Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ...

Here's the eighteenth weekly round-up of last week's blog posts for the benefit of those readers who were either unfortunate to have missed last week's entries or extremely fortunate to have spent the entire week doing more pleasurable things than reading this weblog.  In either event, our admiration and thanks go to the dashing, talented Alberto Bellan for stitching this round-up together.  

We're trying an innovation this week.  At the foot of this blog post we are briefly listing the items missed in the month prior to the contents of this post. If you find this helpful, or just a nuisance, do let us know.  
Last week's blog posts -- apart from the Monday, Wednesday and Friday round-ups (when applicable) -- look like this: 

* "A talented kitten called Kate ...": results of the limerick competition.  Some days ago, the IPKat launched a snap competition to compose a limerick that (i) began with the line "A talented kitten called Kate" and (ii) was on the theme of intellectual property protection other than via the patent system, the prize being complimentary registration at CLT's conference "Intellectual Property: the 'no patents' round-up for non-techie people". Here Jeremy announces the winner and mentions some of the more interesting entries too. 

 * That BestWater order: it's up to the rightholders to monitor online use of their works.  Last week this blog reported on the Court of Justice of the European Union decision in Case C-348/13 BestWater, a keenly-awaited ruling supposed to solve the dilemma of whether framing/embedding could amount to an infringement. After breaking the news, Eleonora publishes Katfriend Oliver Löffel's (LÖFFEL ABRAR) analysis of the decision. 

 * Knives, nails and nippers: forging ahead with the Laguiole mark.  Jeremy gives the floor to Valentina Torelli, who drafts a detailed report of the General Court's decision in Case T-453/11 LAGUIOLE. The ruling explores the intriguing relationship between Community trade marks and other distinctive signs in the light of the protection afforded by national laws.

 * France to Modify its Intellectual Property Code.  Marie-Andrée writes about a French bill that would implement Directive 2011/77 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, and Directive 2012/28 on certain permitted uses of orphan works. The bill, which has just been presented by the French Ministry of Culture, is about to be examined in the Commission for cultural affairs of the French lower Chamber and, once adopted, will bring significant changes in those two fields of copyright.

 * IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" Session 1 IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" is a conference that CLT organised in London last week, covering various IP-except-patent-related topics.  Blogmeister Jeremy chaired the event and reported what happened there through four blogposts. The first one features James Tumbridge (Pillsbury), who spoke on trade mark, domain names and trade dress protection; passing off and related topics. Rebecca O'Kelly-Gillard (Bird & Bird) then summarised the mountain of recent Court of Justice of the European Union and domestic copyright cases.

 * IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" Session 2. The second session of the conference started with Christopher Sharp (Herbert Smith Freehills) taking up cudgels on behalf of the neglected, unloved subject of database right under the Database Directive. Next up was self-defined "fluff" Serena Tierney, whose duty was to talk about copyright licensing, business models and the prospects of the Copyight Hub.

 * IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" Session 3 The first speaker of the third session was former guest Kat Darren Meale, who brought the audience into the wonderful world of designs, considering the Utopia beer glass case, the CJEU's rulings in Karen Millen v Dunnes Stores and Gautzsch, not forgetting the Court of Appeal for England and Wales's decision in Trunki. Darren was followed by Matthew Jones (EIP), who tackled the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court for England and Wales, which has become an essential tool for many claimants in need of speedy IP litigation.

 * IP: the "no-patents round-up for non-techie people" Session 4 The final session of the conference starred Edward Smith, an accredited mediator as well as being a Hearing Officer with the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Edward spoke on the IPO's mediation service, reminding us that the IPO was not the only institution involved in these kinds of services -- the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) also has its own.

 * How you can rent your own orphan, and why there are 91 million of them This is Jeremy's post on the new orphan works' licensing scheme launched a few days ago in the UK. As the IPO's  press release enthusiastically says, it "could give wider access to at least 91 million culturally valuable creative works -- including diaries, photographs, oral history recordings and documentary films". All this sounded so sexy that our Blogmeister couldn't resist testing the new procedure. Thus, he applied for a licence to use an orphan work described as "Photograph of a cat, 1951" -- meow, it worked!

 * "Almost identical, just with different names": shopping at AldiInspired by Mrs Kat, in turn inspired by an article posted on Yahoo!'s UK & Ireland Finance page, Jeremy recounts of Aldi, a sort of lookalike shopping paradise with over 9,000 stores spread across 18 countries. How could this systematic process of emulating others' brands and misleading consumers obtain that success, the Blogmeister and Merpel wonder?

 * How illegal is illegality? Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Servier v Apotex Jeremy writes of Les Laboratoires Servier & Another v Apotex Inc & Others [2014] UKSC 55, a UK Supreme Court decision that addresses a point of principle that is academically most interesting even though it doesn't crop up in court on a daily basis: does the defence of illegality bar a claim on a cross-undertaking in damages given by a patent owner in order to obtain an interim injunction where his UK patent is held to be invalid but his corresponding Canadian patent is held to be infringed? Read Jeremy's post to find out!

 * If all the patent trolls disappear, can royalty stacking take their place? There is little consensus on how to define a troll/NPE ("non-practising entities"), and even less on how to describe the problems that they have allegedly created. The debate around this topic is so open that someone is even wondering whether these subjects are a real problem, a "symptom" of the "disease" or rather the rhetorical anchor to attract popular attention on some of the patent system's malfunctioning. Where is the troll phenomenon going, reflects Neil? 

 * Link and threat? Why the story with hyperlinks and copyright is not over yet Do you need permission from the relevant right holder to link to copyright-protected content? After the CJEU's decisions in Svensson [here and here] and BestWater, Eleonora provides more food for thought on this topic, reporting on (i) ALAI's Opinion on the criterion "New Public", developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); (ii) the latest law developments in Germany, Belgium, France and Spain over ancillary rights involving linking; and (iii) the ideas that incoming Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society might have over the same issue -- guess what? They seem not to be the same as Ms Kroes'. 


Never too late 17 [week ending Sunday 26 October]

Never too late 16  [week ending Sunday 19 October]  

Never too late 15  [week ending Sunday 12 October]

Never too late 14   [week ending Sunday 5 October]

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, November 03, 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.