Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

41 and still going strong! This is the forty-first collation of notes on the previous week's Katposts from our dedicated colleague and former guest Kat Alberto Bellanwho never lets us down.  It was actually quite a quiet week for this weblog, since most of the blog team were a bit elusive when it came to herding time. For the record, Alberto doesn't need to add the Monday Miscellany, Wednesday Whimsies and Friday Fantasies features since they are round-ups already and it seems a little silly to round up the round-ups.

The previous week's Katposts look like this:
 The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising [here and here are earlier katposts] might look not so attractive for the IP professions, but they are wrong, as the Nagoya-to-go-person Darren explains in this step-by-step Q&A that Jeremy enthusiastically re-launches.

 Every three months or thereabouts, the IPKat and Merpel give an update of the goings-on both on this weblog and on other IP-flavoured blogs to which members of this blog team contribute. Here's this quarterly much-awaited update!

Jeremy writes up Actial Farmaceutica Lda v Claudio de Simone, Mendes srl and Florence Pryen [2015] EWHC 836 (Ch), a decision of the High Court, England and Wales addressing jurisdiction for proceedings where damages and injunctive relief are claimed on the basis of passing-off and trade mark infringement under Article 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001.

Article 5(5) of the EU's Trade Mark Directive 2008/95 addresses "protection against the use of a sign other than for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services". What does that mean, wonders a puzzled reader ...

"Article 6bis of the Paris Convention (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered", provides Article 16(3) of our beloved TRIPS. What if it did not, wonders Neil?

Valentina compares Italian AGCom  [here here here here and here] and Spanish Courts of the Administrative Jurisdiction's approaches to copyright enforcement online.


Never too late 40 [week ending on Sunday 5 April] – OHIM and national res judicata in Case T 378/13 Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM |Scrabble v Scramble is not a game in JW Spear & Sons Ltd & Others v Zynga Inc | Nagoya UK and EU implementing regulations | Again on making available and communication in CJEU's decision C More | Brown epilators in Albania | More food for thought regarding EPO's G2/12 Tomatoes II and G3/12 Broccoli II | ASOS v ASSOS: the Court of Appeal, England and Wales' version | New reference to the CJEU on e-lending and digital exhaustion comes from the lovely Hague | CIPA recruiting for IP volunteers | UPC mock trial | Ukrainian not so posh to Porche | Lincoln Continental's back |Links to leaks in a new reference to the CJEU | IP Hall of Fame purrs. 
Never too late 39 [week ending Sunday 29 March] – Merpel writes to the EPO AC | CJEU and hyperlinks | New gTLD regime | AG on TM reputation and genuine use in Case C‑125/14 Iron & Smith Kft v Unilever NV | AMBA speaks | Digital exhaustion | CJEU on linking to live shows in Case C-279/13 C More Entertainment| EPO Enlarged Board on amendments’ clarity in G 3/14 | EPO on patentability in cases G 2/12 (Tomatoes II) and G 2/13 (Broccoli II) | EPO responds to staff union | TVCatchup back to the CJEU | Translations and prior art | District Court of Hague on patented red radishes | GC on polo trade marks in Case T 581/13 Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM - Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB) | Trade mark trolls in Cuba.
 Never 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: if you missed the IPKat last week Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, April 13, 2015 Rating: 5

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.