|"Where on Earth|
is Synflorix ...?"
Around the weblogs 2. Active again on Class 46, Edith Van den Eede tells how an Italian court can order the publication of its decision in a trade mark infringement action, even when counterfeit goods have not been used and the plaintiff has suffered no loss. Still on Class 46, fellow Kat Birgit draws our attention to TPN 1/2014, a UK practice memo on the relevance of colour in the case of UK trade marks registered in black and white but generally used in a specific colour or combination of colours. Finally, we go over to India, where the SiNApSE blog reviews the latest outbreak of yoga-based IP litigation and J. Sai Deepak, of Indian IP blog The Demanding Mistress, announces his return to the blogosphere after truanting for a good three months. Welcome back!
" ... the reasoning of the Dutch government has its origin in the fact that the Dutch law tolerates that protected work or material is downloaded from without authorisation [illegal sources] and only uploading of protected work or material can be curbed. Thus the Kingdom of the Netherlands supports indirectly but inevitably, the mass distribution of products resulting from the exploitation of protected works and materials, which distribution can in no case be regarded as normal and in fact, the cause itself creates the phenomenon, the damaging consequences for the rightholders of which this Member State seeks to eliminate. The trivialization of downloading protected work or material that circulates online without proper authorization can only undermine its normal exploitation".
|The Gnomes of Zurich|