Last week's blog posts -- apart from the Monday, Wednesday and Friday round-ups (when applicable) -- look like this:* "A talented kitten called Kate ...": results of the limerick competition. Some days ago, the IPKat launched a snap competition to compose a limerick that (i) began with the line "A talented kitten called Kate" and (ii) was on the theme of intellectual property protection other than via the patent system, the prize being complimentary registration at CLT's conference "Intellectual Property: the 'no patents' round-up for non-techie people". Here Jeremy announces the winner and mentions some of the more interesting entries too.* That BestWater order: it's up to the rightholders to monitor online use of their works. Last week this blog reported on the Court of Justice of the European Union decision in Case C-348/13 BestWater, a keenly-awaited ruling supposed to solve the dilemma of whether framing/embedding could amount to an infringement. After breaking the news, Eleonora publishes Katfriend Oliver Löffel's (LÖFFEL ABRAR) analysis of the decision.* Knives, nails and nippers: forging ahead with the Laguiole mark. Jeremy gives the floor to Valentina Torelli, who drafts a detailed report of the General Court's decision in Case T-453/11 LAGUIOLE. The ruling explores the intriguing relationship between Community trade marks and other distinctive signs in the light of the protection afforded by national laws.* France to Modify its Intellectual Property Code. Marie-Andrée writes about a French bill that would implement Directive 2011/77 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, and Directive 2012/28 on certain permitted uses of orphan works. The bill, which has just been presented by the French Ministry of Culture, is about to be examined in the Commission for cultural affairs of the French lower Chamber and, once adopted, will bring significant changes in those two fields of copyright.* IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" Session 1. IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" is a conference that CLT organised in London last week, covering various IP-except-patent-related topics. Blogmeister Jeremy chaired the event and reported what happened there through four blogposts. The first one features James Tumbridge (Pillsbury), who spoke on trade mark, domain names and trade dress protection; passing off and related topics. Rebecca O'Kelly-Gillard (Bird & Bird) then summarised the mountain of recent Court of Justice of the European Union and domestic copyright cases.* IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" Session 2. The second session of the conference started with Christopher Sharp (Herbert Smith Freehills) taking up cudgels on behalf of the neglected, unloved subject of database right under the Database Directive. Next up was self-defined "fluff" Serena Tierney, whose duty was to talk about copyright licensing, business models and the prospects of the Copyight Hub.* IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" Session 3. The first speaker of the third session was former guest Kat Darren Meale, who brought the audience into the wonderful world of designs, considering the Utopia beer glass case, the CJEU's rulings in Karen Millen v Dunnes Stores and Gautzsch, not forgetting the Court of Appeal for England and Wales's decision in Trunki. Darren was followed by Matthew Jones (EIP), who tackled the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court for England and Wales, which has become an essential tool for many claimants in need of speedy IP litigation.* IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" Session 4. The final session of the conference starred Edward Smith, an accredited mediator as well as being a Hearing Officer with the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Edward spoke on the IPO's mediation service, reminding us that the IPO was not the only institution involved in these kinds of services -- the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) also has its own.* How you can rent your own orphan, and why there are 91 million of them. This is Jeremy's post on the new orphan works' licensing scheme launched a few days ago in the UK. As the IPO's press release enthusiastically says, it "could give wider access to at least 91 million culturally valuable creative works -- including diaries, photographs, oral history recordings and documentary films". All this sounded so sexy that our Blogmeister couldn't resist testing the new procedure. Thus, he applied for a licence to use an orphan work described as "Photograph of a cat, 1951" -- meow, it worked!* "Almost identical, just with different names": shopping at Aldi. Inspired by Mrs Kat, in turn inspired by an article posted on Yahoo!'s UK & Ireland Finance page, Jeremy recounts of Aldi, a sort of lookalike shopping paradise with over 9,000 stores spread across 18 countries. How could this systematic process of emulating others' brands and misleading consumers obtain that success, the Blogmeister and Merpel wonder?* How illegal is illegality? Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Servier v Apotex. Jeremy writes of Les Laboratoires Servier & Another v Apotex Inc & Others  UKSC 55, a UK Supreme Court decision that addresses a point of principle that is academically most interesting even though it doesn't crop up in court on a daily basis: does the defence of illegality bar a claim on a cross-undertaking in damages given by a patent owner in order to obtain an interim injunction where his UK patent is held to be invalid but his corresponding Canadian patent is held to be infringed? Read Jeremy's post to find out!* If all the patent trolls disappear, can royalty stacking take their place? There is little consensus on how to define a troll/NPE ("non-practising entities"), and even less on how to describe the problems that they have allegedly created. The debate around this topic is so open that someone is even wondering whether these subjects are a real problem, a "symptom" of the "disease" or rather the rhetorical anchor to attract popular attention on some of the patent system's malfunctioning. Where is the troll phenomenon going, reflects Neil?* Link and threat? Why the story with hyperlinks and copyright is not over yet Do you need permission from the relevant right holder to link to copyright-protected content? After the CJEU's decisions in Svensson [here and here] and BestWater, Eleonora provides more food for thought on this topic, reporting on (i) ALAI's Opinion on the criterion "New Public", developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); (ii) the latest law developments in Germany, Belgium, France and Spain over ancillary rights involving linking; and (iii) the ideas that incoming Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society might have over the same issue -- guess what? They seem not to be the same as Ms Kroes'.Never too late 17 [week ending Sunday 26 October]
* After patent litigation, is trade mark litigation the next big topic?; * Online enforcement "has a colour and a name": blocking injunctions - A closer look at the Cartier judgment; * Obviousness, common general knowledge and expectations of success: Leo gets a mauling; * Tripp Trapp and the Third Dimension: a study in trade mark registrability; * EPO Relaxes Unity Procedural Rules - how it works in practice; * Patentability: a perpetual problem; * Wednesday whimsies; * BGH decision "Yellow dictionary" colour trade mark dispute; * Artjunkie snatched from the jaws of villainy, but no happy ending; * Arnold J orders biggest website blocking to date; * These Shoes are Made for Freely Walking: Copyright Protection & Free Movement of Goods; * Amazon.com: in the beginning, there was Mudie ...; * News from the EPO - Strike Ballot comes out in favourof a strike; * (NON-)BREAKING NEWS (and a mystery): video framing not copyright infringement; * Happy to Deliver To You This Trade Mark Infringement in Pizza Flavor Case; * "Put up your Dukes!" A spot of sparring in the States.Never too late 16 [week ending Sunday 19 October]
* Nampak: when a patent suit is too simple to go to trial* Is This Henley a Shirt or a Musician?; * A clear vision of genuine use: Specsavers v Asda (again); * Chemists and mech/elecs unite!; * Apples and Oranges in the IP5 Statistics, or how to make your patent filing statistics look more fruitful; * Finland’s Citizen Copyright Initiative In Doubt: A Sad But Necessary Win For Cross-Border Online Copyright Enforcement?; * Converse sues for trade mark infringement of iconic Chuck Taylor All Star; * BREAKING NEWS: Cartier and friends score over ISPs: Open Rights Group intervenes; * French Designer Sonia Rykiel Did Not Copy Shoes, Says Paris Court; * Feeling a bit artistic? Here's a contest for you; * The innovation champs for 2014; the best of times or the worst of times?; * Another competition -- this time for the literary minded; * The UPC and Investor–State Arbitration; * Galileo sees stars as ESA logo marches on; * Fill in the form, keep your hair: UPC IT Prototype needs your feedback.Never too late 15 [week ending Sunday 12 October]
* Speaker needed: might it be you?; * New EPO Guidelines: what do they mean for added subject matter?; * Collegiate collision in court as Cranfords clash; * A test-drive for the Unified Patent Court: Part II; * French Moral Rights May Prevent Copy of Rodin’s Public Domain Sculptures; * Formula One literally in the fast track; * French IP Professor Publishes Report on Transformative Works; * Angry Birds: are they on their way to being grounded?.Never too late 14 [week ending Sunday 5 October]
* A new website for UK IPO, and an event to explain everything; * Trademark Infringement Plaintiff Sees Red (Gold), Defendants Claim Genericness; * That IPEC book: a review; * The IPKat and his friends: time for an update; * The Great British Vanishing Act Part 2: where has home-grown patent filing gone?; * Two new ways to file at the EPO; * Is Trade Dress in the Bag?; * When trade secrets were state secrets and copyright was chattel: the forgotten story of Jan Huygen Van Linschoten; * AIPPI Report: The emerging role of IP business finance; * Lose Yourself… but not in court: Eminem’s publishers sue political party for copyright infringement; How can freedom of expression and undistorted competition be safeguarded in EU trade mark law? Ask IP profs!.