Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

41 and still going strong! This is the forty-first collation of notes on the previous week's Katposts from our dedicated colleague and former guest Kat Alberto Bellan, who never lets us down.  It was actually quite a quiet week for this weblog, since most of the blog team were a bit elusive when it came to herding time. For the record, Alberto doesn't need to add the Monday Miscellany, Wednesday Whimsies and Friday Fantasies features since they are round-ups already and it seems a little silly to round up the round-ups.

The previous week's Katposts look like this:

* Regulating the Nagoya Protocol: a Kat explains in simple words ...

 The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising [here and here are earlier katposts] might look not so attractive for the IP professions, but they are wrong, as the Nagoya-to-go-person Darren explains in this step-by-step Q&A that Jeremy enthusiastically re-launches.

* The IPKat and his friends: a round-up of some IP weblog news

 Every three months or thereabouts, the IPKat and Merpel give an update of the goings-on both on this weblog and on other IP-flavoured blogs to which members of this blog team contribute. Here's this quarterly much-awaited update!

* Freeze-dried bacterial food for thought, as pharma company is offered a second bite at the cherry

Jeremy writes up Actial Farmaceutica Lda v Claudio de Simone, Mendes srl and Florence Pryen [2015] EWHC 836 (Ch), a decision of the High Court, England and Wales addressing jurisdiction for proceedings where damages and injunctive relief are claimed on the basis of passing-off and trade mark infringement under Article 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001.

* "What about Article 5(5)?" A trade mark enthusiast asks ...

Article 5(5) of the EU's Trade Mark Directive 2008/95 addresses "protection against the use of a sign other than for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services". What does that mean, wonders a puzzled reader ...

* What might have happened if there had not been Article 16(3) of TRIPS?

"Article 6bis of the Paris Convention (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered", provides Article 16(3) of our beloved TRIPS. What if it did not, wonders Neil?

* How much piracy is needed for antipiracy sanctions to be available? Decisions from Spain and Italy

Valentina compares Italian AGCom  [here here here here and here] and Spanish Courts of the Administrative Jurisdiction's approaches to copyright enforcement online.

******************

PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE

Never too late 40 [week ending on Sunday 5 April] – OHIM and national res judicata in Case T 378/13 Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM |Scrabble v Scramble is not a game in JW Spear & Sons Ltd & Others v Zynga Inc | Nagoya UK and EU implementing regulations | Again on making available and communication in CJEU's decision C More | Brown epilators in Albania | More food for thought regarding EPO's G2/12 Tomatoes II and G3/12 Broccoli II | ASOS v ASSOS: the Court of Appeal, England and Wales' version | New reference to the CJEU on e-lending and digital exhaustion comes from the lovely Hague | CIPA recruiting for IP volunteers | UPC mock trial | Ukrainian not so posh to Porche | Lincoln Continental's back |Links to leaks in a new reference to the CJEU | IP Hall of Fame purrs. 

Never too late 39 [week ending Sunday 29 March] – Merpel writes to the EPO AC | CJEU and hyperlinks | New gTLD regime | AG on TM reputation and genuine use in Case C‑125/14 Iron & Smith Kft v Unilever NV | AMBA speaks | Digital exhaustion | CJEU on linking to live shows in Case C-279/13 C More Entertainment| EPO Enlarged Board on amendments’ clarity in G 3/14 | EPO on patentability in cases G 2/12 (Tomatoes II) and G 2/13 (Broccoli II) | EPO responds to staff union | TVCatchup back to the CJEU | Translations and prior art | District Court of Hague on patented red radishes | GC on polo trade marks in Case T 581/13 Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM - Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB) | Trade mark trolls in Cuba.
 Never too late 38 [week ending Sunday 22 March] - Escalating prices of generic drugs in the US | EU Patent Package is not that dangerous | Hollywood screening rhythm | GC on 'Greenworld' trade mark in T - 106&14 | Spanish life after Google Tax | Africa and IP | GC on 'Smart Water' in Case T-250/13 | 'EPO does not violate fundamental rights', says EPO | Coca-Cola look-alike trade mark in GC's decision T-3284/13 | International Women's Leadership Forum | Acronyms in descriptive trade marks | Albert Maysles tribute | UK visits Eponia | EQE Pre-exams results | X-Factor New Zealand and image rights | CJEU is Magnetic in C-182/14.
 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.