 |
| Maybe ... but not for Alberto and the IPKat! |
Our dear friend Alberto Bellan (@albertobellan)
is back again with a great summary of last week's
Katposts. Here we go with the fifteenth episode in his very much praised #NeverTooLate series:
Jeremy
has been asked to help find a speaker for a conference that will take place in
Central Europe in early December. The wanted person is an in-house intellectual property counsel who is
able to say something interesting about the issues facing his or her company in
coping with situations in which there is an overlap between trade mark rights
and copyrights. Is that you? If yes, drop a line to theipkat@gmail.com with the
subject-line "IP overlap"!
Jeremy
takes a look at the update of the Guidelines for Examination that the
European Patent Office (EPO) published a few days ago. The Guidelines are the
main resource used by examiners at the EPO for guidance on how to apply the
provisions of the European Patent Convention (EPC) to the patent examination
process, and their new version will come into force on 1 November. Time to
get updated on the update, then!
Cranford
Community College v Cranford College Ltd [2014] EWHC 2999 (IPEC) is a
decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales
concerning passing off. Both parties are educational institutions,
both use "Cranford" and "College" in their name and both
have a bird in their logo. Very educational judgment, Jeremy explains.
Some weeks ago, Katfriends Alan Johnson and
Alexandria Palamountain penned a post on a real-time test drive
of the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) system, kindly ideated, designed
and conducted by Bristows. To summarise the story so far,
the proceedings kicked off with an application to revoke a patent in the London
branch of the JUPC's central division. The response to this from the patentee
was to make a Rule 19.1(a) objection, which -- to save readers scurrying to
their Rules -- is a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction and competence of
the Court. The hearing of this application took place last month before
Judge-Rapporteur Rieu. Anything more that this blogger could write would spoil
this exciting new episode of the saga.
“Gruppo
Mondiale”, a company incorporated in Lichtenstein, is on trial at the Paris
criminal court for counterfeiting and false advertising for having sold several
copies of Auguste Rodin’s sculptures. Auguste Rodin, however, died in November
1917. So why aren't his works in public domain? That's because continental
moral rights, like diamonds, last forever, Marie-Andrée explains.
Richard Lowther’s
Application: Opposition by Formula One Licensing BV (Case O/396/14) is a case decided last
month by Hearing Officer Chris Bowen in the UK Intellectual Property Office. Lowther
applied to register the alphanumeric trade mark TEAM F1 for software
in Class 9. Formula One opposed. Jeremy leaves the floor to Shalini Bengani, who explains how it went.
Following
the Lescure Report on Cultural Exceptions published
last year by the CSPLA, Professor Valérie-Laure Benabou has just published her
report on transformative works, which had been commissioned by the Conseil
supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique. The report focuses on
transformative works under French law, reports Marie-Andrée.
Italy
lies in details.
Rovio, the Finnish developer of the
mobile app game Angry Birds, announced that it is cutting 16% of its staff, despite its widely-developed
marketing strategy and billions of downloads of the lovely game. What can this
story teach us about the use of brands in the viral networked world, wonders
Neil?
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Monday, October 13, 2014
Rating:
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Monday, October 13, 2014
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.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