Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week ...

The weeks roll by and readers are as busy as ever, which means that opportunities for missing Katposts are all too often lost.  Fortunately, via the wonderful efforts of Kat colleague Alberto Bellan, here comes the 69th weekly round-up of the previous week's substantive blogposts. This invaluable service has saved our readers a lot of time and frustration when they've been absent or over-committed during the previous week and are now all hot and bothered about what they might have missed. 

Last week's posts lined up just like this:
* The 10 Commandments of IP Dispute Resolution: a Kat speaksIPKat blogmeister Jeremy was invited to speak at a dinner gathering of TIPLO (The Intellectual Property Lawyers' Organisation) in The Old Court Room, Lincoln's Inn. The title of Jeremy's thoughts on the subject: "The 10 Commandments of IP Dispute Resolution". Divine! 
* Peace of cheese? Halloumi trade mark application goes into meltdown, but better times may be aheadJeremy writes about the General Court of the European Union's ruling in Joined Cases T‑292/14 and T‑293/14, Republic of Cyprus v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market. That decision is about the registrability as a trade mark of the word "HALLOUMI", which designate a particular type of cheese from the Republic of Cyprus. 
* BGW: a pointless reference over a meaningless word?Jeremy reports the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) ruling in Case C-20/14 BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz. The question on which the referring court sought guidance concerned likelihood of confusion between an earlier trade mark and another later sign constituting of the first's initials.  
* Passing off at common law and statutory passing off: is there a difference?Most IP law is anchored in long-established legislation, such that the metes and bounds of these laws are subject to the rules of statutory construction in the particular jurisdiction. One of the most notable exceptions is the passing off right under English law, which is still a creature of the common law. Against this framework, an interesting question arises in comparing the scope of the passing off right, when it is based on statute, with the right at common law. Is one more flexible than the other with respect to the subject matters covered; is one better positioned to take into account changing circumstances over time? Over to Neil ... 
* Coty v Stadtsparkasse: BGH rules in the wake of CJEU decisionOn past Wednesday, the German Bundesgerichthof ruled that a bank is obliged to disclose the identity of the holder of an account into which the proceeds of the sale of a counterfeit product were deposited to the owner of the counterfeit trade mark. The dispute had led to a referral to the CJEU, which was decided on 16 July 2015 (Case C-580/13 Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg, on which see the Katpost here). Mark tells all. 
* The long-arm of Article 3(5) of the proposed EU Trade Secrets DirectiveThe draft EU Trade Secret Directive provides for the prohibition of unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets. It also provides for the removal from the market of "infringing goods", as Mark Ridgway (Allen & Overy) explains in this post. 
* Greasecutter not cutting the distinctiveness finishing line says the General CourtNikos notes Case T-610/13, in which the General Court confirmed OHIM’s refusal of the word mark “GREASECUTTER” for goods in Classes 3 and 5.  
 IP in the Fashion Industry Special 
 * IP in the Fashion Industry 2015: Part 1Here's Jeremy's first post reporting from IP in the Fashion Industry, a conference that took place at London's Holborn Bars. This first part talks of fellow Kat Nicola’s account of the economics of IP in the fashion field, and barrister Stuart Baran, who gave a round-up of some recent trade mark and passing off cases.  
 * IP in the Fashion Industry 2015: Part 2Next to speak was solicitor Rosie Burbidge, who updated the audience on copyright and design developments in the fashion field. The following speaker was Chris Hoole, who talked about a spin-off topic from the epic litigation between Interflora and Marks & Spencer over keywords [for a flavour of which, check out the IPKat here] -- the concept of "negative matching".  
 * IP in the Fashion Industry 2015: Part 3Annabelle Gauberti (Crefovi, President of the IALCI) covered employment and labour law, distribution and agency, finance and other issues which are as important as IP in the field of fashion. Solicitor Antony Gold then took the stage, taking a look at the practical side of IP fashion dispute resolution. Finally, Judge Melissa Clarke, a Deputy Judge of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court -- the IPEC -- reminded prospective litigants (and their representatives) of some important things to be taken into account when litigating before IPEC.  
 AIPPI 46th World IP Congress Special 
 Annsley was in Rio to attend AIPPI's 46th World IP Congressto which the following posts are dedicated (three from two weeks ago, the fourth from past week). 
 * AIPPI Congress Report 1: The Brazilian sun rises over this year's Congress 
 * AIPPI Congress Report 2: Unified Patent Court may be ready for business in 2017, but are we? 
 * AIPPI Congress Report 3: Trying to resolve the global puzzle of inventor remuneration 
 * AIPPI Congress Report 4: Trade mark sessions come in all shapes and sizes 
 Never Too Late 68  [week ending on Sunday 18 October] – Hedge funds, pharma patents and thorny issues: a word on IPRs following Lialda | Battistelli v EPO Enlarged Board | Flynn Pharma Ltd v Drugsrus Ltd and Tenolol Ltd | EPO's special treatment for Elizabeth Hardon | Unjustified threats to sue for IP infringement | Cases T-624/13, T-625/13, 626/13 and 627/13 The Tea Board v OHIM | Brands, trade marks, and the UK Government | Who's down with TPP? | How cool is TMView | The "crowded field" in trade mark law | Genetic patents | US Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit and Google Books. 
 Never Too Late 67  [week ending on Sunday 11 October] – Eponia rumours | Batmobile and copyright | EPO and human rights | Gucci v Guess | NOCN (Formerly National Open College Network) v Open College Network Credit4Learning | New CJEU reference on linking and copyright | Viennese waltz may be the last dance for Board members | Richard Perry v F H Brundle & Others | Safe harbour and the Schrems case | Economics of Domain names | Biodiversity | Roederer v J Garcia Carrion S.A. & Others | pie-based dispute over "Square". 
 Never Too Late 66 [week ending on Sunday 4 October] – Punitive damages and Enforcement Directive | IFRRO v European Copyright Society | A Decade of JIPLIP, the event | The Global Innovation Index 2015 | South Africa new copyright law | The IPKat and his friends | IP Publishers' and Editors' Lunch 2015 | EPO queue and SMEs | 3D Printing and IP damages | Paywalls and Robin Hoods | The Basmati saga | Greek Court on linking | Glenn Gould and the case for moral rights in sound recordings. 
 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 v Where I thought we’d be | PETA litigates over macaque selfie | JIPLIP event.

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, October 26, 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.