Demonstrating 'use' of an earlier registered mark in CTM opposition proceedings

An earlier registered trade mark may serve to oppose a laterapplication to register a Community trade mark, notwithstandingthat the earlier mark is not used in the form in which it isregistered, so long as the actual use had not destroyed thedistinctive character of the earlier mark.     

A multivariate investigation of dating aggression

This study investigated the following variables for their unique and combined contributions to dating aggression: exposure to aggression in the family of origin (witnessing interparental aggression or being the victim of aggressive parenting); attitudes justifying dating aggression (when humiliated or in selfdefense); child-to-parent aggression; child sexual abuse; violent sexual victimization; alcohol use; and socioeconomic status. One hundred and eleven male and 179 female undergraduates reported on their own aggressive behaviors directed toward dating partners. Together, the predictor variables accounted for 41% of the variance in male-to-female aggression but only 16% of the female-to-male aggression. Humiliation, as a justification for dating aggression, contributes to the prediction of both males' and females' dating aggression, while self-defense, although a highly endorsed condition for justifying dating aggression, does not predict actual aggressive behavior. Exposure to interparental aggression plus the product between exposure and humiliation contribute to the prediction of males' dating aggression but exposure does not play a role in females' dating aggression. Violent sexual victimization contributes unique variance to both males' and females' dating aggression. The present data highlight the importance of examining specific circumstances under which males and females justify dating aggression and how such attitudes condoning aggression affect actual behaviors.     

Summary judgment in intellectual property litigation--the three of Harts

Legal context. The popular image of litigation is one of anoften long and expensive full trial. However, better case managementmeans that courts in the United Kingdom increasingly deal withdisputes at an early stage, by striking out claims that haveno genuine chance of success and by giving summary judgmentagainst defendants whose defences have no hope of succeeding.These procedures, detailed under the Civil Procedure Rules,are frequently invoked in intellectual property disputes. Unlikefull trials, which are normally heard before a specialist intellectualproperty judge, applications for summary judgment and strikingout are frequently heard by judges in the Chancery Divisionwho may have little experience of the area. Key points. This article considers the advantages and disadvantagesof deploying non-specialist judges, reviewing in particularthree decisions of a non-specialist judge, Mr Justice Hart.It suggests that a specialist judge might have reached a differentconclusion in at least one of these decisions. It also questionsthe policy issue of refusing to strike out a claim that, onthe law as it currently stands, has no chance of success wherethe intention is that the claimant be given the opportunityto invite the trial court to evolve a change in the law throughprecedental development. Practical significance. At a time when there is a strong demandfor the administration of justice to be both effective and swift,the twin facility of entering summary judgment and strikingout is likely to remain attractive and popular with intellectualproperty litigants. However, it is a facility that should notbe abused. The employment of non-specialist judges for the purposeof determining whether that facility should be utilised mayproduce results that, if justifiable, may run counter to theintuition of those who specialise in the field. Accordingly,judicial practice in this regard should be carefully monitoredand reviewed if predictability and consistency of decision-makingis to prevail.