Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week

'No problem.' 

We've all got problems, but keeping up with the IPKat ain't one. Welcome to the 99th edition of Never Too Late.

* German Constitutional Court sends sampling saga into another loop

In 1997, German music producer Moses Pelham took a two second sample from Kraftwerk's 1977 song "Metall auf Metall" and used it as a continuous loop for the song "Nur mir" performed by Sabrina Setlur. The case went to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which held that sampling the "tiniest sliver" ("kleinste Tonfetzen") of a record infringed the record producer's right. The decision has been overturned on appeal - the right outcome, says Mark Schweizer. 

Who should pay for the independence of the Boards of Appeal? Why the users, of course! 

It is clear that the founders of the EPC did not consider that it was in any way appropriate for the Boards to be funded to any significant degree by appeal fees. Merpel sincerely hopes that this mad proposal will be ditched, or rejected by the Administrative Council. 

Sorry not sorry – Justin Bieber and Skrillex deny copying vocal loop to produce ‘Sorry’

Justin Bieber and Skrillex have been accused of copyright infringement by artist Casey Dienel, aka White Hinterland. If this claim goes to trial, it could be the 2016 edition of the infamous “Blurred Lines” dispute which resulted in Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke being ordered to pay Marvin Gaye’s family $7.4 million USD for infringing copyright in his 1977 hit ‘Got to give it up.’ Emma Perot reporting.

BREAKING: CJEU Grand Chamber says what to consider in communication to the public cases

News of a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reference about whether the making available of TV broadcasts in rehabilitation centres should be regarded as an act of communication to the public. Eleonora reflects on the implications.

Series trade marks are a bundle of separate trade marks, Court of Appeal declares in Fox's latest Glee challenge

The Court of Appeal has wrapped up the final outstanding point (the validity of a series mark registration) in the long running dispute between Twentieth Century Fox Corporation (Fox) and Comic Enterprises Limited (CEL). Fox announces it will be seeking leave to appeal from the Supreme Court. Bristows' Saaira Gill brings you the latest.
Opinion of AG Wathelet in C-567/14: it's okay to pay for peace of mind, as long as you can change your mind

Mark Schweizer brings you the highlights of the opinion of AG Wathelet in the case of C-567/14. 

Life as an IP Lawyer: Düsseldorf, Germany

The Amerikat continues her globe trotting mission to bring the IP community closer together, talking to Philipp Schröler at Simmons & Simmons.  

Rome Court of First Instance says that ISP's unjustified delay in removing infringing content ... removes safe harbour protection 

Eleonora brings you news of an Italian case where an ISP has been held liable for failing to remove infringing content in a sufficiently expeditious way.  

The Avengers, Diana Rigg and Marvel Comics: When confusion is not confusion 

The Avengers - 1960s spy-fi series, or 2012 Hollywood blockbuster. Neil Wilkof reminisces about encounters with Diana Rigg (real and imagined) and reflects that confusion over names need not always mean infringement.

Ninth Circuit Finds De Minimis Sampling of Sound Recordings Non-Infringing 

The Ninth Circuit has rejected the 2005 Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Dimension Films decision that essentially any sampling of a sound recording results in infringement. Mike Mireles gives you the lowdown. A good week for musicians with a penchant for sampling! (see top news item about a similar German case). 


Never too late 98 [week ending on Sunday 29 May] Are academic publishers liable for ginormous damages? | Update on UPC's draft code of conduct | Implications of new EU and US trade secret legislation | CJEU reference over Schweppes trade mark | New transfer and triage process for IPEC| Thursday Thingies | IP (Unjustified Threats) Bill: from the horses mouth | New Master of the Rolls | PRINCE's personality rights | EU Council adopts Trade Secrets Directive | Book review (copyright lawmaking) | Nominative Fair Use defence in trade mark law

Never too late 97 [week ending on Sunday 22 May] "Simply"Trademark victory for M&S | Notable events this summer | Positec - the end of disclosure? | IPEC or bust? | Enfish distinguished in TLI Communications patent eligible subject matter case | The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making, Book Review | UK tobacco plain packaging law - judicial review challenge rejected | IPKat Limerick Competition

Never too late 96 [week ending on Sunday 15 May] Takedown request tactics in Italy | Wines, spirits, cheese & GI infringement | EU report on GI infringement published | Merpel on latest developments at EPO | Does UPC spell disaster for the EPO boards of appeal? | Andy Grove: in memoriam | Friday Fantasies | Has Federal Circuit revived computer-implemented inventions? | AIPPI event on EU trade mark reform | Ex Deep Purple member registers band name as trade mark | Copyright in the telephone directory

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: If you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Nick Smallwood on Thursday, June 09, 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.