Were you away last week or
just too busy to read all IPKat posts (especially if you are not that much into
patents)? Do not despair because, as usual, fellow IPKat contributor Alberto is here to rescue you
with his handy compilation of Katposts that were published last week. This is
the 38th episode in Alberto's invaluable #NeverTooLate series, which this time
he lovingly drafted amidst celebrations of his birthday. So thanks so much,
Alberto!
US Congressman Cummings and Senator Sanders have
just sent letters to 14 generic drug manufacturers, requesting
information about escalating prices of generic drugs. Can the innovator-generic
dynamic change the current IP scenario, wonders Annsley?
* The EU
patent package: have the critics got it all wrong? Professors rage, Wouter
responds
Eminent and highly-respected Wouter Pors (Bird & Bird The Hague) responds to the concerns and criticisms articulated in last week's petition that the IPKat reported in the post "The EU patent package: a dangerous precedent? A call for sanity", here.
Eminent and highly-respected Wouter Pors (Bird & Bird The Hague) responds to the concerns and criticisms articulated in last week's petition that the IPKat reported in the post "The EU patent package: a dangerous precedent? A call for sanity", here.
So far, Hollywood has
followed its own form of screening rhythm. This might be about to change in
ways that will affect our movie-theatre viewing behaviour in the years to come,
writes Neil.
Class 46 blogger and
Taylor Wessing associate Christian
Tenkhoff provides an analysis of Case T-106/14 Universal
Utility International GmbH & Co.KG v OHIM, in which the
General Court of the European Union ('GC') tackled registrability of the word
mark GREENWORLD.
How are Spanish newspapers
doing after Google stopped offering “Google News” in Spain [see earlier
katposts here and here]? Spanish
friend Míchel Olmedo
Cuevas explains.
Jeremy reviews Innovation
& Intellectual Property: Collaborative Dynamics in Africa and Knowledge
& innovation in Africa: scenarios for the future.
Jeremy pens an analysis of Case T‑250/13 Naazneen
Investments Ltd v OHIM, Energy Brands, Inc. intervening, a GC’s decision
addressing the issue of genuine use of a Community Trade Mark, credibility of
proof of use, affidavit’s proof value, and water purity.
The management of the
European Patent Office (‘EPO’) has finally commented publicly on the
increasingly strained staff relations within the Office, and in particular on
the decision of the Dutch Court in
favour of SUEPO (here), the EPO's (internal) announcement that it
would ignore this decision (here),
and the subsequent events (here), on which see two of the many Katposts here and here.
Who could take care of this, if not our beloved Merpel?
Laura Alonso (Moyng
Monegier, Spain) pens an analysis of Case T-384/13 Intermark
srl v OHIM, The Coca-Cola Company, a decision in which the GC addressed
registrability of a sign including the word ‘COLA’ drafted in Coca‑Cola’s
‘classic white cursive script on a red background’.
Just over a fortnight ago,
the long-awaited and much-discussed (here, here and here)
International Women’s Leadership Forum took place in London under the Chatham House
Rule. Catherine Pocock tells how it went.
Valentina reports on
Advocate General Mengozzi’s Opinion in Case C-20/14 BGW
Marketing - & Management- Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz, trade marks
constituted of acronyms.
‘The best American camera
man’ and the creative process are at stake in this great post by Neil.
Did the UK Minister for
Intellectual Property’s visit to the EPO bring anything good -- or anything at
all -- as regards the current Eponian issues, wonders Merpel?
Darren comments on a most
regrettable uncertainty in the issuance of the European Qualifying Examination
pre-exam results.
One of The X-Factor New
Zealand judges accused a contestant of copying another famous singer’s style.
Do image rights go that far, wonders Eleonora?
Valentina reports on CJEU’s
decision in C-182/14 P MEGA
Brands International v OHIM, the last episode of the Magnext
case [on which see IPKat’s earlier post here].
******************
PREVIOUSLY,
ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late
37 [week ending Sunday 15 March] - EPO
v EPO’s staff | EPO’s Board of Appeal’s reform | Unitary Patent’s fees
| Pinterest’s Community Trade Mark pinned down | Australian compulsory
licences | Is COMFYBALLS trade mark offensive? | Oprah Winfrey and OWN YOUR
POWER trade mark | EPO December Administrative Council Meeting | Blurred Lines
| Again on Actavis v Boehringer | Is the EU Patent Package diminishing the EU’s
powers? | EPO Administrative Council and Board of Appeal’s removal.
Never too late
36 [week ending Sunday 8 March] - EPO's
Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) says Chairman can disobey | OHIM is too rich to
be true | eLAW’s TM infringement checklist | Human right and IP | Again onWarner-Lambert
v Actavis | Seiko and Seiki in Singapore | The politics of US patent
law reform | Haribo v Lindt Goldbear wars | Patent trolls | Private
copying | Wu-Tank and copyright | CJEU on private copying inCopydan |
Breakdown in management-staff relations at EPO | New plant variety reference
reached the CJEU | Cindy Crawford’s picture copyrightwise | CJEU on ebook’s VAT
means something copyrightwise | A patent Kat investigate soft IP world | David
Couture v Playdom.
Never too
late 35 [week ending Sunday 1
March] – EPO v SUEPO | Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell
& Co (Grantham) Ltd | UK IPO on EPO | Scents and copyright | GIs
under scrutiny | UPC test-drive | Is UK failing to protect innovation? | Dutch
Minister and EPO immunity | CJEU and droit de suite in Case C-41/14 Christie's
France | Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF &
Others | Pangyrus Ltd v OHIM, RSVP Design Ltd | China and
smartphone patents | UK against groundless threats to sue for IP infringement |
Polar bears | Patent needs strictness, complexity and fuzziness.
Never too
late 34 [week ending Sunday 22
February] – Bill Gates goes to China | Ms Swift's issue with
trade marks | TMs and jurisdiction for online infringement cases | UK's
Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the EPO | Divani & Divani | UK
first in global IP enforcement | SUEPO v EPO | Enterprise v Europcar[2015] EWHC
300 | Again on Cartier International AG and Others v British Sky
Broadcasting Ltd and Others | Googling inventor clients | Code of
ISPs' practice in Australia | Specialised IP Courts in China.
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Monday, March 23, 2015
Rating:
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