|Maybe ... but not for Alberto and the IPKat!|
Monday, 13 October 2014
Our dear friend Alberto Bellan (@albertobellan) is back again with a great summary of last week's Katposts. Here we go with the fifteenth episode in his very much praised #NeverTooLate series:
Jeremy has been asked to help find a speaker for a conference that will take place in Central Europe in early December. The wanted person is an in-house intellectual property counsel who is able to say something interesting about the issues facing his or her company in coping with situations in which there is an overlap between trade mark rights and copyrights. Is that you? If yes, drop a line to email@example.com with the subject-line "IP overlap"!
Jeremy takes a look at the update of the Guidelines for Examination that the European Patent Office (EPO) published a few days ago. The Guidelines are the main resource used by examiners at the EPO for guidance on how to apply the provisions of the European Patent Convention (EPC) to the patent examination process, and their new version will come into force on 1 November. Time to get updated on the update, then!
Cranford Community College v Cranford College Ltd  EWHC 2999 (IPEC) is a decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales concerning passing off. Both parties are educational institutions, both use "Cranford" and "College" in their name and both have a bird in their logo. Very educational judgment, Jeremy explains.
Some weeks ago, Katfriends Alan Johnson and Alexandria Palamountain penned a post on a real-time test drive of the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) system, kindly ideated, designed and conducted by Bristows. To summarise the story so far, the proceedings kicked off with an application to revoke a patent in the London branch of the JUPC's central division. The response to this from the patentee was to make a Rule 19.1(a) objection, which -- to save readers scurrying to their Rules -- is a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction and competence of the Court. The hearing of this application took place last month before Judge-Rapporteur Rieu. Anything more that this blogger could write would spoil this exciting new episode of the saga.
“Gruppo Mondiale”, a company incorporated in Lichtenstein, is on trial at the Paris criminal court for counterfeiting and false advertising for having sold several copies of Auguste Rodin’s sculptures. Auguste Rodin, however, died in November 1917. So why aren't his works in public domain? That's because continental moral rights, like diamonds, last forever, Marie-Andrée explains.
Richard Lowther’s Application: Opposition by Formula One Licensing BV (Case O/396/14) is a case decided last month by Hearing Officer Chris Bowen in the UK Intellectual Property Office. Lowther applied to register the alphanumeric trade mark TEAM F1 for software in Class 9. Formula One opposed. Jeremy leaves the floor to Shalini Bengani, who explains how it went.
Following the Lescure Report on Cultural Exceptions published last year by the CSPLA, Professor Valérie-Laure Benabou has just published her report on transformative works, which had been commissioned by the Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique. The report focuses on transformative works under French law, reports Marie-Andrée.
Italy lies in details.
Rovio, the Finnish developer of the mobile app game Angry Birds, announced that it is cutting 16% of its staff, despite its widely-developed marketing strategy and billions of downloads of the lovely game. What can this story teach us about the use of brands in the viral networked world, wonders Neil?