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

The 46th weekly round-up of the previous week's Katposts, brought to you by loyal Katfriend Alberto Bellan, reflects the fact that the week was a relatively quiet one on this weblog -- and that it was a quiet week for Europe's troubled patent community. The coming week may be a fairly uneventful one too, which makes it an ideal time for catching up on those blogposts you have earmarked for future attention but never get round to reading.  Anyway, last week's substantive posts look like this:
Jeremy reports on Whyte & MacKay Ltd v Origin Wine UK Ltd and Dolce Co Invest Inc [2015] EWHC 1271 (Ch), a decision where Mr Justice Arnold of the Chancery Division, England and Wales, addressed the possible likelihood of confusion between JURA ORIGIN for "Scotch whisky and Scotch whisky-based liqueurs produced in Scotland" and ORIGIN and ORIGINS earlier marks.

Jeremy presents "Three aspects of information: Current issues in trade secrets, client confidentiality and privilege", a forthcoming seminar that the Kats are sharing with their friends at the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) on Wednesday 10 June 2015.

Does the distribution right under Article 4(1) of the InfoSoc Directive also encompass the mere advertising for sale of copyright-protected works or their copies? The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addresses that issue in Dimensione Direct Sales srl and Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA, C-516/13 -- and so does Eleonora in this post.

In Starbucks (HK) Limited and another v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and others [2015] UKSC 31, the UK Supreme Court rejected arguments that it should expand its jurisprudence on passing-off to follow an alleged trend in other common law countries. David tells all.

The IPKat weblog reaches its 14 millionth page view. Jeremy tells of the love behind the numbers.

Does trade-mark likelihood of confusion actually exist? If yes, the INTA meeting's hotels are the place where you can find it, says Neil.

"Italians go to wars as if they were football matches and to football matches as if they were wars", Churchill was used to say. What about the war for Unitary Patent, then? Jeremy reports on the latest Italian development on this issue.

Valentina writes on recent Italian copyright decision regarding protection of copyright moral rights. 

Following David's post on the UK Supreme Court's hot-off-the-press ruling in Starbucks v British Sky Broadcasting, Katfriend Flora Cook (Kilburn & Strode) pens another note on that judgment, thinking about it from the perspective of what it means to a litigant who has nothing at his disposal but an unregistered trade mark, known by some members of the public (ie having a reputation) in respect of goods or services that are not being sold in the jurisdiction (ie the reputation has no goodwill).



Never too late 45 [week ending on Sunday 10 May] – INTA 2015 and the Kat | IP and Competition Law | Sky v Skype | CJEU v Spain | Digital Single Market Strategy | IPCom v HTC | European Qualifying Examination appealed | UPC fees | CJEU and 3-D marks | EPO Oral Proceedings.

Never too late 44  [week ending on Sunday 3 May] – Forgotten principles and histories, and the role of complexity in patent law | King's College copyright distance learning Course | Spain, Berne, and the non-discrimination principle | Novartis v Focus, Actavis, Teva | SUEPO keeps demonstrating | Popcorn's blocking injunction | Unprecedented pre-action disclosure application in Arnoldian Big Bus  v Ticketogo | World IP Day | EPO's sick leave policy compared | Google wants your patent | "BE HAPPY" trade mark | UK Green Party's Manifesto on copyright law.

Never too late 43 [week ending on Sunday 26 April] – C5's annual Pharmaceutical Patent Term Extensions Forum | UPC: patent attorney and client discuss | CJEU’s 2014 report | PUMA v PUDEL | Leaked Digital Single Market Strategy | Again, the EU Patent Package and alleged dangers| EU TM reform | Is Svensson’s new public ok? | OHIM’s rebranding | LV’s pattern as trade mark | EPO and trade unions | Patent and first-mover advantage | Libraries’ right to digitise their collection in Germany.

Never too late 42 [week ending on Sunday 19 April] – WIPO Roving Seminars in Israel | Foster v Svenson, or "of taking pictures of your neighbours" | Trade marks and social networks | Jan Rosen on CJEU's public criterion to assess whether linking amounts communication to the public | EU Commission's misinformation about UPC | Dior v (Sirous) Dior | Lyricists and copyright | Banking secrecy v IP rights in AG's opinion for Coty Germany, C-580/13 | Le Monde on the EPO | Bundesgerichtshof's addresses short musical sequences in rap songs.   
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, May 18, 2015 Rating: 5


  1. Alberto seems to be getting quite poetic now, instead of merely writing dry summaries. Well done!


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.