 |
| This Kat is enjoying a meeting of minds |
Welcome to another week of recent IP news and views, with a number of items this week considering different perspectives on fairness and balancing rights in IP.
Copyright
The IP Watchdog has published a request for amici support in relation to Moodsters v. Disney, arguing that a fame-based - as opposed to originality-based - standard for character copyright protection perpetuates an unfair imbalance of power in the marketplace.
The JIPLP Blog has published the text of its August issue's Editorial, providing a rightholders' perspective on the recently issued Section 512 Study of the US Copyright Office.
The JIPLP Blog has published the text of its August issue's Editorial, providing a rightholders' perspective on the recently issued Section 512 Study of the US Copyright Office.
Patents
The Kluwer Patent Blog gave an overview of the recent decision of Mr Justice Morgan in Lufthansa v. Astronics, notably considering the identity of the skilled person in relation to an in-flight passenger power adapter.
The FRAND dispute between Sisvel and Haier has taken its latest turn: according to JUVE Patent, Haier has filed a constitutional complaint as to the compatibility of the Federal Court of Justice's judgment with EU law. This will be the German Constitutional Court's first time grappling with SEP/FRAND issues.
Trade Marks
How does satire interact with trade mark infringement and commercial disparagement in India? According to this recent piece on Spicy IP, the courts fail to strike an appropriate balance between intellectual property and constitutional rights.
As reported by The Fashion Law, the fast fashion company Fashion Nova is facing the latest in a slew of trade mark infringement actions, this time from Chrome Hearts, which alleges that misleadingly similar versions of its own horseshoe logos have been reproduced on Fashion Nova items.
Image by Théophile Steinlen / CC0
Around the IP Blogs
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Saturday, August 15, 2020
Rating:
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Saturday, August 15, 2020
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn ![[Guest post] Can AI be considered a PHOSITA? Policy debates in the US and the EU](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggxDO6mW5r4n3-06Af5ckmIaMIhzgPJBoDP8AUsSYXY2zajUQt1ObGVn_GhCgidbG_YDVnybQuJ5XoAjjBG9Ws2xJWDQHNPMrLkn526SWIG371X_Kjt1E8tJmn8Ae_20Phyphenhyphen09JeuUOhhTR3aZE9lMRQlqHGQGcAWGxlo91rrKcLk0AfUjWCvw6RQ/s72-c/Two-cats-eating.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html