Don't forget: there's also a mini-summary at the bottom of the post that lists the features carried by this weblog over the previous month.
Last week's substantive Katposts look like this:
After posting this report of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, judgment delivered by Lord Justice Floyd in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others  EWCA Civ 556, Darren reflects on what it all means and asks if maybe all the judges in this litigation got it wrong.Valentina explains Case T-559/13 Giovanni Cosmetics Inc. v OHIM, Vasconcelos & Gonçalves SA, where the Court had to decide on a likelihood of confusion between two Italian-sounding marks for cosmetics.IP enforcement and IP conferences are like a pendulum, Jeremy says. In times of plenty, people avoid going to court and spend their time making money through commercial exploitation. In times of recession, though, they rush to litigate in order to preserve their rights. The past couple of years, though, has been a bit on an exception -- and “IP litigation and Enforcement”, the next IQPC event (London, 2 and 3 July), demonstrates this. Kat-discounts available!A few months ago, Eleonora reported on a new reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). seeking clarification as to whether -- among other things -- the provider of password-free free WiFi may be liable for third-party copyright infringements. Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has just published an open letter on that point. Katfriend Martin Husovec tells all.A German newspaper reports that computers on the EPO premises which were available for use by the public, by attorneys visiting the office, and by members of the Administrative Council, had keylogger software installed, which could have recorded all user inputs as well as taken snapshots of the screen and photos. Merpel has her say on that Eponian spy-story.There’s a tussle between superstar Rihanna and DC Comics over a name in which they have a mutual interest. Katfriend and former guest Kat Rebecca Gulbul covers it.CJEU’s Advocate General Wathelet delivered his Opinion in the keenly-awaited dispute in Case C‑215/14Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd, a reference from Mr Justice Arnold in the Chancery Division of the High Court, England and Wales [noted by the IPKat here and here]. As Jeremy explains, it deals with the ‘Kit Kat’ chocolate-snack and its protection as trade mark.In the Netherlands, the Gelderland District Court has just rejected an attempt to protect through copyright the taste of an allegedly original work of authorship, this being a snack ...The title of Valentina’s great post is quite self-explanatory
* "Three aspects of information: Current issues in trade secrets, client confidentiality and privilege": a reportAgain Katfriend Rebecca Gulbul provides this report on "Three aspects of information: Current issues in trade secrets, client confidentiality and privilege", a CIPA-IPKat seminar that took place past Wednesday.How might 3D printing affect the counterfeiting business? Neil tries to foresee what consequences the most debated -- and, perhaps, overrated – new technology may have for the dark side.Occasional IP blogger and Katfriend Thomas Dubuisson has sent us the following account of some forthcoming patent litigation which should be of the greatest interest to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) IP licence enthusiasts in Europe.******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 49 [week ending on Sunday 31 May] - Another copyright-exhaustion-and-software reference to the CJEU | ORO trade marks and GC | Patent Reform in EU | Copyright in the Bahamas | More and more references to the CJEU: communication to the public and linking | Trade secrets and the FoMo phenomenon | Independence of EPO’s BoA.Never too late 48 [week ending on Sunday 31 May] - The meaning of EPO appeal system | 3D Printing and the law | Epo and external investigation firms | Umbrella designs | US Supreme Court in Commil USA, LLC v Cisco Systems | European Inventor Award | FIFA and brand integrity | Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Wine in Black GmbH v OHIM | IP and busking | Swiss-style claims.Never too late 47 [week ending on Sunday 24 May] - Nicolas Sarkozy and the IP | Another reference on TM licences to the CJEU | UPC test-drive | Swatch v Swatchball | New Lisbon Treaty on appellations of origin and geographical indications | UP renewal fees | Synthon v Teva | GC on Yoshida | UPC Court fees event | EPO staff under fire | The trade-secret option | Damages |AstraZeneca AB & Another v KRKA dd Novo Mesto & Another | F1 back on stage.Never too late 46 [week ending on Sunday 17 May] – Whyte & MacKay Ltd v Origin Wine UK Ltd and Dolce Co Invest Inc | "Three aspects of information: Current issues in trade secrets, client confidentiality and privilege" -- a new event | CJEU upon distribution right inDimensione Direct Sales srl and Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA| UK Supreme Court on Mere reputation and passing-off | 14 million kat-thanks | Actual confusion at INTA | Italy's twist on UP Package | Moral authorship over promotional spot in Italy.