Never too late! If you missed the IPKat last week

While many children - whether young or ... less young - around the world are keenly awaiting 25 December to unwrap their Christmas presents, for IPKat readers 25 is the number of this week's round-up of all the Kat-items posted last week. This is a most wonderful present that our good and talented friend Alberto Bellan has just delivered. So here we go:

Jeremy reports on Ahmet Erol v Global Fashion Links Ltd, a trade mark decision from Judge Hacon in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales that addresses the topic of when it is appropriate to set aside default judgments -- which a court issues when one of the parties to a dispute fails to enter the litigation and the other side wins by a walk-over.

Improving the legal framework for online enforcement of IP rights has been probably the most debated policy topic in a number of jurisdictions in 2014, and will likely be so also in 2015. This is the reason why Eleonora provides this all-you-need-to-know-about post, depicting the law and case law scenarios so far in the UK, EU, US and beyond --and predicting what might occur in the forthcoming year.

Private copying levy systems are not harmonised in the EU, and some Member States do not even collect levies or decided to get rid of them altogether. For those who feel lost among all those different EU approaches, Marie-Andrée pens another lovely comparative analysis, addressing how private copying works in Finland, Spain, the UK, France, and in The Netherlands.

After attending International Trademark Association (INTA) Trademarks Overlap conference in Munich [summarised in a series of 10 live Katposts which you can access via "Never Too Late" blogpost here], Jeremy provides a few gentle suggestions that IP conferences’ speakers, chairmen, audience and organising teams might want to read to make their events even delightful.

T 2157/10 is a little but significant decision from the Technical Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO). In opposition Oral Proceedings, the Patentee contested the admissibility of the Opposition. The Opposition Division considered the Opposition admissible, and "asked the pro­prietor to clarify its requests on file". At this point, the "[t]he proprietor said that his request was to maintain in amended form.The Patentee then appealed on the admissibility point, but the Board of Appeal considered the appeal inadmissible, because his top ranked request, ie maintenance of the patent in amended form, was granted. Beware of what you ask, warns Darren.

The issue of the apparent erosion of the independence of the EPO Boards of Appeal’s members has dramatically emerged in the past couple of weeks, even beyond the house ban and then suspension imposed by the President and the confirmed by the Administrative Council to a Board of Appeal’s member [on which see here and here]. While an old proposal to make the Boards of Appeal more independent of the rest of the EPO is now seemingly dead in the waterMerpel reports that plans afoot to review the position of the Boards of Appeal have been discussed at the "Board of the Administrative Council" (AC) or "Board 28".

Jeremy breaks the news of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivering its decision in Case C-364/13 International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents [on the AG Opinion see the IPKat note here]. As readers may recall, the case concerned whether unfertilised human ova that are incapable of developing into human beings could be considered "human embryos" within Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Find out in this post how the Court replied!

Here’s the much-awaited Eleonora’s 2014 Copyright Awards [the 2013 edition of the eLAW Copryright Oscars may be found here]. This year, the copyright-Kat awards prizes in a number of categories, including: Most Important Copyright Decision; Most Important Piece of Legislation; Most Important Unresolved Issue; and Most Important Policy Issue for 2015. The post could have well included an unprecedented selfie with all the Kats and Kevin Spacey.

In a world obsessed with innovation we tend to forget that this may also bring undesired negative effects. This is the case of Waze, writes Neil, ie the explosively-popular GPS application which helps to find the most efficient route to one’s destination on the basis of map data and other traffic information from users. Waze is apparently responsible for severe traffic congestion on various side streets in the Los Angeles area, which were quite and nice before all drivers suggested them as the quickest route. How to deal with that, wonders Neil?

Merpel reports on a juicy interview to EPO President Benoit Battistelli and Chairman of the Administrative Council, Jesper Kongstad, on the recent events leading up to and following the AC meeting covered at length on this blog. It covers topics such as staff unrest, union representation, and the independence of the Boards of Appeal.

