This week’s top 15 legal briefings – 08 March 2015

Can you compare the Mayweather-Pacquaio fight to a property deal? When we first read this headline, our response was a natural one.

No. No you can’t.

How wrong we were. Gateley has produced a briefing that does exactly that. Or, more precisely, it’s looked at the protracted negotiations that took place between Mayweather and Pacquaio to get them both in the ring in the first place. The key reasons discussions stalled (over five years of on-off attempts to make the fight happen) are similar to the four common stalling points in contract negotiations over a landlord carrying out some building works for a tenant. Those points are, says Gateley, money, timing, inspections and the aftermath. It’s a good read: click here for more information.

We’re animal lovers on The Lawyer news desk so any opportunity to cover rabbit news is to be jumped at. Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co takes a look at an intellectual property dispute between Supreme Petfoods and Henry Bell, the makers of Mr Johnson’s Supreme Rabbit Mix.

The presiding judge bemoaned the complication of the case, which he thought ought to be able to be resolved “without great legal difficulty or expense.” He attributed the difficulty to “the current state of European trademark law.” Wragges looks at the reason why complications have arisen, as well as examining the key issues of the Supreme case and Mr Justice Arnold’s eventual decision. Click here for more information.

We close with some gibberish. Does “[121S.II/III] tell: “{ SPL test} ≡FSTP-Test” 7.a). Thus, familiarity 7.b) with the FSTP – Test8) pays. It tests, interpretations/TT.0s of a CI, their inventive concept sets satisfying necessary ˄ sufficient and precise legal criteria 6) for CI’s passing its SPL test” mean anything to you?

It’s actual, genuine text, from an actual, genuine cert petition filed by a Foley & Lardner lawyer in America. To be fair, the lawyer argued he was bound to follow the orders of his client, Professor Sigram Schindler, who had some hand in the drafting process.

Dentons asks the question: does the petition amount to an ethical violation on the part of the lawyer? There are certainly points to consider: for example, by essentially allowing the good Doctor Schindler to write the brief, did the lawyer assist in the unauthorised practice of law?

Click here for more information (oh, and in case you’re still wavering about whether to read it, this briefing also includes a link to a clip from the movie Blazing Saddles).

Top five briefings by law firm 

Dentons: Authentic frontier gibberish Download
Gateley: Can you compare the Mayweather-Pacquaio fight to a property deal? Download
Eversheds: 3D printing at home: what does it mean for IP owners? 
Download
Shoosmiths: Big Data, big deal? Download
Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co: Back to basics – signing your documents correctly Download
More law firms

Top five briefings by practice area 
Insolvency: Notable insolvency cases: February 2015 Download
In-house: Take stock of your Twitter marketing campaign before it comes back to peck you Download
Employment: Footie and a bit of employment law Download
Intellectual property: Rabbit food wars – Supreme Petfoods do not reign supreme Download
Litigation: Costs and compliance: making sense of Jackson post-Mitchell and Denton Download
More practice areas

Top five briefings by region 
Asia-Pacific: Countdown to the Hong Kong competition ordinance – five steps to compliance heaven Download
Middle East: Beware: Israeli authorities are on the prowl for unsuspecting sanctions evaders Download
Offshore: Shareholder relief: the just and equitable grounds for winding up a BVI Download
UK & Europe: Over 55 and in debt: Is your pension pot Download
US & The Americas: SEC emphasises co-operation and M&A due diligence in $16m Goodyear FCPA settlement Download
More regions