[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Post Text” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_layout=”light” parent_locked=”off”]<\/p>\n
Aim of this project<\/strong><\/p>\n This project focused on the practice of using tangible and intangible cultural heritage as trade marks,\u00a0especially in the context of\u00a0 placemaking. This activity was for LAWS70261 Trade Mark Law and Policy,\u00a0which is a module offered to postgraduate\u00a0 students on the LLM programme.<\/p>\n Trade mark protection grants an indefinite monopoly over words, logos, shapes and slogans, which\u00a0makes it an attractive tool\u00a0 for controlling their meaning. These symbols could be registered by local\u00a0authorities or non-profit organisations with the\u00a0 purpose of creating a place identity or promoting\u00a0tourism. But it is also possible for individuals and companies to register\u00a0 cultural heritage in public\u00a0domain as trade marks. Depending on how they are used, this could have a negative impact on the\u00a0public\u2019s engagement with their own local heritage, and how the externals view the source community.<\/p>\n There are safeguards in law regarding what can be registered. Some of these can be overcome by\u00a0\u201cacquired distinctiveness\u201d,\u00a0 meaning that previously unregistrable symbols can be registered if there is\u00a0enough investment in making them sufficiently\u00a0 distinctive, therefore allowing more powerful parties\u00a0can bypass the rationale behind the laws. Public policy and morality rule\u00a0 can be an alternative to\u00a0prevent their registration as trade marks, but then who determines what is within public policy and\u00a0what is moral?<\/p>\n The aim of this project is to provide the students a more critical and diverse understanding of the\u00a0uneasy relationship between\u00a0 law, heritage and place, and get them to consider what is left in the public\u00a0domain, and who has the power to decide what\u00a0 elements of shared cultural heritage can be used,\u00a0and whether it benefits the diverse interests of the members of the society\u00a0 equally.<\/p>\n How was it delivered?<\/strong><\/p>\n There were two activities: (1) workshop on relevant trade marks provisions and cases, (2) a guest\u00a0lecture.<\/p>\n In the workshop, after providing an overview of placemaking terminology, we had a quick revision of\u00a0relevant registration\u00a0 criteria (especially distinctiveness and public policy\/morality) and trade mark\u00a0defences (using a descriptive term, including place\u00a0 names, in line with honest practices). Afterwards a\u00a0few examples were covered:<\/p>\n We concluded with a class discussion on who owns such signs and whether they should be registered,\u00a0and how to take into account the\u00a0 diverse interest in the use of these symbols.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n
![\"Twitter](\"\/\/assets.manchester.ac.uk\/phase1\/templates\/images\/icon-twitter-50.png\"){kind=icon}
<\/a><\/li>\n