here and here on account of its potential for clarifying the scope of Bolar exemptions from patent infringement in favour of experimental use. However, it appears that the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf informed the CJEU that it was withdrawing its request for a preliminary ruling. Th request for a reference has now been removed from the register. Does anyone know why? Merpel guesses that it's because the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf decided it knew the answers after all, but this Kat thinks there may be a more prosaic answer ...
|Here's a different sort|
of ice bucket challenge
speculation as to how one might address a judge of the soon-to-be-constituted Unified Patent Court, while Sally Cooper frets about background copyright and Barbara Cookson writes about diversity and skill sets in the patent profession. The 1709 Blog's sidebar poll on that blessed black-crested photo-taking macaque, with three days left till the close, now has 334 respondents. Meanwhile, on the Class 46 trade mark law blog, former guest Kat Laetitia spots some non-confusingly similar diamond marks, here, and Katfriend Pedro Malaquias points to a recent Portuguese opposition involving "KART"-based marks. Finally, Stefano Barazza reports on research that reveals that the behaviour of patent trolls can be somewhat opportunistic.
The Once and Future Narrative. Although he is far too modest to tell everyone, fellow Kat Neil has just had an article published in the International Trademark Association (INTA) Trademark Reporter. Titled "Trademark Licensing: The Once and Future Narrative", it appears in volume.104, issue 4 of that venerable publication and its abstract reads as follows:
Readers who are INTA members, or who can access the Trademark Reporter, and who have a soft spot for Neil's pet subject of trade mark licensing, are in for a treat!