authoritative economic newspaper - “Il Sole 24 Ore” - leaves a few doubts.

The Court of Rome deemed the two marks in the images not to be confusingly similar … for real! The first mark is the well known Fendi Monogram, the second is the less known monogram used by the Israeli fashion firm Fox.

Considering Fendi’s use of its monogram in almost 100 years of history, it is easy to understand that we are dealing with a famous and well-known mark; moreover, the similarities with the Fox monogram are so strong that I can hardly imagine why the judge refused Fendi’s claim.

However, I think - hope - this is just a single case. In many other cases regarding counterfeit marks in the same field (i.e. Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Chanel’s monograms), the case-law is usually favourable to the protection of famous marks against marks confusingly similar (like for the LV vs LX monogram).

Google is not the only one thinking about the digitization of all - or at least part - of the human written knowledge. The European Union is promoting a project for the digitization of the European culture in order to keep it safe for future generations and make it freely accessible to everyone.

Obviously, they are facing part of the same problems Google is already facing. And one of the main issues highlighted in the final report of the group of experts appointed by the Commission is the legal certainty on their activity for both right holders and cultural institutions.

Some of the issues identified as critical by the Copyright subgroup are: the right to make preservation copies of copyrighted material by certain institutions, the necessity of coordination among the different initiatives and the costs related to some types of media (pictures and audiovisuals in particular).

Of particular interest - and somehow linked to the subject of my last post - is the problem of “orphan works”. I think that this is the perfect example of how western culture is different from India, since speaking about works that have no “father/mother” is the best index of how much we need a proprietor for creative works.

In some cases, in fact, right holders cannot be identified or located; as a result, works can be classified as “orphan”. This is one of the main obstacles to the free diffusion of contents trough the digital networks. Therefore, Copyright Subgroup recommends, alternatively, some non-legislative or soft legislative solutions that enhance transparency and/or prevent further expansions of the phenomenon of orphan works. From a non-legislative stand point, dedicated databases concerning information on orphan works and improved inclusion of metadata (information on right holders) in digital material are invoked, while, from a legislative point of view, the subgroup proposes a “soft law approach” achievable through contractual arrangements, combined with some support mechanism for voluntarily negotiated contracts.
The document is really interesting and opens a new window on problems related to the identification of the author, a milestone of our intellectual property laws but, as seen in the previous post, not always a big problem all around the world.

I found this interesting article by Suketu Mehta regarding the IP protection of traditional knowledge concerning the Yoga practice (italian version).

As a matter of fact, a number of traditional Indian practices of Yoga have been recently put under protection under Copyright and Patent law by Indian people emigrated to the U.S.. From health care to culture, India is an enormous source of knowledge, but Indian people’s traditional way of thinking is opposite to the western one regarding who owns cultural heritage.

While western culture, as we all known, preserves private property, including intellectual creations, Indian culture promotes a diffused sharing of knowledge.

As a consequence, when the millenary culture of Yoga and Indian thinking are exported, it is freely appropriable by anyone. Therefore, anyone can protect a Yoga exercise as it was her own creation and so on. Needless to say the business related to the pharmaceutical industry, as the article duly highlights. So, have a nice reading and I think Hokusai will revert on the subject shortly.

No, this title isn’t a mistake… this is just what I would do if I were a counterfeiter - not a very bright one - and I wanted to counterfeit a shoes mark. Like it is done in China, indeed, where, on the streets, it is easy to find shoes bearing marks like Sdisda”, “Nkie”, “Daiads”, “Cnovesre”, “Ball Star” and “Pmua”… Enjoy the pictures!

The “Made in Italy” is worldwide known and appreciated… and always well paid! Clothes, food and wine: everybody loves’em and everybody would like to dress, eat and drink like Italians do (well, maybe French people they wouldn’t, … too bad!).

So, are you willing to buy a bottle of Chianti and pay what it’s really worth? Or had you rather buy a fake, or even a homemade? If so, here we are: homemade Italian wine.

A Canadian company - Advintage - is distributing wine-making and beer-making kits to produce in few months what usually takes year to arrive on our tables: Chianti, Barolo, Montepulciano and a wide variety of beer.

Seriously, this is not even counterfeiting; this is insanity!

If you want to do something on your own, start with a model aircraft, not with a self-made wine cellar.

Cheers!

Finally, Italian IP Courts are outside the eighteenth century and have entered the twenty-first!

In January the Court of Milan has issued a decision regarding the protection under copyright law of a great design chair, the Panton Chair by Verner Panteon. This chair was created in 1960 and is now produced by the Italian design firm Vitra. In 2006 the Italian customs seized a stock of fake Panteon chairs coming from China and addressed to a well known Milan design store.

Prior to the coming into force of the Italian Decree Law 95/2001, which harmonized Italian law with European Community Directives, an object was either protected by the law on designs, or - where its artistic value was separable from the industrial nature of the product - by copyright law. After the Decree Law 95/2001, a work of design, when characterized by the so called “artistic value”, can be now protected both under design and copyright law.

This landmark decision has confirmed that the artistic value of a work of design is not diminished by the industrial nature of the product, provided that it is possible to demonstrate that its design is such as to give rise to appreciation among the general public and in cultural circles.

In other decisions - like the sadly famous one regarding Le Courbusier’s Chaise Longue - the industrial nature of the creation was considered a per se bar for the access to design protection.

If you take a look at the collections of museums like the NY MOMA or La Triennale di Milano, you can easily understand that they were wrong, but Judges are too busy to go to museums, one may think! Not judge Marangoni, anyways, who stated that: “The artistic value of the design exists whenever the artwork has characteristics such as to give rise to appreciation at an aesthetic level that prevails over the functionality of the product. Thus the selection parameter becomes the perception of the consumer and the design merits copyright protection when the work possesses such characteristics that they alone justify purchase of the product, irrespective of considerations of functionality or convenience of price.”

In these cases, the term of protection for the design (maximum 25 years) may potentially be extended according to the regulations on copyright – up to 25 years after the death of the author.

So, that’s a step further in IP law for Italy; the next problem, in my opinion, is how to evaluate the artistic value for brand new works or for works made by young designers. When a chair, a lamp or a table is not exhibited in a museum or published in a critique book but is as creative as that kind of works, on which basis can we evaluate its artistic value? Are judges supposed to be art critics or are art critics supposed to intervene in judgments to solve this problem?

I found this www.obviouslycounterfeit.com… Ok, these guys sell counterfeits, but why being proud of it?

The watches sold on their website are clearly copies of Rolex watches but it goes without saying since they choose such a name!

On the first page, moreover, they give a clear and exhaustive definition of counterfeit: “to copy without authority; to imitate with the intent to deceive”… what else can I say, it’s a full confession!

By the way, they registered their trademark, quite inconsistent, isn’t it?

I love 7Teen and his works (have a look to his website and his flickr), and he seems to like the Burberry Check! This time its as hard as stupid speaking about counterfeits, this is art…

Hokusai is not dead, I just took a long break but now I’m back!

And for this 2007 resurrection, I think that the editorial by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in the British Medical Journal titled ‘Scrooge and intellectual property rights’ is a perfect gift for you folks who still visit this blog.

Thanks to all!