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

Last week was another frenetic one for this weblog.  Over 33,000 site visits were recorded, including 3,168 yesterday (Sunday being a day when we don't normally get much beyond 2,000 even when things are busy). Anyway, in case you missed anything, here comes the 34th weekly round-up of last week's Katposts, recorded by none other than our diligent colleague Alberto Bellan, who writes as follows:

Neil has recently delved into China's increasing efforts to rearrange technology transfer and IP in furtherance of its own strategic goals [here and here]. Last week, Bill Gates met with Chinese Technology Minister to talk about “innovative development”. And this is not by chance, observes Neil.

Taylor Swift has filed a number of marks seeking protection for lines or quotes of lyrics from songs or song titles of her most recent album 1989. Birgit steps into the debate that that these filings have triggered, focusing on what Taylor’s obsessive filing entails in terms of freedom of expression.

Jurisdiction in online copyright infringement cases is quite complex, perhaps because of the unregistered nature of that IP right. But how about trade marks, wonders Eleonora?

As recently reported, situation at the European Patent Office (EPO) is getting hot in view of the Administrative Council (AC) meeting of 25 March. Merpel loves hot dishes and couldn’t wait to provide more food (for thought) with the letter that Jim Boff had written to Mr Kongstad on behalf of the Patents Committee of CIPA (the UK's Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys).

Valentina reports on the Italian Supreme Court giving its judgment in a trade mark infringement and unfair competition dispute concerning the "secondary meaning" of the famous Italian brand “Divani & Divani” (“Sofas & Sofas”).

The UK is Number one for IP Enforcement, finds the US Chamber of Commerce Global IP Center IP Index. Is the UK actually such a paradise for IP owners? The floor goes to Katfriend Katharine Stephens (Partner, Bird & Bird), Jeremy and Merpel.

The Gerechtshof den Haag (an appellate court based in The Hague) grants EPO staff union SUEPO’s claims against the European Patent Office, Merpel reports.

A key benefit of a Community trade mark is its potential for the proprietor to obtain a Europe-wide injunction to prevent further or threatened infringement. However, last week’s High Court, England and Wales, ruling in Enterprise v Europcar [2015] EWHC 300 (Ch) shows this is by no means a settled area, explains katfriend Jeremy Blum (Bristows LLP).

Katfriend Tim Behean provides another insightful analysis of Cartier International AG and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch) [following Eleonora's Katpost here], explaining what Arnold J's decision has achieved, how they go about dealing with blocking injunctions in the United States -- and where we might go from here.

Are there (or should there be) professional standards that set limits on the extent to which a patent consultant may carry out an online search of his client, wonders Neil?

Adrian Storrier (PhD Candidate and Senior Fellow at the Melbourne Law School and Visiting Research Student at Queen Mary University of London) writes about the draft code of practice released by the Australian ISP and telecommunications industry body Communications Alliance.

Katfriend Kevin Winters addresses the issue of specialist patent courts within the context of the world's largest and currently most patent-active jurisdiction, China.



Never too late 33 [week ending Sunday 15 February] –- Evoking Audrey Hepburn’s image is not OK in Italy | Reasonable royalty and moral prejudice: new reference to the CJEU | CoA for England and Wales on parallel importations in Speciality European Pharma Ltd v Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd & Madaus GmbH  | The Logic of Innovation: Intellectual Property, and What the User Found There and Tritton on Intellectual Property in Europe reviewed | Italian baked goods’ trade marks in foreign megastores | Belmora LLC v Bayer Consumer Care AG and Bayer Healthcare LLC, Article 6-bis in Northern Viriginia | EU TM judges get together in CET-J | Chancery division on Dude’s copyright in Fresh Trading Limited v Deepend Fresh Recovery Limited and Andrew Thomas Robert Chappel | Sound-alike litigation in the music industry | Informal AC’s get together at EPO! | To Kill a Mockingbird reloaded | Personalised medicine.

Never too late 32 [week ending Sunday 8 February] –- Brazilian PTO’s delays | The Research Handbook on International Intellectual Property reviewed | Laura Smith-Hewitt | IP, women and leadership: the poll responses | Decline of West’s trust in innovation | Wikipedia public domain photos |CJEU in Case C-383/12 P Environmental Manufacturing LLP v OHIM | The Nordic IP Forum | The future of EPO’s BoA | Warner-Lambert v Actavis Mark 2 | Dragons' Den: where entertainment meets mis-advice? | Hospira v Genetech Mark 1, the Appeal | Litigation-Proof Patents: Avoiding the Most Common Patent Mistakes and Patent Portfolios: Quality, Creation, and Cost reviewed | Italy and San Marino’s friendship on IP is over| Problems and imperfections in biotech patenting: realities on the ground and trying to fix the system. 

Never too late 31 [week ending Sunday 1 February] -- Women in IP, a MIP’s perspective | Another linking reference to the CJEU | Catarina Holtz on Disciplinary authority over the EPO BoA | EPO pays to say that patent examiners’ life is truly cool | You can’t name your daughter ‘Nutella’ | CJEU in Arne Forsgren v Österreichisches Patentamt | Blocking injunctions in Greece | IPEC and bondage in Haiss v Ball | Present and future of patent profession | Belgium asks CJEU: does the Enforcement Directive allow cost-capping in IP litigation? | Dutch diverge with English as Novartis prevails on Zoledronic Acid in Netherlands | Slogan and TMs | The coffee capsule wars | Declining public trust in innovation | IPEC’s ruling in Global Flood Defence Systems & Another v Van den Noort Innovations BV & Others | Again on CJEU ruling in Case C-419/13 Art & Allposters | Biotech financing: the risk components, ‘going long’ and patents as knowledge currency. 

Never too late 30 [week ending Sunday 25 January] -- Julia Reda’s EU copyright revolution | GC on trade-marketing bottle shapes in (T-69/14 and T-70/14) | IPKat and BLACA’s event on Sensory copyright | IP Cross-Border Enforcement | US Supreme Court in Teva v Sandoz | On-line copyright infringement in Spain | GC on the ‘Pianissimo’ trade mark for vacuum cleaners in Case T‑11/14 Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM  | Judicial Independence - the EPO Responds to Sir Robin Jacob's Letter | Second medical use claims, skinny labels, and public policy in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others  | CJEU on exhaustion of copyright in Case C-419/13  Art & Allposters | CJEU confirms accessibility jurisdiction criterion for copyright infringement cases in Hejduk | the Court of Appeal for England and Wales takes Rihanna’s passing off claim under its umbrella | EPO invites its examiners to perform non-examining functions | Trade mark troubles in the Galapagos Islands | C5's 7th Forum on "Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation" | Strategies for patenting biotech inventions | US Court of Appeals on first-sale doctrine in Omega v Costco
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, February 23, 2015 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.