A Practical Guide to the Transfer of Trusteeships * By Richard Williams, Arabella Saker and Toby Graham

Earlier this month saw the publication of the widely anticipatedand much welcomed ‘Practical Guide to the Transfer ofTrusteeships’, produced under the stewardship of STEPand edited by the triumvirate of Richard Williams, Toby Grahamand Arabella Saker. The book has a spectacularly wide remit in addressing not onlymatters of English Law, but also the jurisdictions of the Bahamas,Bermuda, BVI, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man,Singapore and Jersey. In     

From watchdog to sneak: the UK's new trade mark notification regime

Legal context: This article discusses the move from ex officio refusal of trademark applications based on relative grounds, to a notificationregime. The order making power for this derives from Section8 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Owners of qualifying earlier registered rights, in respect ofwhich registration of the subject application would be consideredto lead to a likelihood of confusion, will be notified of thelater subject application, and must decide for themselves whetherto oppose. Key points: The article examines the justification for such a shift, interms of the need for a proper evidence and submission basedevaluation of the respective marks, as well as the need to takeall market factors into account in any evaluation. It also addressesthe legal and cultural shift entailed in such a change. Finally,the article attempts to set out three objective measures bywhich an evaluation of success could be measured. Practical significance: The change will affect all those who already have, or will have,registered trade mark rights in the UK. The author's concernin particular is for those who will be receiving notificationletters and what their response might be - given that many willbe unrepresented. The author also believes that more notificationswill be sent out than marks that are currently ‘cited’.     

The rational voter paradox revisited

The rational voter paradox rests on two fundamental assumptions. First, that voters are risk neutral. Second, that voters make decisive vote computations. The implications of maximizing the expected utility of wealth rather than the utility of expected wealth are explored. The validity of decisive vote computations are examined through concepts of weak and strict in the limit free rider assumptions. The paper proposes a margin of victory model of voting behavior based on information levels and the political division of labor.     

Public attitudes towards the death penalty

Responses to a general question regarding the use of the death penalty were compared with the sentences that respondents chose in a set of scenarios describing homicide cases. The percentage of respondents who assigned the death sentence in one or more of the following scenarios was higher than those who favored the death penalty in the abstract question, but there were inconsistencies in the answers. A majority assigned the death penalty only for the most heinous offender described, and the figures were lower for other crimes, even clear cases of first degree murder. At the same time, a manipulation involving information about methods of execution did not affect answers. These results strongly suggest that the abstract questions typically used in public opinion polls do not accurately reflect the public's feelings about use of the death penalty in specific cases. More generally, research on public opinion regarding criminal justice policies should survey a variety of specific circumstances.