|The first phone was a great|
invention, but the second one
really came in handy ...
here. This Kat's not sure if anyone else can squeeze in, but it's always worth asking -- and if for any reason you can't attend, do let the organisers (and not the IPKat) know, so that they can either (a) allocate your space to someone else or (b) discreetly remove some of the goodies from the pile of refreshments that await every eager and enthusiastic soul that stays on for the refreshments.
MARQUES. The top item on last week's Friday Fantasies told Kat readers who were also followers of the European trade mark and design organisation's Twitter account that it had migrated to @marquesIP. It's good to see how many people have already signed up to the new account, which has been pretty active over the past few days. Remember, the old MARQUES account is no longer in use so, if you like to be tweeted up to date on European trade mark issues, relief is just a click or two away.
explains why the Finns have had more difficulty than many other jurisdictions in accepting PAINT PRO as a trade mark for chemicals for restoring vehicle paintwork [Merpel thinks the Finns have got this one right ...], while IPKat team blogger Jeremy draws attention to yet another trade mark case making its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg, a tricky jurisdictional poser from Romania in Case C-275/15 Taser International. Talking of references to the CJEU, the 1709 Blog notes a Portuguese reference on the copyright question of "communication of works to the public", thanks to Axel Paul Ringelhann, here. On the jiplp weblog Andrew Moir and Grace Pead relate in their current intelligence note how it is that a patent infringer can get details of the patent owner's non-public licence terms in order to see what magnitude of damages claim it might be facing.
Daimler and the Directive that refuses to die. Coming up for consideration by the Court of Justice of the European Union is Case C-179/15 Daimler, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hungarian Fővárosi Törvényszék. The underlying dispute involves the unauthorised use of online advertisements as confirmation of an official commercial relationship beyond the termination of the parties' contracted period, where the advertisement was not placed on the internet by the person featuring in it and that person took steps to remove it. The court asks:
Must Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104 ... to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [which was repealed and re-enacted in 2008 by Directive 2008/95: it just refuses to die] be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to take action against a third party named in an advertisement on the internet, which features a sign likely to be confused with the trade mark, referring to a service of that third party identical to the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, in such a way that the public might be given the mistaken impression that there is an official commercial relationship between the undertaking of that third party and the trade mark proprietor, even though the advertisement was not placed on the internet by the person featuring in it or on his behalf, and it is possible to access that advertisement on the internet despite the fact that the person named in it took all reasonable steps to have it removed, but did not succeed in doing so?This is another of those cases on which the UK Intellectual Property Office invites comments, to enable it to advise the government whether to participate in the proceedings. If you would like to comment on this case, just email firstname.lastname@example.org by 15 June 2015. And if you know anything about the background facts, do let the Kats know! It would be lovely to find out what is actually going on here.
this link to news that the US Copyright Office, currently part of the Library of Congress, might be given its independence in an attempt to make it "more nimble in the digital age". The draft Copyright Office for the Digital Economy ("CODE") Act is being introduced by Democratic Representative Judy Chu (California) and Republican Tom Marino (Pennsylvania). This Kat wonders whether being set free will make a real difference and hopes that his US copyright readers will be able to explain the position to him.