Last week's posts (excluding the Monday Miscellany and other omnibus compilations) went like this:
Patents are the irresistible bait to which no true practitioner can fail to rise -- and it is even more so when that IP right meets the fabulous domain of life science, Jeremy says. Are you sceptical or simply not an expert in the field? There are two things to do. The first is reading this post, which adumbrates the legal protection of biotechnological inventions and lists relevant provisions as they affect the hottest issues of that field. The second is signing up for the Life Sciences IP Summit 2014 where those topics -- and many more -- will be analysed by a team of acknowledged biotech guys and gals. A media partnership with the IPKat weblog, the seminar will take place from 12 to 14 November in the lovely city of Amsterdam: all manner of discounts are available to those who qualify for them.
* Fair deal or iMoan? Kate Bush’s request to leave the smartphones at home
The habit of using smartphones and similar amenities to record events instead of truly living them while they are occurring should be morally forbidden. Beyond that, guest blogger Dorothea Thompson observes, the practice appears to be rather disturbing to artists such as singer Kate Bush, and might amount to copyright infringement. How might this despicable phenomenon be fought? And, most of all, is doing so in the right-holders’ interest?
* She’s Got BetteDavis’…Trademark?
Can legendary celebrities’ names, likenesses and images be protected under IP law and the right of publicity? This is the subject of a couple of proceedings that took place in the US where jewellery featuring a line of products named "The Bette Davis Eyes" was up against the company that holds the rights related to the iconic Hollywood actress. Marie-Andrée recounts how it went.
* BREAKING NEWS: CJEU says that one has the "right to be forgotten" from offensive parodies This was the moment the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its long-awaited decision in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn [on which see Eleonora’s earlier posts here and here]. The case concerned various controversial topics, such as what “parody” means under the Information Society Directive and how to strike a balance between freedom of expression and right-holders’ interests when it comes to parodies.
* Early thoughts on Deckmyn: fun is OK, but only if politically correct
In a follow-up post on Case C-201/13 Deckmyn, Eleonora provides some in-depth food for thought by analysing three tricky aspects of the decision. First, are Member States free to implement exceptions taken from Article 5 of the Information Society Directive catalogue independently from what the CJEU says? Secondly, does parody have to comply with the originality requirement? Thirdly, is the CJEU imposing moral boundaries to define what falls within the concept of copyright-permissible parody?
* Boosting Pharma Innovation after TRIPS: lessons to be learned
Jeremy reviews Boosting Pharmaceutical Innovation In The Post-TRIPS Era: Real-Life Lessons for the Developing World, a lovely little book by Burcu Kilic. According to the publisher Edward Elgar, the book “illustrates the crucial role that patent strategies play within processes of pharmaceutical innovation” by “drawing on extensive country and company case studies” from the United States, Japan, South Korea and Israel and identifying “the key issues relevant to the revival of local pharmaceutical industries”. That book's web page is here.
* The skilled person - more knowledgeable than ever before
David covers the exciting pharma-patent ruling in Teva UK Limited & another v AstraZeneca AB  EWHC 2873 (Pat) by Mr Justice Sales in the Patents Court for England and Wales, which focuses on the concept of Common General Knowledge (CGK). As David explains in this crystal-clear post (even for those who, like the author of this round-up, are absolutely non-addicted to patents), CGK is understood and assessed differently in patent law and practice around the globe, and this is relevant to a number of issues, like the inventive step requirement and its polar-star, the legendary person skilled in the art. Is this hypothetical figure somehow evolving, David asks?
* Never mind the monkey: IP ownership problems and overlaps in Europe
The second book Jeremy reviews is Nuno de Araujo Sousa e Silva's The Ownership Problems of Overlaps in European Intellectual Property, which investigates the issue of multiple ownership in case of multiple overlapping IPRs insisting on the same subject. The book's web page is here.
* CJEU says that EU has external competence to negotiate international agreements on broadcasting rights The CJEU’s decision in Case C-114/12 Commission v Council addresses the issue of who’s in charge of negotiating the adoption of a Convention relating to the protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasters in Europe. Can Member States do so, or is it exclusively an EU prerogative? Eleonora explains what the European Union’s external competence is and finds her way to make even EU law sexy -- how lucky are those who sre enrolling to read IP law in the Southampton Law School this academic year.
* Chanel’s Salon in Indiana Sued for Trade Mark Infringement by Famous French Fashion House
To celebrate Fashion Week in New York, a trade mark case from Indiana is definitely in order, Marie-Andrée thinks. This one is Chanel Inc. v Chanel’s Salon and Chanel Jones, 2:14-cv-00304, and sees fashion and cosmetics company Chanel as plaintiff. The defendant is Chanel’s Salon LLC, a beauty salon located in Indiana and owned by someone called Chanel Jones. Truly chic.
* Money Mapping opposes Moneymap: it's no use where there's no use ...
Jeremy recounts the tale of Integrated Financial Arrangements plc's application; opposition of Motu Ltd (0-334-14), a recent decision by Katfriend and Appointed Person Anna Carboni on appeal from the UK Intellectual Property Office. In that case, the earlier trade mark “Money Mapping” was opposed to two trade mark applications for “MONEYMAP” and “Money Map”, all these marks being in connection with financial services. The decision concerns proof of use principles, use of trade mark in a form different from that registered, and the possibility to file new evidence during the appeal.
* Not all"dollars" are the same: the saga of Family Dollar, Dollar Tree and Dollar General
There’s an on-going three-way takeover battle between the US retail companies Dollar General, Family Dollar and Dollar Tree. There being a virtually infinite number of possible words that one can adopt for use as a trade mark, how comes that so many undertakings --often advised by their legal counsel -- are ready to risk a bit of consumers’ confusion and choose descriptive names? Perhaps because distinctiveness is not always essential to trade mark function (and value), Neil explains.
* Seeing stars: General Court hits OHIM ruling on the head
Jeremy gives the floor to Katfriend Valentina Torelli, who tells us about a General Court’s decision concerning the eligibility of two trade marks composed of some (respectively, five and four) stars in a row to play a distinctive role and be registered as Community trade marks
* Trade secrets exposed!
The last book Jeremy reviews this week is Trade Secrets and Undisclosed Information. Edited by a pair of US academics, Sharon K. Sandeen (Professor of Law, Hamline University School of Law) and Elizabeth Rowe (UFRF Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law), it is a collection of previously-published journal articles and book chapters concerning trade secrets in the US.