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

Never too late to fall in love with IP ...
November is traditionally a busy time for the IP fraternity, as everyone starts planning how to clear their desks ahead of the winter break and/or the protracted Christmas office party season -- which takes its toll on many of even the most dedicated IPKat readers.  That's why Alberto Bellan's weekly summary of substantive Katposts over the previous seven days is so greatly appreciated. Our dear and highly esteemed colleague has been in action again, with the 71st weekly compilation of gems from the recent past, and this is what he has found:

Darren discusses two Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions (R 0016/13 and R0002/15) rendered under Article 112a EPC 2000, whereby a party can ask the Enlarged Board to review a decision of a Board of Appeal for an alleged fundamental procedural violation.

A few weeks ago, the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida had to determine whether dance pop duo LMFAO had infringed rapper Rick Ross’s copyright by using catch-phrase ‘Everyday I’m Shufflin’’ for merchandising. Katfriend and IP enthusiast Nedim Malovic (Stockholm University) explains how this case went.

The issue of poisonous priorities (and poisonous divisionals) is the subject of a referral to the European Patent Office (EPO) Enlarged Board of Appeal which is pending under reference G 1/15 [for those readers who are wondering how a priority can be poisonous, take a look at the IPKat here]. The EPO President has now decided to stay all proceedings before examination or opposition divisions where the outcome depends entirely on the answers that the Enlarged Board may give in G 1/15, David tells us.

Unforgotten guest Kat and Katfriend Valentina Torelli writes about a Spanish decision upon the much-debated “right to be forgotten”.

The National Trust for Scotland (NTS), best known for its ownership of a large number of historically significant buildings and land -- very much tangible property -- is now expanding its portfolio in the intangible property sphere. Its aim is to use intellectual property to prevent the commercial exploitation of two of Scotland’s best known historical sites. Is it appropriate and legitimate for it to do so, wonders Katfriend Gill Grassie.

Katfriend Lindesay Low, who is Senior Legal Counsel to the Scotch Whisky Associationreports the opinion of Lord Glennie, sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session in The Tartan Army Limited v Sett Gmbh, Oliver Reifler, Iain Emerson and Alba Football Fans Limited [2015] CSOH141, a trade mark infringement case that contains an interesting discussion on when a director can be liable for the actions of his company.

Strong things here. In this worldwide Kat-exclusive, Eleonora leaks a copy of a draft communication from the Commission on a "modern, more European copyright framework". The Commission will soon take substantial steps towards harmonisation of geo-blocking and copyright limitations. When we say it’s “never too late”, we actually mean it.

At the European Patent Office (EPO), it may appear to the interested bystander that fielding a weakened team is to become a matter of official policy and that the Boards of Appeal are assumed to deliver better results when their numbers are depleted. Just like football (a.k.a. “soccer”, or those-22-guys-hardly-seeking-to-put-the-ball-inside-the-net), says Merpel.

Can a map be considered a database? This is the questions that the Court of Justice of the European Union answered in C-490/14 Verlag Esterbauer, a referral from the German Bundesgerichtshof in a dispute between the Freistaat Bayern and the publishing house Esterbauer concerning a map of Eponia Bavaria. Mark tells all.

Can one protect yoga poses through copyright? The US Court of Appeals aimed to answer this question in the case of Bikram Yoga College of India v Evolution Yoga, LLC, 2015 WL 5845415, as Jani explains in this post.

Neil reflects on hi-tech guru Reid Hoffmans vision of a world that could be saved by networks.

Darren posted a very brief note on the seminal substantive decision in the Lyrica case (see here for the post, containing links to the very lengthy history leading up to it).  In these two posts, he turns to a more detailed review, taking validity first, and infringement second.

A couple of days ago New Zealand issued the full text of the final version of the TPP. Katfriend and tech law enthusiast Tom Dearden has read it for us, and we are delighted to host his lively analysis.


Never Too Late 70 [week ending on Sunday 1 November] –  Case T-309/13 Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou v OHIM, Gaba International Holding GmbH | Sixteen millions IPKats | Tomaydo-Tomahhdo LLC v George Vozray et al | Lookalike packaging | Parasite copying | 3D printing | Labouring the point? EPO dispute culture festers.

Never Too Late 69 [week ending on Sunday 25 October] –  The 10 Commandments of IP Dispute Resolution | Republic of Cyprus v OHIM on halloumi | Case C-20/14 BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz | Passing off at common law and statutory passing off | Coty v Stadtsparkasse, back to Germany | EU Trade Secrets Draft Directive | “GREASECUTTER” and General Court | IP in the Fashion Industry | AIPPI 46th World IP Congress.

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: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, November 09, 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.