Not just Eiffel 65, but also Never Too Late 65 |
As you Move Your Body, this is what
happened last week on this very blog:
Former guest
Kat, bonny Scottish lassie Kate Manning tells about a Scotch
whisky battle in far-off China to preserve the palates of discerning
dilettantes in distant Myanmar.
Thomas Farkas offers this highly positive interpretation of the words of
the CJEU, arguing that the Nestlé application should now be allowed to
succeed. He might be right. Really.
And another
one who might be right is Roland Mallinson, who endorses Thomas on this Kit-Kat
story and goes even further.
* The purpose of appeal proceedings
and "adverse effect" -- on appellants and on delicate digestions
A patent
attorney on the other side of the English Channel makes an observation on a
recent decision of a European Patent Office Board of Appeal in Case T 0327/13 of
17.7.2015 Exchangeable continuous casting nozzle.
Annsley was at
the Aldgate inauguration.
U.S. District
Judge George H. King in the Central District of California has just established
that Warner-Chappell do not hold any valid copyright in the Happy
Birthday lyrics, Merpel recounts.
After Mark
breaking post, here's our own Neil's insightful piece on that happy-ending
story.
The word
"end" in the Haribo v Lindt golden chocolate bear
litigation (see IPKat posts here, hereand here) has just been put by German Supreme Court. See what BGH decided in
this post by Mark.
Copyright in
tattoos is a subject that this weblog has touched on before [here, here, here and here, among other
places], but this lovely
post offers a completely fresh angle to it. The story is told by film director Otto
Bathurst, aided and abetted by Jenifer Swallow (Mind Candy).
A couple of
weeks ago, our dear blogmeister Jeremy addressed the British Group of the Union of European Practitioners in
Intellectual Property in the convivial setting of The Royal Overseas League on
this topic. Harking back to a time before fax, email, and before any of our
intellectual property laws in the UK existed in their present form, when
neither OHIM nor the EPO existed and WIPO was but a babe, he reminisced thus.
Darren reports on what Jeremy said.
One of those
stories that lead people to hate animals. Animal rights organisation People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has taken legal action in
the United States on the monkey’s behalf (apparently named Naruto), claiming
that the animal owns the copyright in the successful photographs and should
therefore reap the benefits financially. Lucy Harrold (Keystone Law) takes up
this tale.
The Journal of
Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP), which this blogger currently edits, is holding
a special event to
commemorate the passage of a decade since its launch, while Premier Cercle is
organsing its IP Summit. There's a nice offer too, says Jeremy.
******************
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
* Never too late 64 - [week ending on Sunday 20 September] – Adwords in
Canada | EU Draft consultation on ISPs | "The UPC: A Panel
Debate" | Prince and Mean Music Companies v That lovely baby
dancing Prince Lenz v Universal Music | CJEU in
KitKat | Paul Burrell v Max Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) |
Economics of Collecting Societies | Who is an 'intermediary' for the sake of
Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive? | IP: When innovation is the answer to
a spiritual funk
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: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Monday, September 28, 2015
Rating:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html