Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week ...

Another busy week has passed for the IPKat and Merpel, but you can catch up on all the posts from last week that you have not had a chance to read yet. Here's the eighth weekly round-up for your delectation, brought to you by me in Alberto's absence:
This week saw a series of posts on the topic of PhDs. The first was Eleonora's post, * It's a wonderful (PhD) life ... Oh wait: is it?, where she gathers the experiences of previous and current Intellectual Property PhD candidates. This is an insightful read for anyone wishing to pursue a PhD and illustrates some considerations to be taken into account before embarking on this route.

* This is Fiction, not Trademark Infringement: A Cat (Woman) in Need of a Clean Slate is a case review by Marie-Andrée on Fortres Grand Corporation v Warner Bros, no. 12-cv-00535. The Seventh Circuit Court affirmed on August 14 that a fictional company or product cannot infringe the trade mark of a real company or product. The Appellant Fortres Grand sells “Clean Slate,” a desktop management program which erases all evidence of user activity on a computer, and holds the registered trade mark “Clean Slate” for computer software. Warner Bros released "Batman The Dark Knight Rises in 2012" and features the fictional software program “clean slate.”

A penny for your thoughts? No, a pound for your breach of confidence: no richesse for Richmond is a case comment on the decision of the Chancery Division of the High Court in Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Chester Overseas Ltd, Milton Levine and Larry Levine (here). The claimant successfully proved breach of contract, breach of confidence and breach of statutory duty, but was only awarded nominal damages of £1. The post lists the salient points of the case and interesting comments on the court’s approach.

* Passing off wins the day: fake Patent Office scammers pay up, promise not to do it again is an interesting read about the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) successfully establishing a case of passing off against two companies operating under the names of ‘Patent and Trademark Office’ and ‘Patent and Trade Mark Organisation’. A settlement was reached but the people behind the companies have been warned that if they hold themselves as the IPO again, they will be in contempt of court and will risk imprisonment.

* Once upon a time, in a faraway time-warp: a Kat relates his IP PhD experiences is a charming account of an IPKat veteran’s time as a PhD student. Although it is an atypical PhD experience, it is must-read!

* The post Intellectual Property For Economic Development: a new book is a review of a new title from Edward Elgar Publishing. This tome, edited by a three-person team consisting of Sanghoon Ahn, Bronwyn H. Hall and Keun Lee, turns out to be more interesting than the reviewer initially feared.

* The last PhD-related post of the week is Your IP PhD: things to do, things to avoid.  It provides a list of recommended things to do and what to steer clear from, from the perspective of a Kat who has had the chance to examine numerous PhD theses.

* Taking a selfie inside the National Gallery: a copyright infringement? The National Gallery in London has recently changed its strict no-photos-(please) policy after staff realised they were fighting a losing battle against mobile phones. Despite the relaxation of rules on taking photos of the permanent collections, a question persists: would the taking of a picture of temporary exhibitions or displays with loans be really a potential copyright infringement? Eleonora discusses this topic and potential issues which may crop up if someone takes a selfie with a copyright protected painting.

* Kidney-Shaped Bra Insert Patent Suit is Pushing Ahead.  Runberg, Inc. d/b/a Zephyrs v McDermott, Will & Emery LLP and Bernard P. Codd (here) is reviewed and discussed by Marie-Andrée. The case concerns lingerie and accessories company Zephyrs, which filed a suit in New York Supreme Court (a court of first instance) against its former patent attorney Bernard Codd and law firm McDermott, Will & Emery, claiming that their ‘deficient services’ while drafting a bra insert patent prevented Zephyrs suing competitors who sold similar products on the market, or from collecting royalties.

* How Korea is conquering world pop culture--what can we learn? Neil examines the extent to which commercially successful creative content can be managed. He focuses on Euny Hong’s recently published book The Birth of Korean Cool: How One Nation is Conquering the World through Pop Culture, which explains how national policies have enabled South Korea to become the big exporter of pop culture that it is today.

* In Not So Happy Trails As NYC Mural Artist Sues For Copyright Infringement, Marie-Andrée recounts how visual artist Maya Hayuk filed two lawsuits for copyright infringement, claiming that her mural Chem Trails NYC was reproduced and distributed, without her permission. The first action is against the fashion and accessories company Coach; and the second is against Sony and a pop music artist Sara Bareilles.

* The last post of the week, like the first, is by Eleonora: When a TV programme is transmitted via direct injection, who makes the act of communication to the public? Belgium recently referred the following question to the CJEU in C-325/14 SBS Belgium: “Does a broadcasting organisation which transmits its programmes exclusively via the technique of direct injection [...] make a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3 of [the InfoSoc Directive]?” The UK IPO has circulated a notice on the question and people who wish to comment on the matter can email their views to by 4 September 2014.
Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week ... Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week ... Reviewed by Unknown on Monday, August 25, 2014 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.