Issue 6 (2004) of Sweet & Maxwell's bimonthly series the European Copyright and Design Reports has now been published. This issue contains a number of cases made available in English for the first time:
* Key Ring Designs (Bundesgerichtshof, Germany): a ruling that, while reproductions of currency -- in this case 20-Euro notes -- could not be registered as trade marks, there was no bar to their protection when incorporated into a registered design;
* Adobe Systems and others v A Software Distributor (Supreme Court, Finland): this case considers the doctrine of exhaustion of rights as it applies to computer software;
* Cadys Sosnowski v Courtoux and others (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris): considers whether a director made a creative cnotribution to the production of a series of recordings of TV programmes;
* Hellenic Society for the Protection of Copyright v Macman (Court of Arios Pagos, Greece): can the author of the words of a song sue for infringement of copyright when all that has been used without authorisation is the tune?
If you know of any interesting recent copyright cases that you'd like to see included in the ECDR, let the IPKat know.
* Key Ring Designs (Bundesgerichtshof, Germany): a ruling that, while reproductions of currency -- in this case 20-Euro notes -- could not be registered as trade marks, there was no bar to their protection when incorporated into a registered design;
* Adobe Systems and others v A Software Distributor (Supreme Court, Finland): this case considers the doctrine of exhaustion of rights as it applies to computer software;
* Cadys Sosnowski v Courtoux and others (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris): considers whether a director made a creative cnotribution to the production of a series of recordings of TV programmes;
* Hellenic Society for the Protection of Copyright v Macman (Court of Arios Pagos, Greece): can the author of the words of a song sue for infringement of copyright when all that has been used without authorisation is the tune?
If you know of any interesting recent copyright cases that you'd like to see included in the ECDR, let the IPKat know.
LATEST EUROPEAN COPYRIGHT REPORTS
![LATEST EUROPEAN COPYRIGHT REPORTS]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
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