<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IPcopy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>IP news, views &#38; trivia</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 14:29:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='ipcopy.wordpress.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/osd.xml" title="IPcopy" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Kim Dotcom and the Two-Factor Authentication patent: Inventor or not?</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/kim-dotcom-and-the-two-factor-authentication-patent-inventor-or-not/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/kim-dotcom-and-the-two-factor-authentication-patent-inventor-or-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 12:55:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopyemily</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPO opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first inventor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kim Dotcom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kim Schutz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent validity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-factor authentication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US6078908]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=1304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Twitter has finally got itself two-factor authentication in a bid to help stem the flow of account hacking. Following Twitter’s announcement, Kim Schmitz (better known as Kim Dotcom), the man behind Megaupload (you know, that file sharing site in a spot of hot water over in the US right now), made an announcement of his &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/kim-dotcom-and-the-two-factor-authentication-patent-inventor-or-not/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=1304&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/kim-dotcom-and-the-two-factor-authentication-patent-inventor-or-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f073609a273ec5119bb7b84c95878880?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopyemily</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/file00021318639.jpg?w=300" medium="image" />
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unified Patent Court Agreement &#8211; now with Contents section</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/unified-patent-court-agreement-now-with-contents-section/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/unified-patent-court-agreement-now-with-contents-section/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 12:55:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopymark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contents section for unitary patent court agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unified patent court agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unitary patent court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=1283</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court has been available for some time now (and can be found here). One thing that’s struck me as slightly odd is that the text of the agreement doesn’t apparently come with its own contents section. Maybe the idea is that the agreement should be the last thing we &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/unified-patent-court-agreement-now-with-contents-section/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=1283&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/unified-patent-court-agreement-now-with-contents-section/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7427c498fc2d28899dcfa0135c21798a?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopymark</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/eu-flag.jpg?w=300" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">EU flag</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>I feel the need, the need for speed &#8211; accelerated prosecution in the UK</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/i-feel-the-need-the-need-for-speed-accelerated-prosecution-in-the-uk/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/i-feel-the-need-the-need-for-speed-accelerated-prosecution-in-the-uk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 08:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopyhiren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UKIPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent box]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accelerated prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uk patent box]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[superfast patent processing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green channel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=699</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Superfast, Green Channel, accelerated prosecution &#8211; Confused? Four years on from the launch of the lean, mean, Green Channel patent machine, will this process for accelerating UK patent prosecution still have any worth should the new Superfast patent processing service be launched? In May 2009, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) launched its much &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/i-feel-the-need-the-need-for-speed-accelerated-prosecution-in-the-uk/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=699&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/i-feel-the-need-the-need-for-speed-accelerated-prosecution-in-the-uk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/0691b2e55d0636a34138a2cf6e2f4e9b?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopyhiren</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/speed.jpg?w=300" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Hit or Miss? Armageddon – Science Miss but IP Hit?</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/ip-hit-or-miss-armageddon-science-miss-but-ip-hit/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/ip-hit-or-miss-armageddon-science-miss-but-ip-hit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 14:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopylaurence</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP - Hit or miss?]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Armageddon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States Patent and Trademark Office]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=1176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of our readers suggested we take a look at Armageddon. This 1998 action/adventure sci-fi starring Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck has already been established as a science fail (1,2,3) but how accurate are the IP references made in the movie? For those readers not familiar with Armageddon, the film revolves around an impending asteroid &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/ip-hit-or-miss-armageddon-science-miss-but-ip-hit/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=1176&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/ip-hit-or-miss-armageddon-science-miss-but-ip-hit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/5719b3cf7f0996e3b188cbf5b569c6ec?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopylaurence</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/pia00136_modest.jpg?w=300" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Image - courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech.</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bits &#8216;n Bobs: UK Unitary Patent News</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/bits-n-bobs-uk-unitary-patent-news/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/bits-n-bobs-uk-unitary-patent-news/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 08:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopymark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic assessment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ratification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unified patent court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unitary patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=1251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Unified Patent Court (UPC) stakeholder group for legal professionals meeting was held in the UK this week and there was some interesting unitary patent/UPC news. The timetable for the unitary patent system to &#8220;go live&#8221; appears to be slipping. Remember that when the regulations and UPC agreement were being finalised it was the desire &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/bits-n-bobs-uk-unitary-patent-news/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=1251&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/bits-n-bobs-uk-unitary-patent-news/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7427c498fc2d28899dcfa0135c21798a?