Were you away or just too busy to read the IPKat
last week? Do not despair, because our dear friend and colleague Alberto Bellan is
back as usual with his Never Too Late feature, now on its 66th edition.
So here's what
happened last week:
"Punitive damages" is one of
those topics that sharply divide the community of European lawyers. Mark takes a tour through the Court of
Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) decisions on this point.
A few weeks ago this blog reported on the latest Opinion of the European Copyright Society (ECS), this
time regarding a case currently pending before the Court of Justice of the
European Union (CJEU): HP Belgium v Reprobel, C-572/13. IFRRO, the International
Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisation, does not fully agree with ECS,
Eleonora reports.
On 26 November, the Journal of
Intellectual Property Law & Practice celebrates its 10th
anniversary with a full day's conferencing, discussion, dispute
and debate. Along with stellar speakers,
there's another reason why IPKat aficionados should join the event, writes
Jeremy.
WIPO, along with researchers at Cornell
and INSEAD, recently published the Global Innovation Index. The
index ranks countries by their innovativeness and usually grabs a few
headlines, particularly in countries who've fared well. Nicola tells all.
Have you ever come across a copyright
law that provides that the State automatically acquires ownership of copyright
in a certain work upon death of the relevant owner? This appears to be what South African (SA)
Government may have in mind (unless all this is just a result of bad inaccurate law drafting) with one of its proposed
amendments to this country’s copyright law. IP
enthusiast and Katfriend Nedim Malovic (Stockholm University) explains.
Once every three months or
thereabouts, the IPKat and Merpel post an update of the goings-on both on
this weblog and on other IP-flavoured blogs to which members of the IPKat's
blog team contribute. Here's the last edition penned by Jeremy.
Every year it is the pleasure of the
IPKat to invite his friends, colleagues, informants and
competitors in the intellectual property media sector to join him for a
get-together at which matters of mutual interest are discussed in a friendly
and informal atmosphere. This year is no exception, says Jeremy.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment about
how patent offices should operate. Two patent applications are pending at the
European Patent Office (EPO). Imagine that one was filed several years ago by
Microsoft, and the other was filed at the same time by (say) an Italian SME
which files “only” 10 patent applications per annum. Nothing much has happened
in either case now for several years, but both files are allocated to the same
examiner. Which case should the examiner pick up first – the one filed by the
“customer” with 750 filings per year, or the one filed by the SME? Here's the
first part of this tale, kindly recounted by Merpel.
… and here's the second one.
“$100
billion loss per year (emphasis in
original). At least. That is the sum of global IP losses due to 3D printing
predicted by IT research and advisory company Gartner for the near future”, some say. Really, wonders Neil?
From guest contributor Emma Perot comes
this appraisal of a dispute between
a giant publisher of valuable and useful scholarly material on the one hand,
and those who seek access to that same information on the other.
Eleonora reports on a case (Tilda Riceland Private v OHMI - Siam Grains (BASMALI),
T-136/14) that the General Court (GC) decided on 30 September last, and
appears to have some relevant implications particularly as far as that peculiar
creature of UK common law known as extended passing off is concerned.
Hyperlinking-loving ALAI (the Association
Littéraire et Artistique Internationale) has recently released a new Report and Opinion on a Berne-compatible reconciliation of hyperlinking and the
communication to the public right on the internet. Eleonora reports on that and
hosts an analysis of a recent Greek decision by Katfriend Yannos Paramythiotis (Paramythiotis and
Partners).
Katfriend Mira
T. Sundara Rajan -- herself a concert pianist -- has something
special to say about one of the most gifted musicians of our generation and an
interesting issue in moral rights.
******************
PREVIOUSLY,
ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 65 [week ending on Sunday 27 September] – Scotch whisky battle in far-off China | CJEU loves
KitKat | EPO in Case T 0327/13 |
UPC opening in London | Happy birthday copyright case | Goldbear saga | Tatoos
and copyright | IP in 2015 – Where we are vs. Where I thought we’d be | PETA
litigates over macaque selfie | JIPLIP event
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: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Monday, October 05, 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