Quite a few stories were published last week on the IPKat website. Here is a brief summary of what you might have missed if you have not been following the updates daily!
Image via Flickr
TRADE MARKS
GuestKat Alessandro Cerri analysed the recent judgment of the High Court of England and Wales in the Lifestyle Equities v Berkshire Polo trade mark dispute. This is an important judgment on the interaction of brands within a crowded marketplace. More information is available here.
Former GuestKat Jan Jacobi (BarentsKrans) presented an analysis of the recent decision of the Dutch Court of Appeal in the Mexx case, concerning free riding and declining reputation of a brand. Full story available here.
Anna Maria Stein reviewed a recent EUIPO BoA’s decision, which stated that a 3D trade mark described as a “heart-based bread roll” is devoid of the necessary minimum degree of distinctive character. The full analysis can be found here.
Marcel Pemsel analysed the General Court’s judgment in Apart v EUIPO - S. Tous (Représentation d'un ours) (T-591/21) assessing whether the shape of a teddy bear is registerable for jewellery. More on this here.
TRADE SECRETS
The AmeriKat, Annsley Merelle Ward, commented on a jury’s verdict in a case concerning trade secrets in the airplane industry, in which Universal Alloy persuaded a federal jury in Atlanta to reject accusations from Alcoa that Universal Alloy had stolen trade secrets related to aluminum parts used in aircraft wings. Full article can be accessed here.
PATENTS
Rose Hughes:
- reviewed the EPO Boards of Appeal recent decision in case T 1501/20, confirming lack of legal basis for mandatory ViCo proceedings absent a state of general emergency. Full analysis available here.
- delivered an article on the relevance of the EBA decision in case G 2/21, and how it may effect patents in any technical field in which experimental evidence is required. As per the article, which can be accessed here, case T 2803/18, in particular, highlights how G 2/21 may be relevant to inventions in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.
- shared a perspective on the recent High Court decision in Ensygnia v Shell ([2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) considering it highly relevant to the ongoing controversy of claim interpretation and description amendments. Full article can be checked out here.
MISCELLANY
Merpel McKitten re-published a book review ‘Developments and Directions in Intellectual Property Law: 20 Years of the IPKat’ by Bill Patry (Mayer Brown), as published by the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice here.
Marcel Pemsel analysed whether the Paris Convention allows cross-IP priority claims on the basis of the KaiKai's application case, for the registration of twelve Community designs with EUIPO, claiming priority based on a PCT application filed in 2017. Detailed analysis of the case is available here.
Eleonora Rosati reported on the year’s Life Sciences Strategy Summit on IP & Exclusivity, which will be held on 9, 10, 11 October 2023 in Munich (Germany), as described here.
Chiara Gallo summarised the latest news and opportunities in IP here.
Reviewed by Aleksandra Czubek
on
Saturday, August 12, 2023
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