Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Did you miss the last week of IPKat? Never mind - here is the 96th edition of Never Too Late!

* Italian court says that rightholders do NOT have to indicate URLs when submitting takedown requests

Eleonora Rosati explains why it may just be easier for Italian rightholders to get takedown requests from ISPs - notwithstanding that ISPs do not have a monitoring obligation - without indicating infringing URLs.

* Wines, spirits, cheese – and less GI infringement please!

Katfriend, Alexandra Mogyoros, gets her teeth into the delicious EUIPO report:“Infringement of Protected Geographical Indications for Wine, Spirits, Agricultural Products and Foodstuff in the European Union”.

* Merpel prowls further around the corridors of the EPO

Merpel catches up with developments at the EPO - in the Boards of Appeal, employee dissatisfaction and sanctions, and more...

* Are most patents in Germany valid after all?

Mark Schweizer has some doubts about a previous report that up to 80% of all patents subject to a nullity attack in Germany were fully or partially invalidated.

* CJEU launches brand-new, teen-friendly mobile app!

Alberto Bellan likes this. He has given it a try and reports here on "this modern amicus curiae..."

* UK Patents Court refuses to transfer Unwired Planet competition claims to CAT

Katfriend, Eibhlin Vardy, explains the latest developments in the ongoing Unwired Planet v Huawei saga, and the decision not to transfer to the Competition Appeal tribunal.

* Germany: open WiFi after all?

German WiFi hotspot providers, providing internet access which need not be secured by a password, are to be protected from injunctive relief for copyright owners if their internet access is misused. Mark Schweizer reports the latest developments.

* Do you want to be a UPC judge? Application process now open!

What does it take to become a UPC judge? AmeriKat, Annsley Merelle Ward, explains the process and announces the grand opening of recruitment.

* Merpel visits the EU IPO

Merpel takes a brief look back at the problems which have punctuated the operation of the EU IPO, but looks - cautiously, optimistically - to the future, particularly for designs.

* Does the UPC spell disaster for the EPO Boards of Appeal?

Merpel is back - and she spies trouble on the horizon if EPO BoA members are to be excluded from sitting even part time as UPC judges.

* Remembering Andy Grove, and maybe just the most audacious trademark ever

Neil Wilkof pays his respects to "The man who put Intel inside", and draws attention to Andy Grove's exceptional life and achievements.

* Friday Fantasies

CREATe essay competition, the IP Ball (book your tickets by this Friday 20 May!!) and more.

* The Federal Circuit Resurrects Computer-Implemented Inventions?

The US Federal Circuit may have just revived computer-implemented invention patents by narrowing the trend of treating software as being directed to an abstract idea. Mike Mireless explains the test in
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and what this could mean for hopeful software patentees.

* A Brave New World: EU Trade Mark Reform: AIPPI Event

Katfriends, James Agnew and Muir Mackean, report from the AIPPI discussion, exploring the Trade Mark review package from the EU, which really does engage a range of aspects of trade mark law, from registration to infringement and beyond.

* Ex Deep Purple member rocks up 20 years later to register band name as trade mark

It may not be very rock and roll, but it pays to register your trade marks early. Emma Perot explains the opposition by Deep Purple's Ian Paice to Richard Blackmore's attempt to register 'Deep Purple' as a trade mark.

* Copyright in a telephone directory: an interesting angle from Singapore

Katfriend, Aaron Thng, explains the latest international developments to the compilation right.


Never too late 95 [week ending on Sunday 8 May] The Economist presents an anti-patent narrative (and is set straight) | UPC Code of Conduct | Period of compensation for trademark violation - Advocate General Wathelet's decision in C-280/15 'Nikolajeva' | Independent Fashion and IP | Italy approaches UPC ratification | Creative franchising copyright - notably of the Klingon language | ITMA discussion of the Trunki decision | IP Challenges in Bio-Pharmaceuticals | Tobacco Products Directive is valid, according to CJEU | Universal Music score summary judgment against IFP

Never too late 94 [week ending on Sunday 1 May] - Vantablack: is it possible to have rights over a colour? | Anne Frank's diary & geoblocking | Magic Leap lampoons Google Glass | Arnold's decision in Richter Gedeon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT v Generics| US Trade Secrets Act passes House | Publishing and the Machine| DSM Communication on Platforms leaked!| Google Books legal saga ends | s52 CPDA repeal comes into force 28 July 2016 | The latest Jack Wills v House of Fraser judgment

Never too late 93 [week ending on Sunday 24 April] - No UK judges in the UPC? | Young EPLaw Congress | EU Commission SPC update | Technical teach-ins for judges | Patentability of user-interface designs | Trade Secrets and Copyright Pre-Emption | Austro-Mechana v Amazon C-572/14 | Lay-offs at Intel | Trade Marks and Cadbury | Shakespeare's Cultural Capital | Geo-blocking and competition law
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Ellie Wilson on Tuesday, May 17, 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.