ABSTRACT How did the nineteenth-century trade marks registration system with its preference for distinctive trade marks accommodate Britain’s newspapers and reading publics, who seemed able to distinguish between newspapers despite their common descriptive names? In this article, it is argued that the situation presents another example of intellectual property law’s ‘negative spaces’, of creativity and innovation thriving in the absence of significant formal protection from intellectual property law. Moreover, it shows, yet again, the place of informal control in what is in other respects a formalised media industry sector. The historical analysis helps to explain the recent decision of an Irish judge that The Times and The Irish Times should continue to ‘co-exist peacefully’ in Ireland, with The Times permitted to launch a digital Times (Irish Edition) over the objection of the similarly named Irish Times, its nineteenth-century counterpart.

中文翻译：

---

商标，报纸和阅读公众

摘要十九世纪的商标注册制度如何偏向于独特的商标，以适应英国的报纸和阅读公众，尽管他们具有共同的描述性名字，但他们似乎能够区分报纸？本文认为，这种情况代表了知识产权法“消极空间”的又一个例子，即在缺乏对知识产权法的正式保护的情况下，创造力和创新性正在蓬勃发展。此外，它再次显示了非正式控制在正规媒体产业部门的其他方面的地位。历史分析有助于解释爱尔兰法官最近做出的一项决定，即《泰晤士报》和《爱尔兰时报》应继续在爱尔兰“和平共处”，