Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week

Did you miss the IPKat last week? Don’t worry, because our good friend Alberto Bellan is back with his 20th round-up of all the Kat-items that were posted while you were away.

* "Desperately seeking the Big Picture": live and on stream ...

Last week IPKat’s blogmeister Jeremy delivered the first episode of this year's Francis Gurry Lecture on Intellectual Property -- the sixth in the series -- under the title ""IP in Transition: desperately seeking the Big Picture". Find out some juicy details on the last IPKat’s adventure in this post!

* Toy marks under scrutiny: is there a rift between OHIM Appeal Boards?

(Again) from Australia, (this time) by an Australian, (always) with love. Jeremy gives the floor to Bill Ladas (King & Wood Mallesons), who compares two groups of decisions of OHIM Fourth and Fifth Boards of Appeal, concerning registrability of fanciful animals’ devices as 2D and 3D trade marks. The outcomes of those rulings were at the Antipodes (also) in terms of assessing distinctiveness. So which Board got it right, wonders Bill?

* Dimensions from patent drawings

EPO decision T 1488/10 considers a new twist on a hoary old question: can one rely on measurements taken from a prior art drawing to invalidate a patent? Find out in this post by David -- which also provides a very measured list of EPO’s case law on this very topic.

* Apologies: IPKat emails causing problems

Those who enjoy blaming Google will find more reasons here.  

* Mr Kohl and his ghostwriter... the Regional Court of Cologne decides

The Regional Court of Cologne banned journalist Heribert Schwan from including a list of quotes attributed to former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in his recently published book “The Kohl Protocols”. Apparently those are extracts of conversations that took place while Schwan was working as Helmut’s ghostwriter -- and Germans take confidentiality very seriously, Birgit explains.

* Patents In, Garbage Out? When machine translation mangles the prior art

David reports on EPO decision T 1343/12, which concerns a very bad machine translation of a prior art Japanese reference used in an inventive step objection. Examining the ambiguous translation, the Board was unable to reach a conclusion as to its meaning, and remitted the case back to the Examining Division “for re-consideration of the issue of inventive step in the light of a certified translation of D1.” But who has the legal responsibility of procuring this certified translation and who is expected to pay for it, wonders David?

* Damages for trade mark infringement: the "user principle" and a Haconian ruling

Here’s a guest post from fellow blogger Barbara Cookson. She reports on National Guild of Removers and Storers Ltd v Statham t/a Marrubi's Removals & Storage [2014] EWHC 3572 (IPEC), a decision that Judge Hacon recently issued in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales. Considering the criteria for calculating damages for trade mark infringement, the judge sensibly decided not to apply the user principle that was used in the past. It’s all about the good/bad willing of the infringer, says Jeremy, while Merpel launches the brand-new word “Haconian” – which carries a rather different meaning from Draconian.

* Monday Meraviglia & Les Fantaisies du Vendredi

How lovely these continental variations are.


Never too late 19 [week ending Sunday 9 November] – Copyright over Kim Kardashian’s bottom  |  EPO under EU Parliament’s investigation?  |  Rights on photographs of fake social profiles  |  IPEC hears big claims  Spanish copyright reform  |  Court of Appeal for England and Wales’ decision in Interflora v M&S | IPEC on confusing business names in Anglian Windows Ltd v Anglian Roofline Ltd  |  Ford Denied Well-Known Trademark Protection in Russia  |  Crayola suit to prevent genericide and dilution in the US  |  Copyright: monopoly or exclusive right?  |  The 17th draft of UPC Rules of Procedure.

Never too late 18 [week ending Sunday 2 November] -- The Limerick Competition results | More on CJEU in BestWater | The GC in Laguiole | France to review its IP Code | Reports on the “no patents round-up for non-techie people” event | Renting an orphan work in the UK | Aldi and look-alikes | The UK Supreme Court in Servier v Apotex | Are patent trolls really a problem? | Last developments over linking in EU.

Never too late 17 [week ending Sunday 26 October] -- A forthcoming conference on TM agreements | UK Cartier rulings analysed | Obviousness and common general knowledge in the UK | CJEU and registrability of 3D TMs | New EPO Unity Procedural Rules | Patentability of perpetual motion | BGH decision on colour TM | Arnold J's biggest blocking injunction | French Court on Copyright and Free Movement of Goods | and its ancestors | Merpel on EPO strike ballot | CJEU on video framing and copyright | Can pizza flavour be a TM? | Who can use "Duke" as TM in the US?

Never too late 16  [week ending Sunday 19 October] -- The Court of Appeal for England and Wales in Nampak Plastics Europe Ltd v Alpla UK Ltd | Former Eagle member claims infringement of his name in the US | The Court of Appeal for England and Wales in Specsavers v Asda | A change in format for the European Patent Attorney exam | Reflections over IP5 patent filing figures |  ‘Common Sense For Copyright’ initiative to be rejected in Finland | Converse brings 3D TM infringement proceedings in the US | Arnold J’s blocking injunction in Cartier and others v various ISPs | Copyright on shoes according to the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris| Are The Economist’s competitions over innovation really innovative? | A Limerick competition | UPC and International law  |  The EU General Court over the ‘Galileo’ trade mark | UK IPO UPC prototype tested.
Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Monday, November 17, 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.