Around the weblogs. The IP blogosphere has enjoyed a peaceful period over the Easter weekend, but there have been some signs of life. One comes from former Kat Mark Schweizer, this time on the MARQUES Class 46 weblog, on the prospect of the launch of the Apple Watch being delayed in Switzerland by a legal obstacle in the form of a national patent going all the way back to 1985. There's also an informative and indeed surprising post from Mark Anderson on IP Draughts, "Who practises IP in the UK?", which gives a statistical breakdown of IP practitioners by profession and demonstrates that the vast majority of them are not patent and trade mark attorneys but regular common-or-garden solicitors. On IP Africa, Katfriend and IP enthusiast Kingsley Egbuonu observes that the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms has what he describes as a "0% IP fat content". The selfsame Kingsley also posts Part I of a piece entitled "Busy Time for Africa at WIPO", with the prospect of more to come. Finally, but no less significantly, PatLit reports that the Belgian ratification statute for the Unified Patent Court Agreement is under threat, with questions being raised as to the constitutionality of its provisions.
WEBSHIPPING: ripe for a second visit to Luxembourg? Via Meriem Loudiyi (INLEX IP Expertise, Paris) comes news that this Kat didn't spot himself, though he wishes he had. On 28 January 2015 in Case R 2425/2013-4 Chronopost v DHL Express (France), the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) annulled a decision of the Cancellation Division which had upheld an action filed by DHL for cancellation of Chronopost's 2003 Community trade mark (CTM) WEBSHIPPING. DHL originally filed for cancellation in July 2012 on the grounds of non-use. Not our fault, said Chronopost: there were highly unusual and perfectly proper reasons for non-use. Said the company, it also owns the French trade mark WEBSHIPPING and has been in dispute with DHL over these marks since 2004. Chronopost had sued DHL for trade mark infringement, winning in the Paris Court of First Instance in a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal. However, notwithstanding these rulings DHL continued to use the mark and applied to cancel the CTM for non-use. In its defence Chronopost did not file any evidence of use -- since none existed -- but, rather it argued that, given the intense use which had been made (and which was still made) of the mark by DHL throughout the European Community in relation to identical products and services, it could not freely use its own mark, as consumers would not understand that identical services could be provided under the same mark by the two main competing businesses in this field of activity.
|Web shipping: a deeper meaning?|
|Like Maine Coons, Irish|
stamps take some licking ...