* Court in the act: how many European Courts are there? The first post of the week clarifies the misleading terminology that has been used in defining ‘European Courts’. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is often referred to as the European Court of Justice by various organisations, including the UK IPO. As for the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), this is not a European Union institution, but originates from the Council of Europe. Neither court should be confused with the European Free Trade Association Court (EFTA) which, far from being connected to the EU, operates only for non-EU States.
* Copyright, technology and a Katcontest! Eleonora invites the public to submit an original work illustrating the relationship between copyright and technology. The winner will receive a ticket to the 1-day conference Copyright and Technology taking place at Reed Smith LLP’s London offices on 1 October 2014. In addition, the IPKat will publish the best submissions! Entries should be emailed to email@example.com by Monday 8 September 11 pm GMT.
* Letter from AmeriKat: Judge Koh declares Takeda takes it too far with Mylan Dexilant declaration: The AmeriKat is back with a case review of Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al v Mylan Inc. et al (here). US District Judge Koh dismissed Takeda’s application for a declaratory judgement against Mylan, as it would be ‘going overboard’. Takeda had sought an application stating that Mylan was infringing its patented acid-reflux drug Dexilant.
* In Cold Comfort Farmers Cards: Californians feel New Zealand chill, Katfriend Ken Moon (AJPark) writes about ruling of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in a software copyright and trade secrets dispute, Karum Group LLC v Fisher & Paykel Finance  NZCA 389. The dispute concerned alleged copying and misuse of confidential information. This is the first case on non-literal software copyright infringement case in New Zealand. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that the software copyright had not been infringed and that there had been no breach of confidence.
* Sparks fly as sharks fly, but attack on patent validity loses its bite is a post from occasional guest blogger Paul England. He comments on the decision of Judge Hacon in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in William Mark Corporation & Another v Gift House International Ltd  EWHC 2845 (IPEC). The claimant owned two patents, both entitled ‘Flying Shark’. The defendant, also devised toys, known as ‘Mega Flier’, and imported them for sale in the UK. The ‘Mega Flier’ was alleged to infringe the claimant’s patents while the defendant argued that those patents were invalid. The patents were held valid and infringed.
* Television Show Fan Does Not Own Facebook Likes. Marie-Andrée discusses the recent decision of the Southern District Court of Florida in Stacey Mattocks v Black Entertainment Television LLC. The case raised issues of ownership of ‘likes’ generated by a social media account. The plaintiff created a fan page for a TV show ‘The Game’ on Facebook. The page grew in popularity, and BET eventually took over its management, allowing Ms Mattocks some rights which were later withdrawn. This is the first time a court had to examine a case where a fan is claiming ownership rights over an account promoting a show. The court decided that it is the corporation which owns the IP rights over the content, not the fans. Note Rebecca’s post on a similar issue later in the week.
* "Cultivated capsicums!" Peppers resist insect, breeders resist patent comments on an article published by a national Dutch newspaper. The published item called for crowd-funding of opposition proceedings against a European patent EP2140023, granted last year to Syngenta. The patent was for insect-repellent pepper plants. However, it appears that the patent gives Syngenta ownership over all paprika (and pepper) seeds, plants and -fruits that have a natural defence against whitefly. More details on this can be found in the post and the comments.
* Patent Law in Greater China: a new title. This is a book review of Patent Law In Greater China, edited by Stefan Luginbuehl and Peter Ganea. The book was published by Edward Elgar Publishing as part of its Intellectual Property Law and Practice series, which itself is co-edited by two Katfriends, practitioner Trevor Cook and academic Jo Gibson. The book gets a positive feedback: “Chapters from practitioners, administrators, academics and the business world give this work a degree of relevance and immediacy and show how the complex and initially puzzling interplay of law and practice in China and the economies within her orbit can be depicted and understood.”
* The Blue Jay Trade Mark Battle Commences... Lucas Michels writes about a Notice of Opposition (Proceeding No. 91217791) filed by the Canadian baseball team Toronto Blue Jays against a design trade mark application of a bird head in International Class (IC) 025 for athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms. The application was filed by Creighton University (a US university) and depicts a new version of the university's sports mascot Billy Bluejay, which has been in use since October 9, 2013. The Blue Jays assert in their notice that Creighton’s new Billy Bluejay logo creates a likelihood of confusion.
All is Fair (Use) in Love (Lace). Marie-Andrée discusses the recent decision of Judge Thomas P. Griesa from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in TPG Arrow Productions, Ltd v The Weinstein Company L.L.C. et al, 1:13-cv-05488. The plaintiff produces and distributes films, owning copyright in the 1972 movie Deep Throat, starring Linda Lovelace, and the trade mark “Linda Lovelace”. Claims of copyright and trade mark infringement against the producers of the movie Lovelace were dismissed.
* The secret life of Hello Kitty is a promising title and reveals that Hello Kitty is not a cat, but a young British girl! Her character has been registered for an array of trade marks, and the Kat notes that the lucrative appeal of brand extensions makes them an attractive area to invest in. The post divulges more details about her secret life, in particular some of unsuspected trade marks for which she is registered.
* Seriously, did you really assign your IP rights to all members of the group? Neil discusses the various clauses usually incorporated into licence or assignment agreements relating to intellectual property rights. He lists some common clauses and warns against their pitfalls.
* Lindsay Lohan and New York Right of Publicity: An Update ✌ ✌ ✌ ✌. Marie-Andrée updates us on what happened since her previous post on Lindsay Lohan. Ms Lohan sued Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and Rockstar Games, the makers of the video game Grand Theft Auto V (GTAV). She claimed that the character “Lacey Jonas” and the portrayal of young, blonde women in two transition screens were unauthorized commercial uses of her image and thus violated her rights under New York right of publicity law. The defendants have now applied to dismiss the action and are asking for sanctions, saying that “her claim is so legally meritless that it lacks any good-faith basis and can only have been filed for publicity purposes.”
* Facebook in the fast lane: Ferrari moves up a gear. The last post of the week tells the story of a Ferrari fan, Sammy Wassem, who created a Facebook page for the brand. The page was eventually taken over by Ferrari and his administration rights were removed. He has now filed an action in Switzerland against Ferrari, claiming unpaid work and infringement of the copyright of the Facebook page. Ferrari counterclaimed for misuse of its trade marks.