Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Hot on the trail of last week's Katposts is our good friend Alberto Bellan. who has done a great job here in summarising -- in the fourteenth in our series of weekly round-ups -- those posts from last week that you may not have had the time, or the opportunity, to read.  Here they are:

Starting today 6 October, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has a new website. This being so, Eleonora's post is most timely, but it's much more than that since she also provides an excursus upon that glorious website’s history. She also publicised a free-to-attend event that the IPO organised to present the new website, which took place on 2 October. Alas, sometimes Never Too Late arrives a little bit too late.

Following a nudge from former guest Kat and current Katfriend Laetitia Lagarde, Marie-Andrée sinks her paws in another luxury IP case, this time concerning the use of the trade mark “red gold” for, inter alia, fine jewellery and watches “made out of a special alloying of gold with a distinct colour.” The case, Solid 21 Inc. v Hublot of America, et al., cv 11-00468, was recently decided by the Central District of California and saw Louis Vuitton -- normally a plaintiff in infringement proceedings -- in the role of seeking to establish that the term “red gold” was generally generic.

Katfriend Kingsley Egbuonu reviews Intellectual Property Enterprise Court: Practice and Procedure. This is a book by Angela Fox, which Kingsley describes as a useful guide on how to plan a case and other tricky procedural issues that one might encounter when dealing with the IPEC.

Every three months, the IPKat and Merpel give an update of the goings-on both on this weblog and on other IP-flavoured blogs. This is the chance for the Blogmeister to present some Katstats and to provide a list of related IP blogs which whoever feels passion for this topic cannot miss in her or his reading list.

Last month, in "The Great British Vanishing Act: where has home-grown patent filing gone?", Peter Arrowsmith (partner in London-based patent attorneys Cleveland) opened what turned out to be a lively debate as to whether current statistical trends describe the end of the British inventor or can be explained by other, less depressing reasons.  In this post, Jeremy allows Peter to respond to some of the hypotheses that have been offered for an apparent decline in UK patent filings by UK applicants that does not seem to be reflected by filing figures for some of the UK's closest trading partners.

The European Patent Office has launched two new and recently-piloted filing systems. In due course, these systems will replace the EPOline filing software currently used by most European patent attorneys. The first is called the case management system (“CMS”) and the second is the web-form filing service (which the IPKat will refer to as “WFS” for brevity). They are both accessible via the internet and magisterially explained in this post penned by David.

Marie-Andrée recounts the tale of Nicole, Inc. v Cielo USA et al., a case decided by the Central District of California concerning trade dress infringement and unfair competition. Nicole Lee, a handbag and accessories company, claimed that the defendant sold products bearing its own trade dress, which contains characteristics of such an unusual design that a customer would immediately rely on them to ascertain the source of the product”. Trade dress or trade mark? Read this post to find out!

There was a time when maps were not only a significant help to reach a restaurant suggested by a friend or to recall where you parked your car after a particularly demanding night with the same friend. This was the case of 1596, when maps of under-explored territories like those designed by Jan Huygen Van Linschoten could change the destiny of the world and provide entire nations with competitive advantages over their rivals. Though far back in time, those works of fine cartography were submitted to a secrecy regime and some of them had their pirated copies, Neil explains in this delightful piece bridging past and future of IP.

Annsley leaves the floor to her colleague Chandni Sood, who reports from the first post-Congress AIPPI [on which see the enriched series of posts that the Amerikat and her team provided last week here] event in the UK.  Kindly hosted at Allen & Overy, this event featured Tony Clayton, Chief Economist at the UK Intellectual Property Office, who entertained the audience on the role of IP in business finance.

The National Party of New Zealand used the US rapper Eminem’s song Lose Yourself  as part of its political campaign, apparently without the artist’s consent. Eminem’s publishers, Eight Mile Style LLC, filed proceedings for copyright infringement in the High Court of Wellington. Rebecca tells how it went.

Eleonora offers a detailed recapitulation of the state of trade mark law reform in the EU. Between Commission’s proposals and Council’s positions, Prof Martin Senftleben (VU Amsterdam) informs readers that a group of IP academics has just released a Recommendation on Measures to Safeguard Freedom of Expression and Undistorted Competition in EU Trade Mark Law. The text proposes some measures to create a more modern trade mark right eligible to foster competition and freedom of expression in the EU space. Will it be all about balance? You bet!
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, October 06, 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.