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

"If I hear 'EPO' one more time I shall
scream!", said Muriel, but it was to no avail ...
In case you thought this weblog was only interested in the goings-on at the European Patent Office, here's proof to the contrary effect.  Wonderful Katfriend Alberto Bellan, in his 36th weekly round-up of the previous week's IPKat blogposts, has shown that only three out of a total of 19 posts concerned the EPO, and 13 weren't really anything to do with patents at all.  While next week's tally may be a bit different, the distribution of topics as between patents, copyright, designs, trade marks, trade secrets, plant varieties, database rights and all the rest works out pretty well across the whole year.   Anyway, if you were otherwise engaged when the Kat-bloggers were a-bloggin',this is what you missed:
The EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) issued an interlocutory decision in Case R2/14, in which it addressed the dual roles of the Board's Chairman, who is also a Vice-President of the Office (VP3), among other issues. Quite explosive, says Merpel

Katfriend and trade mark guru Tove Graulund has some pertinent comments to make about the problems facing the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) due to its apparently immutable penchant for making money. I'd like to have those problems too.

A few months ago Eleonora posted her Copyright Infringement Checklist, ie a list of the main aspects to consider when addressing potential infringement issues. Now it's time for trade marks.

Jeremy welcomes The Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property, published by his friends at Edward Elgar Publishing. It's the tenth volume in this series and it is edited by Professor Christophe Geiger, of Strasbourg's CEIPI.

Last Thursday, Jeremy reported a High Court Order obtained by Warner-Lambert (part of the Pfizer group) mandating the NHS to release guidance about the prescribing of pregabalin (Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group PTC EHF & Others [2015] EWHC 485 (Pat) (02 March 2015)) [on which see the IPKat earlier posts, here and here]. That Order is the logical consequence of a remark made in the first judgment, Pfizer’s application for an interim injunction, observes Darren.

Sometimes a trade mark is so sufficiently well known that consumers are not considered likely to be confused between it and an uncomfortably similar mark. This is what has recently happened in Singapore, explains in this guest post Ng Qi Ting (Kass International, Kuala Lumpur).

Katfriend Kevin Winters gives us a glimpse of some of the stirring action in the seething cauldron of US patent reform.

Birgit provides an update on the Haribo v Lindt Gold Bear trade mark dispute, now before Germany's highest Court.

Annsley has previously written about the UPC Industry Coalition's UPC activities which mainly came by way of co-signed open letters and media blasts on the hot topics of patent trolls and injunction gaps [here, here and here]. Now their involvement assumes a multimedia dimension with the launch of a new website dedicated to reinforcing their position on key UPC procedural topics, explains the AmeriKat.

Tom provides an overview of why the private copying exception has been in the legal limelight.

Buyers of the new Wu-Tang Clan album will "acquire full public and commercial rights in the Artwork eighty eight (88) years from the date of sale". What does that mean copyright-wise, wonders emeritus Kat Catherine Lee?

Tom reports on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in Case C-463/12 Copydan Båndkopi, a reference for a preliminary ruling from Denmark, seeking clarification on key questions relating to the so-called ‘private copying’exception under Article 5(2)(b) of the Information Society Directive 2001/29.

Merpel has received a very sad communication from the European Patent Office (EPO) Described as "Open Letter from the representatives of the management during the GCC on 27.02.2015". It describes a complete breakdown in relations and communications between management and staff representatives at the EPO.

Jeremy writes up the Opinion of CJEU's Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C‑242/14 Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Gerhard und Jürgen Vogel GbR, Jürgen Vogel and Gerhard Vogel, this being a request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim, Germany on reasonable compensation under Article 94(1) of the Regulation Council Regulation 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights.

The photographer of a Cindy Crawford's picture that went viral, John Russo is claiming that the original photo was stolen and that changes were made to Crawford's midriff to make her look worse than she really does. Neil explores the copyright issues that this story might entail.

European Commission v France is a fresh case in which the CJEU considers France's and Luxembourg's reduction of VAT rates for e-books. That decision could be worth reading -- and not only for tax lawyers, Eleonora explains.

Compared to patents, evolution of soft IP case law seems more intimately tied to specific commercial situations and disputes, and certainly practitioners in this area seem to have much exposure to enforcing the rights, having a very 'practical' perspective. What could inhabitants of the patent world learn from that, wonders Suleman?

Merpel and you need to talk.

Blogger and recent guest Kat Marie-Andrée Weiss explains the ruling in David Couture v Playdom, a Federal Circuit's decision that highlights a difference of approach between the trade mark law of the United States and that of the European Union as regards the concept of 'use in commerce'.

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 on-line 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 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: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, March 09, 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.