Here's the 39th Never Too Late compilation of short notes on all those Katposts that you might have missed last week. Once again this list has been masterminded by our dear friend and colleague Alberto Bellan. Many thanks, Alberto! May you, and indeed all our readers, have a great Easter! The 40th compilation will of course note the posts you might have missed on account of a little rest and relaxation.
Last week's Katposts lined up like this:
Merpel writes an open letter to the European Patent Office (EPO) Administrative Council (AC), trying to help its members to focus with greater facility on the matters that appear to her to be most in need of their attention in these hard times.
Tom pens a summary of the Court of Justice of the European Union's decisions on linking and copyright.
Emeritus Kat Catherine Lee takes a look at some of the less enjoyable aspects of the new generic top-level domains that are exciting the greed creativity of so many good souls.
Jeremy reports on the Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Case C‑125/14 Iron & Smith Kft v Unilever NV, a request for a preliminary ruling by the CJEU from the Budapest Municipal Court. The questions posed to the CJEU relate to trade mark reputation, genuine use and the eligibility for a non-registered trade mark to preclude the registration of a later confusingly similar sign.
AMBA is the Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal, and has just launched a brand-new website, writes Merpel.
The Intellectual Property Lawyers Organisation (TIPLO) has just hosted another fun event entitled "Digital Exhaustion: Can downloads be sold second-hand without a licence from the copyright owner?". Eleonora and Hugo Cuddigan QC attended a lively discussion chaired by the Hon Mr Justice Arnold. The very same Eleonora tells how it went.
* BREAKING: CJEU says that live broadcasts are not communication to the public within InfoSoc Directive but Member States can protect themHere's another insightful take by Eleonora on the
surrealCJEU decision in Case C-279/13 C More Entertainment, a reference for a preliminary ruling from seemingly hyperlink-loving Member State, Sweden, which was supposed to address linking and copyright.
The EPO Enlarged Board has issued its decision in G 3/14, addressing (i) the true significance of "amendments"; (ii) T 301/87 (conventional) v T 1459/05 & T 459/09 (diverging) approach; (iii) lack of clarity "arising out of" an amendment. A big decision from a big Board, says David.
David's back to report on EPO Enlarged Board's decisions in cases G 2/12 (Tomatoes II) and G 2/13 (Broccoli II), both relating to the exclusion from patentability under Article 53(b) of the European Patent Convention for plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals.
The President of the EPO and Chairman of the Administrative Council (AC) have just published a joint statement following the recent AC meeting. Merpel is pleased to see that the AC is at last starting to address the crisis in staff relations that has developed in recent years and which has come to a head in recent months.
The sage that gave rise to the lovely CJEU's decision [noted by the IPKat here] promises other delicatessen, writes Jeremy.
Translations and copyright have a long history -- "but what about patents?" Neil wonders.
Merpel looks back to what has happened so far and forward for better news to come from the wonderful world of Eponia.
After tomatoes and broccoli [on which see David's Katpost, here], it's now the turn of patented red radishes, which the District Court of Hague addressed in a recent decision covered here.
Jeremy pens of Case T 581/13 Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM - Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB), a decision rendered last Thursday by the General Court of the European Union in another POLO-related tradebmark dispute involving many, many horses.
Jaime Ángeles (Angeles & Lugo Lovatón, Dominican Republic) gives an account of the problems faced by US brand owners in Cuba, following a decades-long embargo.******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 38 [week ending Sunday 22 March] - Escalating prices of generic drugs in the US | EU Patent Package is not that dangerous | Hollywood screening rhythm | GC on 'Greenworld' trade mark in T - 106&14 | Spanish life after Google Tax | Africa and IP | GC on 'Smart Water' in Case T-250/13 | 'EPO does not violate fundamental rights', says EPO | Coca-Cola look-alike trade mark in GC's decision T-3284/13 | International Women's Leadership Forum | Acronyms in descriptive trade marks | Albert Maysles tribute | UK visits Eponia | EQE Pre-exams results | X-Factor New Zealand and image rights | CJEU is Magnetic in C-182/14.
Never too late 37 [week ending Sunday 15 March] - EPO v EPO’s staff | EPO’s Board of Appeal’s reform | Unitary Patent’s fees | Pinterest’s Community Trade Mark pinned down | Australian compulsory licences | Is COMFYBALLS trade mark offensive? | Oprah Winfrey and OWN YOUR POWER trade mark | EPO December Administrative Council Meeting | Blurred Lines | Again on Actavis v Boehringer | Is the EU Patent Package diminishing the EU’s powers? | EPO Administrative Council and Board of Appeal’s removal.Never too late 36 [week ending Sunday 8 March] - EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) says Chairman can disobey | OHIM is too rich to be true | eLAW’s TM infringement checklist | Human right and IP | Again onWarner-Lambert v Actavis | Seiko and Seiki in Singapore | The politics of US patent law reform | Haribo v Lindt Goldbear wars | Patent trolls | Private copying | Wu-Tank and copyright | CJEU on private copying in Copydan | Breakdown in management-staff relations at EPO | New plant variety reference reached the CJEU | Cindy Crawford’s picture copyrightwise | CJEU on ebook’s VAT means something copyrightwise | A patent Kat investigate soft IP world | David Couture v Playdom.
Never too late 35 [week ending Sunday 1 March] – EPO v SUEPO | Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd | UK IPO on EPO | Scents and copyright | GIs under scrutiny | UPC test-drive | Is UK failing to protect innovation? | Dutch Minister and EPO immunity | CJEU and droit de suite in Case C-41/14 Christie's France | Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others | Pangyrus Ltd v OHIM, RSVP Design Ltd | China and smartphone patents | UK against groundless threats to sue for IP infringement | Polar bears | Patent needs strictness, complexity and fuzziness.