Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Where you away or just too busy to read The IPKat last week, and now you are wondering what you have missed?

Do not worry, because our dear friend and fellow blogger Alberto is back with his 76th edition of his Never Too Late feature.

Here’s what happened on this very blog last week:

With Jeremy's retirement, Nicola is now the key point of contact for IPKat book reviews. Here she starts with The Making of the TRIPS Agreement, published by the WTO, 2015, and edited by Jayashree Watal and Antony Taubman.

Mark reports on an interesting (and quite astonishing) German decision addressing the possible infringement of the “Aceto Balsamico di Modena” geographical indication by a German company using “Balsamico” vinegar.

The AmeriKat has returned to summarise the second part of last week's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on trade secrets (see previous AmeriKat post here). 

The European Copyright Society has finally set up a website from where you can get all the relevant information about the group, Eleonora informs.

Merpel has been rather busy of late, but does not wish her dear readers to think that she is completely oblivious to the events that have been taking place in Eponia. Taking her lead from the IPKat's multi-topic post, here is a miscellany with a brief round-up of the current issues.

Kat friend Aaron Wood has provided an edifying summary of a recent case from the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, Henry Hadaway Organisation v Pickwick Group Limited and Ors [2015] EWHC 3407 (IPEC), concerning the vexing question that copyright practitioners know all too well: Who is the owner of the copyright in a recording where one party finances and the other is the creative/organiser?

Marcella FavaleMartin Kretschmer and Paul C. Torremans, have analysed all copyright decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from the first explicit copyright reference in 1992 (Phil Collins) to the judgment in Svensson delivered on 13 February 2014. They came to the conclusion that CJEU judges are not exactly experts in the field, Mark reports. Naughty guys!

As a follow-up to the Digital Single Market Strategy (DSMS) released last May [here and here], the EU Commission has just unveiled the next steps in its reform agenda. Eleonora takes the floor. 

A group of researchers, industry and policy makers gathered at Birkbeck workshop to debate recent research on music publishing -- and Nicola was there for the most rock&roll IP blog ever.

…and talking about rock&roll, here’s the brand new eLAWnora copyright event, which will take place on 14th January 2016 in London.

Addressing an interesting case on printers’ toner cartridges, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled  that trade mark rights are not exhausted if the trade mark owner retains the title of goods put at the disposal of the end user. Mark reports.

Nikos reflects over the recent disgraces in which the poor Volks Wagen has been recently involved. From an IP angle, of course.

Many things are happening copyright-wise under the Brussels sky. But what about linking and that ancillary rights over news, wonders Eleonora?

All of us in the IP community should be concerned, then, when the media gets it wrong. And in 2015, no one in the elite print media seems to have got it more wrong than The Economist, says Neil.



Never too late 75 [week ending on Sunday 6 December] –  BHG on blocking injunctions | IP in Universities | Sweden on blocking injunctions | Canadian musings on patents | US Senate and trade secret reform | Chinese IP Courts | G1/14 referral and Article 108 EPC | PACE procedure (Procedure for Accelerated Conduct of Examination) ant the EPO | Greekat and trade mark partenalism | EPO Boards of Appeal tell AC: we were never consulted | What hacker means.

Never Too Late 74 [week ending on Sunday 29 November] –  Bob Marley copyright | Nintendo TPM triumphs in Italy | GIs and TMs in the EU | Prebalin again | YouTube will defend fair use | End-of-year reading |Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd v H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd | Goodbye from Jeremy, and thank you from us | Greekat on plain packaging | Rovi Guides Inc v Virgin Media Ltd & Others | IP in universities.

Never Too Late 73  [week ending on Sunday 22 November] –  Xmas present from Benelux PTO | Eponia never ending troubles |  Prof Dr Siegfried Broß v EPO | Protection of formats in the Netherlands | Eponia never ending proceedings | UK intensifies its Cracking Ideas programme | Anne Frank's Diary copyright | Transport for London and IP | CJEU in SBS Belgium v SABAM Case C-325/14 | COFIX, coffee and brand success | UK-China Intellectual Property Symposium | Registering iconic artwork as trade mark in Norway |  Digital files and "property" in New Zealand | IP of Risotto allo Zafferano.

Never Too Late 72 [week ending on Sunday 15 November] –  Merck Sharp & Dohme v Ono Pharmaceutical | Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Sandoz GmbH, Sandoz Ltd and Lloyds Pharmcacy Ltd | Economics of internet trolls | UK IPO scammer scammed | Video conferencing at the EPO | Warner-Lambert v Pfizer in France | African Ministerial Conference in IP | Green claims and branding | CJEU in Case C‑572/13Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL | World IP Report | New reference on blocking injuctions reaches the CJEU | Helme & Others v Maher & Another | European fruit and vegetables threatened by patent.
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Monday, December 14, 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.