The bizarre combination of a pig, two penguins, and (part of) a woman’s body curiously appear in two works of art. The first to come was a clothing company’s ad. The second is a Jeff Koons’s porcelain currently on display at the Centre Pompidou in Paris. Lacking fair-use in France, could Jeff rely on the parody exception in the context of a potential dispute, Marie-Andrée wonders?

Jay-Z’s lawyers must be having a busy time, because celebrated rapper and record producer has been embroiled for quite some time in intellectual property law suits [seeeg earlier Katpost here]. As Shalini Bengani explains in this post,TufAmerica Inc v W B Music Corp 13-cv-7847(LAK), decided by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, is another one of those cases. The Court had to determine whether Jay Z’s alleged sampling and use of the syllable “oh” in an audio recording and music video entitled Run This Town amounted to copyright infringement. “Oh” “oh” “oh”, like Santa would say.



Never too late 24 [week ending Sunday 14 December] -- ** INTA’s When Trademarks Overlap With Other IP Rights Special ** | Scottish Law Society misinforms about UPC in Scotland | EPO Enlarged BoA Members’ letter against against President Battistelli’s BoA Member’s house ban | German lititgator writes German delegate to EPO AC | EU Judges join the chorus of condemnation against President Battistelli | EPO replies to multilarelal concerns | Scam letters from EPO | Birss J on process claims in about Hospira v Genentech | End of Google News in Spain | Arnold J and the High Court on using a confungly similar TM with the owner’s consent in Dalsouple Société Saumuroise Du Caoutchouc v Dalsouple Direct Ltd | Copyright and censorship in Sweden | IPKat’s comment policy | UKIP against a parodistic Twitter account | Oracle v Google on Java’s copyright |

Never too late 23 [week ending Sunday 7 December] -- VOLVO v LOVOL, EU General Court goes Freudian | Oral Hearing on the 17th Draft of the UPC Rules of Procedure | Trolls owing essential patents in Vringo Infrastructure v ZTE | The importance of being Uber before Uber | Merpel and the EPO strike | An Arnoldian paten ruling in Idenix Pharmaceutical v Gilead Sciences | Audit clauses in IP licences | EPO Board of Appeal Member suspended | AG Villalón tells his stake on distribution right and offer for sale in Case C-516/13 Dimensione Direct Sales and Labianca | Post-mortem moral rights in Poland | Second Circuit hears argument in Authors Guild v.Google fair use case | EPO and the Swiss-cheese approach in decision T0571/10 | The Alicantation of the European Patent Office | Paris Court of Appeal defines third-generation hosting provider in TF1 v Dailymotion | Books review: "The Principle Of National Treatment In International Economic Law Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property" and "The Copyright Wars: Three Centuries of Trans-Atlantic Battle" | Swedish Svensson referral proceedings after Svensson.

Never too late 22 [week ending Sunday 30 November] -- Trade conference and IPKat discount to attend | Eleonora’s copyright infringement checklist | EPO video-conference drawbacks | Bat trade marks | CJEU on essential patents in Case C-170/13 Huawei v ZTE | BGH on acronyms’ registrability | Peppa Pig and Gabriella Capra | Reference to CJEU: copyright infringements through open wi-fi | Court of Appeal for England and Wales on ‘Ideal Home’trade mark in IPC Media Ltd v Media 10 Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1439 | Imitation and lookalike specialists Aldi looses in Case T-240/13 against ‘Alifoods’ |Jeremy’s book review -- Asian IP special | Chancery Division back on Merck v Merck | Trade marks in artistic works | Treatises and indexes.

Never too late 21 [week ending Sunday 23 November] -- EPO + SIPO = happiness? | IPEC on infringement of escort pictures and targeted public | Jeremy’s take on the IP Big Picture | Merpel on the EPO finances | AG Bot on Spanish claim against Unitary Patent | The General Court in TM cases Case T-342/12 and Joined Cases T-122/13, T-123/13 and T-77/13 | Court of Appeal for England and Wales on software patent | CJEU rules over Golden Balls v Ballon D’Or | IP on the airplanes and airport | Do TMs protect consumers or its owner?
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, December 22, 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.