Posts

Featured post

An eye for an eye constitutes bad faith

Can you “prevent” the filing of a trade mark that is confusingly similar to your own by filing that trade mark yourself first? In a sort of “self-defence”? The General Court dealt with this situation in its recent decision Vacu Activ Marcin Leśniak v EUIPO - Lakhomoff and AR Group Roman Tchir (VACUACTIVUS) (case T-650/25). Background The company Vacu Activ Marcin Leśniak (“Vacu Activ”) owns the Polish word mark “Vacu Activ”, which was filed in 2008 and the following EU trade mark that was filed in 2018:

EU General Court confirms that plant variety rights applicants must provide technical data to support requests to examine a new distinguishing characteristic

[Book Review] Geographical Indications in International Trade

Patent Litigation Europe 2027 with IPKat readers’ discount and new speakers announced

Tuesday Wonders

Does a generative AI ‘remix’ infringe Canadian copyright law?

AI in the patent industry: Instant coffee Copilot

[Guest Book Review] IP Before IP

An ‘ordinary’ copyright case on the limits of fair use for non-generative AI-powered search engines

Be careful what you wish for: Hamburg court holds Wish liable for trade mark infringement

[Guest post] French court sides with Vuitton in unauthorized upcycling case

Plant variety rights enforcement continues to ramp up in China

Post-published clinical data does not always save you (T 0251/25, Empagliflozin)