A new week is fast approaching, but before we jump into that, let's see what happened on the IPKat last week...
PATENTS
The UK patent exams are now fast approaching. To assist candidates in their preparation for the exams, the PEB has released some FD4/P6 (Infringement and validity) model answers for the 2013 ("Water butts") and 2018 ("Gantry-gate") papers. The model answers can be viewed on the PEB website here. Rose Hughes provided some further helpful information for candidates here.
TRADE MARKS
Recently the UKIPO saw a regal trade
mark application, similarly to the 'Sussex Royal' trade mark, opposed by the
Lord Chamberlain, on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen. The trade mark, which
featured the words ‘THE ROYAL BUTLER’, was refused trade mark registration on
the basis of sections 3(5) and 4(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA), which
addresses specially protected emblems. Riana Harvey reported on the rejection
of the trade mark.
OTHER IP TOPICS: COMPETITION LAW
One of the thorniest ongoing
issues in IP law is its overlap with competition law. A recent interesting
instance can be found in the decision delivered by Justice Bakhru of the Delhi
High Court in the case of Monsanto v. Competition Commission of India. Kat
friend Aditya Gupta reported on the case and its importance for competition law
and IP law here.
Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste
on
Sunday, September 20, 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