Monday, 10 November 2014
Here's the nineteenth weekly round-up of last week's blogposts for the benefit of those who either like to collect IPKat posts or missed last week's entries. As usual, we thank our generous and sparkling friend Alberto Bellan for stitching this round-up together.
The IPKat gets crazily hot with this Eleonora’s post on copyright protection over bottom poses -- and bottoms themselves. Everything starts with Kim Kardashian complaining for her very distinctive bottom-selfies [also known as belfies] being replicated by Jen Selter. Could these complaints be grounded copyright-wise under EU and UK Law? That is to say: could EU and/or UK copyright protect a body part (with or without a little help from surgery) and picture poses -- specifically, bottom-poses? #KimcometoEurope (along with Quentin Tarantino), concludes Eleonora.
Merpel sinks her paws again in the darkest sides of Eponia. This time, she has been informed of a Petition asking the EU Parliament to investigate the appointment of Mr Željko Topić as the Vice-President of Directorate-General 4 of the European Patent Office (‘EPO’). The complaints relate to allegations about Mr Topić’s previous job as Director General of the State Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Croatia. Being the EPO not a EU institution, can a EU institution consider the complaints, wonders Merpel?
Marie-Andrée reports on Yuliana Avalos v. IAC/Interactivecorp. et.al., 13-cv-8351, a Southern District of New York decision concerning the unauthorised use of pictures to create fake profiles on the popular dating website Match.com. Ms Avalos’ claims regarded false designation of origin, false endorsement and false advertising. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the Court’s outcome was not as romantic as she hoped (#YulianacometoEurope? -- ok, I stop it here).
The cost-capped, damages-capped Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in England and Wales is designed for use by small and medium-sized claimants and has a small claims track. Good news, though, is that you don't have to be small in order to use it. This is the message from MHCS and another v Polistas Ltd & others, a ruling concerning manufacturing overruns that Judge Hacon issued last Tuesday and Jeremy reviews in this post.
A few days ago The IPKat reported that Spain has now adopted the final text of a law that will enter into force on 1 January 2015, and significantly reform its IP law system. Eleonora hosts a guest contribution from Katfriends Elena Molina and Sergio Miralles (Intangibles Legal S.L.P), who explain what this reform means for online piracy, news aggregators, the private copying exception, collective rights management, and a bit of EU directive implementation.
The trade mark infringement action brought by Interflora against Marks & Spencer for the use of its INTERFLORA trade mark as a keyword has been a regular source of inspiration for IP/IT enthusiasts. This weblog is no exception, having followed the continental infringement saga with a remarkable number of posts [the original UK decision by Arnold J here; Arnold J’s referral to the CJEU here; the CJEU’s ruling here; the Advocate General's ruling in Case C-323/09 here; Interflora II decision here; the 2013 Arnoldian’s decision acknowledging M & S’ infringement here]. In this post Jeremy announces the last chapter of this fortunate saga, namely the decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales, which seems nothing less than floral for M&S.
Jeremy reports on Anglian Windows Ltd v Anglian Roofline Ltd, a ruling of Judge Richard Hacon in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales. The decision deals in a routine, run-of-the-mill manner with a routine-run-of-the-mill issue: the availability of interim injunctive relief to an established business against a trader introducing a new and arguably confusingly similar business name into the established business's market.
Russia’s Intellectual Property Court upheld a March decision by the country’s IP Office (Federal Service for Intellectual Property - Rospatent) to deny the Ford Motor Company's (FMC) application for well-known trademark protection for its company name and its iconic blue oval logo. FMC's denial is more complex than simply geopolitical antipathy for US companies or Russia's precarious IP protection environment, suggests Lucas in his piece.
Marie-Andrée reports on a case brought in the US by Crayola Properties, Inc., a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards, against Alex Toys, LLC. The latter is selling crayons which bear, according to the complaint, the term “crayola” printed on their sides and sometimes on their packaging as well. The “Crayola” trade mark is very famous in the US, and the plaintiff could not stand its infringement and dilution without filing this very colourful lawsuit.
Should copyright be described as a “monopoly” or as an “exclusive right”? Stimulated by the question of one of the legal trainees who attend his classes, Neil reflects upon the nature of copyright and the definition that better suits our beloved IP right for artistic works.
* Are we there yet? 17th draft of UPC Rules of Procedure welcomed, but more work to do
Annsley comments the 17th Draft of the UPC Rules of Procedure, which the Rules of Procedure Committee released early last week. The draft contained a number of welcomed changes on key issues like “injunction gap” in bifurcated proceedings, opting-out and opting back, court discretion regarding injunction following judgment and a new Rule 220(2) on procedural appeals.
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 18 [week ending Sunday 2 November] -- The Limerick Competition results | More on CJEU in BestWater | The GC in Laguiole | France to review its IP Code | Reports on the “no patents round-up for non-techie people” event | Renting an orphan work in the UK | Aldi and look-alikes | The UK Supreme Court in Servier v Apotex | Are patent trolls really a problem? | Last developments over linking in EU.
Never too late 17 [week ending Sunday 26 October] -- A forthcoming conference on TM agreements | UK Cartier rulings analysed | Obviousness and common general knowledge in the UK | CJEU and registrability of 3D TMs | New EPO Unity Procedural Rules | Patentability of perpetual motion | BGH decision on colour TM | Arnold J's biggest blocking injunction | French Court on Copyright and Free Movement of Goods | Amazon.com and its ancestors | Merpel on EPO strike ballot | CJEU on video framing and copyright | Can pizza flavour be a TM? | Who can use "Duke" as TM in the US?
Never too late 16 [week ending Sunday 19 October] -- The Court of Appeal for England and Wales in Nampak Plastics Europe Ltd v Alpla UK Ltd | Former Eagle member claims infringement of his name in the US | The Court of Appeal for England and Wales in Specsavers v Asda | A change in format for the European Patent Attorney exam | Reflections over IP5 patent filing figures | ‘Common Sense For Copyright’ initiative to be rejected in Finland | Converse brings 3D TM infringement proceedings in the US | Arnold J’s blocking injunction in Cartier and others v various ISPs | Copyright on shoes according to the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris| Are The Economist’s competitions over innovation really innovative? | A Limerick competition | UPC and International law | The EU General Court over the ‘Galileo’ trade mark | UK IPO UPC prototype tested.
Never too late 15 [week ending Sunday 12 October] -- Call for speakers re IPRs overlap for a conference in December | New EPO Guidelines | The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in Cranford Community College v Cranford College Ltd | A real-time test for the UPC | Moral rights and sculptures in France | UK IPO over ‘Team F1’ TM | Professor Benabou’s report on transformative works | Rovio: brand success, commercial failure?