Jeremy writes about Stone Electrical Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, a decision of the Irish Patents Office that considered whether a ‘SKYVolt Generators of power by Wind, Sun and Water’ sign for goods and services related to renewable energy could be registered in the face of BSkyB’s ‘SKY’ trade marks covering (but not used for) the same goods and services. The decision is about likelihood of confusion, reputed trade marks' extended protection, and passing off.Another Irish Patents Office’s decision that Jeremy reports is HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises LLC v Dunnes Stores Ireland Company. The ruling addresses the issue of proof necessary to avoid revocation for non-use. This piece of administrative litigation is as sexy as the post’s title indicates, involving underwear trade mark, evidence of use of which had mysteriously disappeared -- to be replaced by a sworn declaration on behalf of the trade mark owner. Will that be enough?Prosecutor General v CS (Case B-5484-13) is a trade mark infringement ruling where the Swedish Supreme Court addresses criminal consequences of IP infringement. Should trade mark infringers be sent to prison? And, if so, how should the duration of their sentences be calculated? Take a look at this post by Jeremy to find out the Swedish Supreme Court's take on that.* "Art is pleasure, invention is treasure, and this nation has got to recognise that": congratulations, TrevorAmong the honorees on this years’ British New Years Honours List there’s just one IP personality: it's none other than Trevor Graham Baylis, to whom Jeremy sends his congratulations.Over the past several weeks, there have been several developments concerning Australia's recently-proposed online copyright enforcement reforms. As Lucas explains in this post, one of the hottest issues relates to measures to combat copyright infringement online.Every six months the IPKat says goodbye to three guest Kats and welcomes their successors. After six marvellous months with Marie-Andrée, Rebecca and Lucas, it is now time to meet Valentina, Suleman and Tom.Suleman’s debut post is about the new United States Patent and Trademark Office's Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility, which has the purpose of assisting the USPTO staff in examination and post-grant proceedings to determine whether claimed subject matter is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. This latest version of the Guidance is updated to include the principles laid down in the three Supreme Court decisions Alice,Myriad and Mayo. It is relevant to software, business methods and biotech inventions.As Valentina explains in her first post as guest Kat, back in 2011 OHIM and many national patent and trade mark offices agreed to harmonize their practices as regards trade marks and designs' absolute and relative grounds. After last year’s guidelines on black and white marks, reported by the IPKat here, it is now the turn of trade marks sharing elements with little or no distinctiveness.Neil's first post of this year is about Pom Wonderful LLC v Hubbard et al, a decision rendered a few days ago by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was brought by Pom Wonderful, the largest maker in the United States of 100% pomegranate juice and the owner of the 'POM' trade mark, which filed suit for infringement and requested that the defendant to be preliminarily enjoined from selling a pomegranate-flavoured energy drink labelled "pŏm".If your resolution for the New Year is to learn something more about biotech inventions, the IPKat is the place to be -- and Suleman is the Kat to follow. This post of his is the first of a series of six with which Suleman will bring you in the fabulous world of biotech patents. The first episode addresses biotech inventions in general, controversies, case law, hot topics, and biotech R&D financing, also providing some interesting figures of the matter. The next episodes will cover in more detail the ethics of patenting biotech, biotech case law, patent strategies for protecting biotech inventions, biotech financing and patent portfolios, with a final summing up of previous posts and readers' comments. Stay tuned!******************************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 26 [week ending Sunday 28 December] -- Arnold J on Ice cream van design in Whitby Specialist Vehicles v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles | Adios to positive right of TM in Spain | Costs of Vestergaard Fransen v Bestnet Europe | Irish PTO on slogan TMs | Merpel summarises what’s going on with EPO | CoA for England and Wales on patent infringement by numbers in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA& Another | Database rights and much more inMedical Innovations Ltd v Eakins and others | What if China turns inwards on technology? | European Copyright Society on full harmonisation of copyright | Book review of Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights.
Never 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.