Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Did you miss the IPKat last week? Don’t worry because - as usual - our dear friend and colleague Alberto Bellan is back with his Never Too Late feature, now on its 85th edition.

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

After hotels [here], dentist waiting rooms [here], and spas [here], it is now the turn for Advocate General (AG) Yves Bot to address whether availability of TV broadcasts in rehabilitation centres amounts to communication to the public. The case is Reha Training, C-117/15, and the Kat reporter is our precious Eleonora.

Merpel has been receiving a stream of rumours and hearsay since last week, indicating a serious bust-up between EPO President Benoit Battistelli and the members of Board 28 (the sub-group that runs the business of the Administrative Council). Notably, Mr Battistelli has apparently lost the crucial support of Mr Jesper Kongstad, the Chair of the Administrative Council, who had until now been one of Battistelli’s key defenders. The final meeting allegedly culminated in an ultimatum to Mr Battistelli to which he allegedly responded by walking out of the meeting.

Blocking injunctions in trade mark cases? Since the landmark 2014 decision of Arnold J in Cartier [hereherehere] (currently under appeal: the appeal will be heard on 13 April) it appears that indeed this type of measure is also available to trade mark owners, writes Eleonora.

Danielle Lawson (Freshfields LLP) reports of the third of this year's AIPPI UK events, the star attraction of which was Mr Justice Birss, who spoke enthusiastically (and entertainingly) about the new Shorter and Flexible Trials Schemes.  

 "In Honour of Dieter Stauder," Patent Enforcement Worldwide is the third edition of Hart Publishing's country reports on patent enforcement practices and litigation strategies. Edited by Katfriend Chris Heath, this edition offers coverage of the implementation of the European Enforcement Directive and preparations for the Unified Patent Court. Nicola reports.

How is it that the name of Walt Disney’s iconic animated character became an accepted term of derision? Neil tells a fascinating combination of how copyright transmogrified into a commercially valuable name and trade mark, while in parallel the name entered the lexicon with such an uncomplimentary meaning. 

The day when the UPC Preparatory Committee publishes the rules on UPC court fees and recoverable costs has come – and Annsley is here to tell you all!



Never too late 84 [week ending on Sunday 21 February] – Domain Name Law and Practice | Unwired Planet v Huawei and Samsung | In memoriam of Justice Antonin Scalia | Celltrion Inc. v Biogen Idec Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Genentech Inc. | Design v Copyright in Italy | Unitary patent and double patenting | Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd & Anor | IKEA in Indonesia | Eli Lilly v Janssen Sciences.

Never too late 83 [week ending on Sunday 14 February] – Indigenous IP | Arnold J's latest judgment flags down the iconic London black cab | Life of a national/EU trade mark ... in a map | A comprehensive explanation of trademarks | Actavis v Lilly.

Never too late 82 [week ending on Sunday 7 February] – PhD Student Seminar at CIPA | IP meets Antimonopoly law in Japan | German Federal Patent Court invalidates 80% of litigated patents | Inquiry as to damages: no longer a rare avis? | US trade secrets | Trends in IP Data | EPO's new Chief Economist | GIFs and copyright | Katcall for new positions in the IPKat team | Star Wars IP.

Never too late 83 [week ending on Sunday 31 January] – The AmeriKat from the Silicon Valley | INGRES conference on developments in European IP law 2015 - patents | Economics of UK creative industries |Stretchline v H&M | Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme | Ethics in IP | Social dialogue at the EPO | Ms Potter's extended copyright | CJEU on TMs' genuine use | Replicating works in museums.
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 Tuesday, March 01, 2016 Rating: 5


  1. I present without comment this interview with everyone's favourite EPO president:

  2. Inspecteur Gadget says:

    The EPO seems to be a Nazi nest according to its president, the Frenchman Battistelli. There was a Judge from the Board of Appeals cited as hiding Nazi items and propaganda in his office, now we have two further individuals identified for using Nazi symbols and use of Nazi rallying cry before members of the French Parliament:

    See passage starting at 1:07:50 (in French).

    Two options exist:
    * either the accusations are true and the EPO has became a Nazi nest. Then it should be dissolved immediately starting by its management for failing to prevent this from happening; or
    * the accusations are false and the president spreading them should be immediately kicked out as well as all the management layers failing to speak up against the manipulation of the public opinion.

    Who said the situation was complex? Godwin points are always making things easier to grasp!

    Could anyone cast some light here?

  3. Et sinon, je reprenderais bien de croquettesWednesday 2 March 2016 at 06:57:00 GMT

    I gather the interview predates the facts of the Board 28, so it's relevance is limited ...

  4. Glad to be out of the madhouseWednesday 2 March 2016 at 09:38:00 GMT

    Curioser and curioser: so, criminal proceedings are open against staff representatives? On the basis of German law, I gather? I thought that German law (on human rights or data protection, for instance) was "inapplicable" in Eponia? Or is it applicable when it suits Benito Battistelli's purposes?

  5. "Could anyone cast some light here?"

    Dear Inspector Gadget, I think that you are confused or rather that BB's babble may have confused you.

    The latest allegation raised by BB in front of the French Parliamentary Committee implied or insinuated that the dismissed staff representatives had been somehow involved or implicated in the sending of messages with "Nazi symbols" to German members of staff.

    As far as I could decipher BB's babble, this does not mean that anyone is being accused of being a Nazi (in this particular case !) but rather that people have allegedly thrown "Nazi insults" at others.

    According to BB such actions are in breach of German law and have resulted in the filing of a criminal complaint. It seems that national law is still respected by BB when it suits his purposes.

    So far nobody has been able to obtain any information as to whether or not such a complaint actually exists and if so who is named in it as the accused.
    It is quite possible that the EPO did indeed file a complaint against "persons unknown" but in the absence of tangible evidence leading to the identification of the perpetrator(s), the State Prosecutor would probably close the file.

  6. In this public declaration, made on 1 March 2016 in front of members of the French parliament, Mr Battistelli clearly justifies the dismissal of the SUEPO officials by accusing these of having uttered nazy insults against other EPO staff members, for which a criminal complaint has been filed.
    This is too much for me.

  7. EPO and trade union sign landmark deal

  8. This evening on Bayerischer Rundfunk, Kontrovers news magazine, from about 11min 56secs in the programme
    An in depth report (in German) on the social problems at the EPO lasting 20 minutes. Too long to translate but it certainly appears difficult for the EPO to defend. The EPO provided statements but no interviews. The programme interlaced the statements with (necessarily anonymous) case studies. Even a doctor would not appear on camera in case it would let any patient be identified.
    The programme will be available online for about 5 days from 02.03.16.


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.