Darren reports on Whitby Specialist Vehicles Ltd v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles Ltd & Others  EWHC 4242 (Pat), an Arnold J but not-so-Arnoldian decision concerning the design of an ice cream van with a bit of trade mark infringement on top. Tasty!
Katfriends and IP enthusiasts David Pellisé and Juan Carlos Quero explain a revolutionary trade mark decision from the Spanish Supreme Court. Overcoming a traditional idea peculiar to Spanish trade mark law, that court eventually puts an end to the concept of trade marks giving its owner the (positive) right to use the sign protected thereby.
Vestergaard Fransen S/A & others v Bestnet Europe Ltd and others is a case that simply refuses to go away, writes Jeremy. After a number of earlier decisions [on which see earlier Katposts here, here, and here] this breach of confidence litigation regarding mosquito nets provides for another fresh ruling, this time on costs of an inquiry on damage compensation and usability of “without prejudice” communications.
Jeremy sinks his paws into Unilever Plc v Société des Produits Nestlé SA, a trade mark decision of Dermot Doyle, on behalf of the Controller of the Irish Patents Office. The decision sees a slogan, ‘RANDOM ACTS OF HAPPINESS’, which encountered another slogan ‘LET YOUR RANDOM SIDE OUT’ and the trade mark ‘RANDOMS’ on its way to the Irish Trade Mark Register. Could those slogans live side by side, or did one prevail over the other?
Over the past month, this weblog has hosted news and developments of reports of unrest among the workers at the European Patent Office (EPO). The unrest is not, as might have been supposed, only at the level of the Examiners and regular employees, but even within the exalted ranks of the Boards of Appeal and Enlarged Board. Since news does not develop in a neat and tidy manner, the IPKat has asked Merpel to review the recent events and to summarize them in the brief summary timeline that you may find in this post.Jeremy reports about Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA & Another  EWCA Civ 1629, a Court of Appeal for England and Wales ruling on a patented electrical appliance for the dry frying of food. In his earlier guest-post on the case [here], Paul England described it as “a textbook obviousness and infringement analysis, and one that would serve as a case study in patent courses for the next few years”. But did the Court of Appeal agree?
Medical Innovations Ltd v Eakins and others is a Chancery Division, England and Wales decision delivered by Richard Meade QC. As Jeremy explains, this case concerns breach of database rights, misuse of confidential information and breach of contract, all coming from a former employee changing his job.
The whole dynamics of technology transfer between Western companies and Chinese enterprises rests on the assumption that China remains eager to import Western technology and products. What is new, however, is the emergence of early signs that this assumption may not be entirely correct, writes Neil.
The European Copyright Society (ECS) sent Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society, Günther Oettinger, a letter shortly before the holidays. The subject-line? "Unification of copyright law", explains Eleonora -- who wrote a book on that very subject a couple of years ago.Katfriend Suleman Ali (Holly IP) review Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights. Legal and Social Implications, by Kshitij Kumar Singh. Is it a good reading for your seasonal holiday? Find it out in this post.******************************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 25 [week ending Sunday 21 December] -- Setting aside default judgements at the IPO | 2015, the year of blocking injunctions? | The future of private copy levies in the EU | Kat-tips for IP conferences | Appeals at EPO: beware of what you ask | EPO BoA’s independence | CJEU in International Stem Cell Corporation | IPKat’s 2014 Copyright Awards | Waze and innovation drawbacks | Battistelli and Kongstad interviewed | Porcelains that copy advertising | Jay-z’s “Oh” sample gets its decision, yo.Never too late 24 [week ending Sunday 14 December] -- ** INTA’s When Trademarks Overlap With Other IP Rights Special ** | Scottish Law Society misinforms about UPC in Scotland | EPO Enlarged BoA Members’ letter against against President Battistelli’s BoA Member’s house ban | German lititgator writes German delegate to EPO AC | EU Judges join the chorus of condemnation against President Battistelli | EPO replies to multilarelal concerns | Scam letters from EPO | Birss J on process claims in about Hospira v Genentech | End of Google News in Spain | Arnold J and the High Court on using a confusingly similar TM with the owner’s consent in Dalsouple Société Saumuroise Du Caoutchouc v Dalsouple Direct Ltd | Copyright and censorship in Sweden | IPKat’s comment policy | UKIP against a parodistic Twitter account | Oracle v Google on Java’s copyright |Never too late 23 [week ending Sunday 7 December] -- VOLVO v LOVOL, EU General Court goes Freudian | Oral Hearing on the 17th Draft of the UPC Rules of Procedure | Trolls owing essential patents in Vringo Infrastructure v ZTE | The importance of being Uber before Uber | Merpel and the EPO strike | An Arnoldian patent ruling in Idenix Pharmaceutical v Gilead Sciences | Audit clauses in IP licences | EPO Board of Appeal Member suspended | AG Villalón tells his stake on distribution right and offer for sale in Case C-516/13 Dimensione Direct Sales and Labianca | Post-mortem moral rights in Poland | Second Circuit hears argument in Authors Guild v Google fair use case | EPO and the Swiss-cheese approach in decision T0571/10| The Alicantation of the European Patent Office | Paris Court of Appeal defines third-generation hosting provider in TF1 v Dailymotion | Books review: "The Principle Of National Treatment In International Economic Law Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property" and "The Copyright Wars: Three Centuries of Trans-Atlantic Battle" | Swedish Svensson referral proceedings after Svensson.Never too late 22 [week ending Sunday 30 November] -- Trade conference and IPKat discount to attend | Eleonora’s copyright infringement checklist | EPO video-conference drawbacks | Bat trade marks | CJEU on essential patents in Case C-170/13 Huawei v ZTE | BGH on acronyms’ registrability | Peppa Pig and Gabriella Capra | Reference to CJEU: copyright infringements through open wi-fi | Court of Appeal for England and Wales on ‘Ideal Home’ trade mark in IPC Media Ltd v Media 10 Ltd  EWCA Civ 1439 | Imitation and lookalike specialists Aldi looses in Case T-240/13 against ‘Alifoods’ |Jeremy’s book review -- Asian IP special | Chancery Division back on Merck v Merck | Trade marks in artistic works | Treatises and indexes.