under China’s new trade mark regime. David described his talk as a “tapas” and gave a good summary of Russia today, its 140 million pharmaceutical David Aylen hungry consumers, its trade mark law and system, regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals, recent IP case law, and the Pharma 2020 programme to grow the local pharmaceutical industry. It was interesting to hear that parallel imports are presently illegal and that counterfeits (unofficially about 50% of OTC products) and unregulated on-line pharmacies abound. He also dealt with the newly formed Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the common market which it introduces in January 2016, including for medicines and medical products and devices, with a single customs union and harmonized control and supervision over such products. Scott Palmer then spoke on the “mixed bag” of changes to the law in China, some good and some not so good, such as the removal of appeals from failed Scott Palmer oppositions, the need for both parties to apply jointly for an assignment recordal through the same agent and the retention of the 15 day period for response to a rejection. Of special interest to brand owners was his very good analysis of possible remedies in the case of trade mark “hijacking” which made it apparent that despite some small signs of change it is still very difficult for the owner of anything but a truly “famous” mark to successfully challenge a bad faith filing. Good news included increased penalties for counterfeiting especially involving pharmaceuticals, and the expansion of liability to accessories to the main infringement. The talk was full of useful tips on issues such as multiclass filings. After this look East the focus moved back to Europe with Chris McLeod on the topic of European practice on likelihood of confusion, aptly sub-titled “More or less 10 confusion for pharmaceutical trade marks?”. Especially for the benefit of non-Europeans he described the Convergence process in general and the other study Chris McLeod areas being tackled to try and remove inconsistencies, before homing in on Convergence Paper 5. This aims to address the different approaches of OHIM and the national offices on assessing weak components in the likelihood of confusion comparison, which has resulted in different interpretations and outcomes. Chris dealt specifically with pharmaceutical trade marks which contained descriptive or non-distinctive elements, and the weight to be accorded to these in the comparison of marks of low distinctiveness, for likelihood of confusion. This is always best illustrated by concrete examples and audience participation was called for, a good move at the end of an intensive day, as we ran through recent rulings on pharmaceutical marks found to be confusing or not, but with no clear pattern emerging. Not surprisingly then that, while widely endorsed, CP5 is still a work in progress after nearly eight years, and the common approach it reaches for is yet to be achieved. After this very full day and in perfect weather the delegates were able to enjoy a guided pre-dinner stroll through “old” Warsaw before ending up at The Kubicki Arcades beneath the Royal Castle, where traditional Polish food, music and dancing were on the menu. The second day of the conference commenced with the very topical (in light of the recent VW emissions debacle and the FIFA scandal) subject of Reputation and Crisis Management which, we learned, requires a seamless partnership between media and legal so it made sense that the subject was approached in this way. Richard Meredith spoke on the PR dimension and Tim Pinto on the legal dimension. Richard, with the aid of excellent slides, as could be expected from a communications consultant, took us rapidly through the issues. He pointed out that companies, unlike government, are not having to deal with constant crises, and so are not always set up to do so and, when the need arises, there must be an action plan and ideally a CEO who is groomed as a good communicator. He analyzed what the reputation of a business depends on and then the world within which we find ourselves where media Richard Meredith reporting is constant and issues move very fast, where companies are less trusted and more questioned than before, where thanks to technology, news is no longer in the hands of the traditional media, and where consumers of media now have short attention spans. In the end, the message was that the court of public opinion is more important than the court of law and that it is less about the issue itself than how it is handled. All of this was peppered with real life examples so the subject was really brought alive for us. This was complimented by Tim Pinto’s clear exposition of the law which seldom, if ever, involves the comfort zone of trade mark law, but instead Tim Pinto defamation and the various defences to it (a mine field), and the requirement of “serious financial loss” under English law or “serious harm to reputation” for an individual. He touched on the role of legal throughout reputation management, from being included in the crisis team, to the post publication phase, and also, the options available at each stage and the differences between the European situation and the position in the USA where the right to free speech is very powerful. It was interesting how digital media, and particularly social media, have now become the main arena for harm to reputation, and the means of managing it, including take downs, apologies and corrections, and where traditional means such as threatening letters of demand, will only be posted online and backfire on the rights holder. After this, we moved back to the Polish legal system with a talk by Karolina Marciniszyn on the court system and preliminary injunctions in infringement