This kitten brings you the highlights of some IP law blogs!
On The 1709 Blog, Marie-Andree Weiss comments on the Court of Cassation decision of 16 November 2016, ECLI: FR:CCASS:2016:C101300, which ruled that, under French Law, moral rights cannot belong to a corporation. The dispute involved the unauthorized use of photographs of watches in connection with an advertising campaign other than the one that was originally commissioned.
 |
| Getting ready to catch up! |
Staying with copyright, Mark Anderson discusses on IP Draughts the English Court judgment of 2 December 2016 in Gloucester Place Music Ltd v Le Bon & Ors, [2016] EWHC 3091 (Ch). The case involved the worldwide agreements governed by English Law assigning the 1980s band Duran Duran songs to Gloucester Place Music Ltd. In 2014, the band requested the reversion of the assigned copyright in the USA, by serving a series of notices based on section 203 of the US Copyright Act. The English Court found that the band “have acted in breach of the agreements by serving the notices, or, where they have not yet taken effect, will do so if they are not withdrawn”. Accordingly, the agreements governed by English law prevent the band from requesting the reversion of the assigned copyright in the USA.
Moving to trademarks, IPKat Neil Wilkof discusses on IP Finance Marriott’s branding strategy after the Starwood acquisition. Such a takeover involves the expansion and management of 30 brands, some of them different luxury brands addressed to the same type of customers. Time will tell if customers will discern the distinctions.
Staying with trademarks, Richard Taylor and Alasdair Muller blog on RE: MARKS ON TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT about the English Court of Appeal decision of 1 November 2016 in R v C and others, [2016] EWCA Crim 1617. The Court found that the sale and distribution of grey goods can be a criminal offence under the article 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Over at Kluwer Trademark Blog, Boris Malakhov reports the Russian IP Court judgement in Daimler AG v TMR Import, case No. A41-39075/2016. The Court found the inapplicability of the Customs Code pre-trial term of 10 days in parallel import issues. The proceedings were started based on such a pre-trial term instead of the pre-trial term of 30 days set out in the Federal Law No. 47-FZ.
Finally, Vilhelm Schröder discusses on TrustinIP the challenges of trying to prevent the further disclosure of a trade secret once disclosed and how to obtain damages in such a situation. Vilhelm provides a practical approach for enforcing trade secret rights in the context of the new EU Trade Secrets Directive, particularly regarding confidentiality obligations when the parties are bound up in litigation.
Moving to trademarks, IPKat Neil Wilkof discusses on IP Finance Marriott’s branding strategy after the Starwood acquisition. Such a takeover involves the expansion and management of 30 brands, some of them different luxury brands addressed to the same type of customers. Time will tell if customers will discern the distinctions.
Staying with trademarks, Richard Taylor and Alasdair Muller blog on RE: MARKS ON TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT about the English Court of Appeal decision of 1 November 2016 in R v C and others, [2016] EWCA Crim 1617. The Court found that the sale and distribution of grey goods can be a criminal offence under the article 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Over at Kluwer Trademark Blog, Boris Malakhov reports the Russian IP Court judgement in Daimler AG v TMR Import, case No. A41-39075/2016. The Court found the inapplicability of the Customs Code pre-trial term of 10 days in parallel import issues. The proceedings were started based on such a pre-trial term instead of the pre-trial term of 30 days set out in the Federal Law No. 47-FZ.
Finally, Vilhelm Schröder discusses on TrustinIP the challenges of trying to prevent the further disclosure of a trade secret once disclosed and how to obtain damages in such a situation. Vilhelm provides a practical approach for enforcing trade secret rights in the context of the new EU Trade Secrets Directive, particularly regarding confidentiality obligations when the parties are bound up in litigation.
Around the IP Blogs!
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Monday, December 05, 2016
Rating:
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Monday, December 05, 2016
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
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