Can the unauthorised reproduction and
making available of clips of cricket matches lasting up to 8 seconds
amount to an infringement of copyright? Yes, explains Arnold J in England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd
& Anor v Tixdaq Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch). Eleonora reports.
In the world of business strategy,
jargon and buzz words are a handy currency. By using jargon, the speaker
signals that they belong to a particular group and are in-the-know. Are
business models simply jargon, wonders Nicola?
The Intellectual Property Office of
Singapore (IPOS)
is about to launch a brand-new ADR named "Mediation Promotion
Scheme". It will “encourages parties in IPOS proceedings to choose
mediation by funding the process, so that more can experience mediation as an
attractive alternative to a hearing at IPOS for resolving their disputes
satisfactorily”. An interesting law-and-economic experiment, comments
Neil.
* AIPPI Rapid Response: Has the UK Supreme Court gotten
Community design rights all wrong in Trunki?
A couple of weeks ago, news of the UK
Supreme Court's decision in the Trunki Community registered design
battle spread like wildfire across Europe, with many claiming it was the end of
innovative design protection [see IPKat post here]. Ever responsive to the
latest IP developments, the UK Group of AIPPI arranged a Rapid Response
seminar with the counsel of the losing and winning teams to share their
perspective of the most talked-about decision of 2016 (so far). Tom
Edwards (A&O) reports.
Say their (new) names, suggest
Eleonora.
The Supreme Court has just published
its list of cases that it will be hearing (or not) on appeal. Among the
list are two parties that are frequent users of the English judicial system,
informs Annsley.
After
the public consultation on the review of the Satellite and Cable Directive [here], after that on online
intermediaries and platforms and that on the Enforcement Directive, now it is the turn of
neighbouring (ancillary) rights and freedom panorama to be openly discussed in
view of a possible reform. Eleonora reports.
Annsley inaugurates a new Katcolum
dedicating to the next generation of global IP lawyers. In this first episode,
she has travelled almost 6000 miles west to San Francisco, California, where IP
litigator Guinevere Jobson at the leading West Coast
firm of Fenwick & West tackles copyright litigation, Silicon Valley
"casual" dress codes and a dream of working in Germany.
Unlike other sports, the broadcast
of a chess match is executed by near-instantaneously replicating players’ moves
on graphic boards, as the players compete. Until recently, many websites around
the world would transmit the players’ moves. The organiser of the World Chess
Championship was not happy with that, and has just sued four websites that
broadcast the live matches, claiming a violation of its broadcasting rights.
Emma tells all.
While IP trade flows may not have any
immediate impact on IP practice, they point to longer-term trends that should
be of concern to the IP community, namely that IP is threatened with being
lumped together with other factors that are claimed by some as responsible for
the increasing social and economic inequality that has come to dominate public
discourse. We ignore this issue at our collective peril – and we should not,
says Neil.
Annsley pens of Mr Justice Carr’s decision
in Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology [2016] EWHC 374. It addresses declaratory
reliefs, jurisdiction to grant them, and delves into the leading case on
declaratory relief in patent cases - ie Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck
& Co Inc [2007] EWHC 1900.
**********
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 88 [week ending on Sunday 20
March] – CoA’s decision in Design
& Display Limited v OOO Abbott & another | AG in McFadden C-484/14
on WiFi providers’ liability | Twitter on “Dronie” trade mark | Rationale and
possible abuse of new US Trade Secret Law | CJEU in Liffers on moral
rights | product placements | Sci-Hub IP saga.
Never too late 87 [week ending on Sunday 13 March] – UPC negotiations:
Neil Feinson's version | Open Source Dogs | Myth, metaphor as drivers of
innovation in IP | The Trunki case, i.e. PMS International Limited v
Magmatic Limited | Loubutin case referred to the CJEU | German court
refuses amendments filed on appeal | Italian Sharing Economy Bill | EPO
Performance | IP in culinary recipes | Where has the patent troll gone? | Napp
v Dr Reddy's and Sandoz.
Never too late 86 [week ending on Sunday 6 March] – Comic Enterprises
Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [2016] EWCA Civ 41 | The IPKat team: news, new
arrivals and farewells | CJEU in Shoe Branding Europe BVBA v Adidas and
OHIM | World IP day | Advocate General's opinion in Henrik
Saugmandsgaard Øe in Austro-Mechana | EPO v trade union | OLG Munich
on YouTube liability | UPC judges' salary | The UK implements Unitary Patent |
CJEU in Daimler AG Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft | Monsanto and
tech-transfer in India | French ancillary right over on-line images | Stockholm
District Court refuses to issue blocking injunction against access provider |
CJEU on GIs in Viiniverla Oy V Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja
valvontavirasto | Trinidad’s Carnival and copyright | Again on Article
28 and trade-mark portfolios.
Never too late 85 [week ending on Sunday 28 February] – AG Yves Bot's take
in Reha Training | Battistelli having hard times | Blocking
injunctions in trade mark cases | AIPPI UK event | Patent Enforcement
Worldwide | Why Mickey Mouse is not mickey mouse | UPC court fees.
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Alberto Bellan
on
Monday, March 28, 2016
Rating:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html