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

Back in the saddle after too long enjoying himself, Katfriend Alberto Bellan has produced the following summaries of last week's substantive Katposts. These will prove really handy for anyone who was enjoying an autumn break or attending the MARQUES Conference in Vienna -- and for those readers who found themselves spending two whole days offline while greeting the Jewish New Year (oh, and a happy new year to all our readers, of whatever creed, colour or cuddliness!)  This is the 64th edition of the round-up series ("Will you still need me? Will you still read me, when I'm 64?") -- and we look forward to providing this service for many years to come.  Anyway. this is what you missed last week:
Jani recounts the tale of Vancouver Community College v Vancouver Career College 2015 BCSC 1470, a challenging case concerning a trade mark used as keyword in online advertising which just decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

* Draft consultation on online platforms leaked: does the EU really want ISPs to do (much) more?

By the end of September the Commission is likely to launch a public consultation encompassing, among other things, ISP liability. The past week, Politico leaked the test of the consultation and Eleonora takes a look over it. New kinds of ISP, a possible EU-wide NTD procedure, and a broader liability for “active” providers might be on their way to the EU legal system.

* What is a patent? Judicial training, opt-outs and boy-band seating at IPSoc's UPC panel debate

Last week IPSoc, the society for junior IP practitioners, hosted its final educational event of 2015, "The UPC: A Panel Debate". Nick Buckland (Irwin Mitchell) tells all.

* Letter from AmeriKat: Remember fair use before issuing DMCA notices, warns Ninth Circuit

Annsley takes a gander at a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the famous case Prince and Mean Music Companies v That lovely baby dancing Prince Lenz v Universal Music.

* BREAKING NEWS: CJEU says that acquired distinctiveness requires that mark alone identifies relevant undertaking (but 'how' does not seem so clear)

It’s out! It’s out!!! The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision in the KitKat case is out! (Eleonora takes the floor).

* Confidence, privacy and a question of fax: butler's claim can't be struck out

Paul Burrell v Max Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) is a High Court, Chancery Division decision addressing a sad story of faxes, Royal Families, and litigation that should end up with a settlement. Jeremy explains.

* Some Economics of Collecting Societies

Collecting Societies provide solutions to a key economic challenge in licensing content: how to license many works by many creators to many customers. How’s the future like for these “natural monopolies”, wonders Nicola?

* Who is an 'intermediary' for the sake of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive?

And what’s the relation between that provision and the intermediaries of the E-Commerce Directive? Eleonora recounts Mr Justice Arnold’s version, which he gave at the 1st iCLIC conference on the role of internet intermediaries in the law enforcement process at the University of Southampton.

* IP: When innovation is the answer to a spiritual funk

In IP’s youthful golden age (ie, the 1980s), IP professionals believed that IP would ultimately be omnipresent as a force for doing creative and inventive good. Today, however, we have to work a lot harder simply not to be ignored. How will all this end up, wonders Neil.



Never Too Late 63 [week ending on Sunday 13 September] - Fair compensation in reprography and private copying: the ECS’ version | Substitute sellers | Teva UK Ltd & Another v Leo Pharma | Evidence-based IP policy | KitKat case | UK IPO’s priorities | UK IPO’s website vs complete copyright legislation | Patent Attorney Qualifications | Mylan and Actavis v Warner-Lambert | Copyright and censorship | Suicide at the EPO | Private copy levies in Austria | Court fees in the UK.

Never too late 62 [week ending on Sunday 6 September] - Copyright and industrial design in Japan | Greek political slogans and trade marks | Moral rights in legal works | Economist v patents | CJEU in Iron & Smith Kft v Unilever NV | Copyright over criminals' works | IPEC in Minder Music & Another v Sharples | Apple’s European slide-to-unlock patent declared invalid in Germany.

Never 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: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, September 21, 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.