With a happy flurry of Katpats we welcome back the errant Alberto Bellan, who has been straying all round the Aegean in pursuit of the sort of happiness and peace of mind that only
a holiday blogging can provide. Here Alberto treats us to a coming-home present, the 62nd Never Too Late feature, summarising the best of last week's Katposts (which you too might have missed if you had been swanning around the Aegean) ..
Here's the third in the series of occasional guest posts from Japan from one-time guest Kat and Class 46 trade mark blogger Laetitia Lagarde. Laetitia's first post, on product placement, can be read here, and her second post, covering non-traditional marks, is here. Now she looks at the copyright/design interface.In a rush to make their mark and put their slogans into everyone's mouth, Greek party SYRIZA and the main opposition party NEA DIMOKRATIA (or New Democracy) managed to get themselves caught up in a mark - slogan row over Greek word "ΜΠΡΟΣΤΑ" (BROSTA), which means forward. GreeKat Nikos tells all.Here's a moving story about a Court of Venice decision addressing moral rights in legal works, kindly hosted by Eleonora and passionately told by myself.An Economist article from this recently-passed August kicks off with the fundamental economic question for IP: how does it incentivise innovation? Pointing to a number of shortcomings in patents in agriculture and pharmaceuticals, The Economist concludes that patents don’t. Here's Nicola's point…
* Counterpoint: The Economist's attack on the patent system-- it's all about controlling the narrative… and here's Neil's counterpoint.Five-and-a-bit months after the Opinion of Advocate General Wahl was published in Case C-125/14, [here, with Katnote here] in Iron & Smith Kft v Unilever NV, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered its decision in this trade mark dispute concerning relevant territorial scope to assess a trade mark's reputation under Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95.Should copyright take morality into account when awarding protection or the benefit from said rights? The Munich District Court has addressed this matter in a controversial litigation involving royalties from a Goebbels work. Guest Kat Jani explains.A few months ago the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) issued a very interesting decision regarding post-punk bands, copyright and joint authorship in musical works. The case is Minder Music & Another v Sharples. At the time when this judgment was released the IPKat did not have the chance to report on it. This is why it is particularly grateful and truly delighted to host the following analysis by music and IP enthusiast Nedim Malovic (Stockholm University), who takes a look over the decision and offers this insightful analysis.The fate of the slide-to-unlock technique has been the subject of a much-litigated Apple's patent. Occasional guest contributor Thomas Dubuisson updates the readership on the final chapter in this tale.******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 61 [week ending on Sunday 30 August] - Alpinestars Research Srl v OHIM, Kean Tung Cho and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu | PTAB declines Bass hedge fund IPR challenges in Ampyra dispute | Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v OHIM), Repsol YPF SA and a basic litigation | BGH on IP zombie through unfair competition law | Under Armor and Armor & Glory, a story of religious IP | Fashion law and debates | SatCab Directive and geoblocking | Again on KitKat and acquired distinctiveness | New IPKat policy on comments | Singapore GFIP.
Never too late 60 [week ending on Sunday 23 August] - Test-drive of the Unitary Patent Court, Parts V and VI |From food porn to porn with food: passion with Parmesan | USPTO Guidelines on patent eligibility | Red Bull fends off Crazy Bull in Greece | Biker Biker Biker Gang! Another offbeat look at IP from Katonomist Nicola | How to pay damages for a perfectly lawful customs seizure | Dallas Buyers Club copyright demands rejected in Australia.
Never too late 59 [week ending on Sunday 16 August] - Fundamental deficiency in an EPO decision need not be a problem |Benedict Cumberbatch versus admiring audience | Emma Perot on graffiti as dress art | Location of London's division of the UPC | Cool, confident and healthy: Katonomy meets Jawbone and Fitbit |Planning permission and that London UPC venue |Partial priority and poisonous provisionals: questions for EPO Enlarged Board |Target TM parody in Australia | IP threats in the UK | Traditional knowledge and Nagoya | From Google to Alphabet | Co-branding and multiple brands.
Never too late 58 [week ending on Sunday 9 August] - Teva UK Ltd & Another v Leo Pharma A/S | Traditional Knowledge Digital Library | Governance of the EPO Boards of Appeal |Atelier Eighty Two Limited v Kilnworx and ownership of copyright in logos | Productivity at the EPO | The Lone Inventor: a Katonomist report | Bradman Foundation v Sir Don's family| IP Inclusive |Michael Jordan in China | Stage fright and performances | Lookalikes and inactivity | Taking unfair advantage of exceptions to copyright infringement | Great Bake Off parody goes off-air.
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, September 07, 2015 Rating: