Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Having a busy start of 2016?

You are not alone then … Even if your commitments and engagements prevented you from reading the IPKat last week, you don’t have to worry: as usual, our dear friend and colleague Alberto Bellan is here to help, with the 80th edition of his #NeverTooLate feature.

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

Annsley has prepared this post-it-sized post summarising some of the biggest patent news from over the holidays.

Former Guest Kat Valentina Torelli has well-summarised the recent opinion of the Advocate General in the Liffers case (currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union) regarding recovery for both pecuniary loss and moral prejudice.

Following the surprise political agreement on the EU Trade Secrets Directive just before Christmas [see previous post here], the agreed text made a low-key appearance on the EUROPA website over the holiday period. Fortunately, Kat friend and trade secrets guru Mark Ridgway (Allen & Overy) returns with a thorough summary.

Is the title of a (well-known) book, ie The Diary of Anne Frank, distinctive enough to be registered as a trade mark for (among other things) ... books? Yes, says the OHIM. Super-Katfriend  Nedim Malovic (Stockholm University) tells all.

Katfriend Elena Molina, abogada at Intangibles in Barcelona, reports of the new patent law in Spain.  

Katfriend and Antipodean author Brett Shandler, reports on the Australian case Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156. At stake was the registrability of the word "yellow" as trade mark.

Not only is there no consensus about what we mean by “innovation”, but this lack of consensus is not viewed as a problem by our little IP family. How come (and how are we OK with this), wonders Neil?

Goodbye David Keltie!



Never too late 79 [week ending on Sunday 3 December] – The politics of IP conferences in India | Australia’s tobacco plain packaging | EU’s no longer a logistical hub for counterfeiters | Patent amendments not allowed during court proceedings in Malaysia | Congratulations, Sir Nicholas Forwood!

Never too late 78  [week ending on Sunday 27 December] – Zer-sum claim and lookalike products | 2015 Copyright Awards | Santa Claus and Section 52 | Jani writes on Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited | IP Hairballs |  Actavis v Eli Lilly | Power outage at USPTO | Santa's GC resigns | Pet rock and IP.

Never too late 77 [week ending on Sunday 20 December] – GC on 5-stripe shoe mark | EPO BoA in T 942/12 on liability and renewal practice management for European patent attorneys | Magnesium Elektron v Molycorp, ie how to serve patent infringement proceedings on a Chinese company | EU Trade Mark reform adopted | WIPO IP indicators | Provisional agreement on EU Trade Secrets Directive | Battistelli’s proposal rejected? | “Je Suis” trade marks | Branding and 3D printing.

Never too late 76 [week ending on Sunday 13 December] – The Making of the TRIPS Agreement | German Balsamico?! | Trade secrets in the US | European Copyright Society | Merpel in Eponia | Henry Hadaway Organisation v Pickwick Group Limited and Ors | CJEU activism on copyright | EU Commission unveils future copyright reform path | Music publishing and copyright | Dreaming of copyright, new eLAW event | Trade mark right exhaustion | VW trade mark disaster | Linking and copyright | elite media takes IP wrong. 
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, January 11, 2016 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.