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopymark</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/gbeu-flag.jpg?w=300" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">GB+EU flag</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s such a shame for us to part (Poisonous Divisionals)</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/its-such-a-shame-for-us-to-part/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/its-such-a-shame-for-us-to-part/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 12:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopyrich</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 54(3) EPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nestec S A v. Dualit Limited]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poisonous divisional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poisonous divisionals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 2(3) Patents Act 1977]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T1496/11]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=1229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Unusually, I’m lost for words.  Not words in general, as you can see, but specific words to describe the phenomenon of self-collision between parent and divisional applications identified in European practice by Malcolm Lawrence and Marc Wilkinson of Avidity IP as the poisonous&#8230;  I’d better stop there.  In the light of UK Trade Mark Registration &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/its-such-a-shame-for-us-to-part/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=1229&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/its-such-a-shame-for-us-to-part/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/2192d5900b788c816636ca636d68bc19?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopyrich</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/onion-root-mitosis.jpg?w=146" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">onion root mitosis</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The 15th Draft Rules of Procedure of the UPC: What’s new? [Updated]</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-15th-draft-rules-of-procedure-of-the-upc-whats-new/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-15th-draft-rules-of-procedure-of-the-upc-whats-new/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 12:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopyemily</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unitary patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unified patent court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opt out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[draft rules of procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[15th draft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fifteenth draft]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=1215</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, a copy of the 15th draft rules of procedure of the Unified Patent Court, were released. We now understand from the Bristows UPC website that this version of the 15th draft rules has not been approved by the rules committee and may be subject to further change. We will keep you updated on the &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-15th-draft-rules-of-procedure-of-the-upc-whats-new/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=1215&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/the-15th-draft-rules-of-procedure-of-the-upc-whats-new/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f073609a273ec5119bb7b84c95878880?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopyemily</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/eu-flag.jpg?w=300" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">EU flag</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Queen, Ping Pong and the Intellectual Property Bill [Updated]</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/the-queen-ping-pong-and-the-intellectual-property-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/the-queen-ping-pong-and-the-intellectual-property-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 07:58:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopymark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bond]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property Bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Queen's Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unified patent court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wiff Waff]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=1196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Wednesday, Her Majesty the Queen (Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms and Bond Girl) delivered the Queen&#8217;s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament and set out the measures the government wants to get through Parliament in the year ahead. As well as bills relating to immigration and the &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/the-queen-ping-pong-and-the-intellectual-property-bill/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=1196&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/the-queen-ping-pong-and-the-intellectual-property-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7427c498fc2d28899dcfa0135c21798a?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopymark</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/gbeu-flag.jpg?w=300" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">GB+EU flag</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Misleading Invoices: a warning</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/misleading-invoices-a-warning/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/misleading-invoices-a-warning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 12:30:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Designs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading invoices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scam invoices]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=1082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No IP blog would be complete without a warning on misleading IP invoices, so here&#8217;s ours! If you are the owner of an intellectual property (IP) right then you may from time-to-time receive communications that resemble official looking invoices for IP services. Such misleading invoices are sent directly to the IP owner and are designed &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/misleading-invoices-a-warning/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=1082&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/misleading-invoices-a-warning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7f6b5f2de326794c45993aa928ae7a38?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopy</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/upset.jpg?w=300" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">What do you mean I spent all my pocket money settling a fake invoice?</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade Mark Tribunal – Fast Track Opposition Procedure at the UKIPO</title>
		<link>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/trade-mark-tribunal-fast-track-opposition-procedure-at-the-ukipo/</link>
		<comments>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/trade-mark-tribunal-fast-track-opposition-procedure-at-the-ukipo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 12:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipcopymark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trade Marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fast track opposition procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark consultation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UKIPO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/?p=1163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent post we looked at a consultation from the UKIPO which was proposing superfast patent processing. That’s not the only consultation that is running at the UKIPO and there is a further one entitled “Fast Track Opposition Procedure. Trade Mark Tribunal”. This consultation is running until 17 May 2013 and seeks the views &#8230; <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/trade-mark-tribunal-fast-track-opposition-procedure-at-the-ukipo/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ipcopy.wordpress.com&#038;blog=40900219&#038;post=1163&#038;subd=ipcopy&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/trade-mark-tribunal-fast-track-opposition-procedure-at-the-ukipo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7427c498fc2d28899dcfa0135c21798a?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ipcopymark</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://ipcopy.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ukipologo.gif?w=300" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">UKIPOlogo</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
