Around the IP Blogs

American and European safe harbours

Over on the Kluwer Copyright Blog they are discussing the American Vimeo Case decision which broadened the exemption for internet service providers (ISPs) in cases of copyright infringement by platform users. The post considers the contrast between this case and the European Union seeking a narrower approach to excluding ISPs from liability.

I-Kat

Video-sharing platform services and media services : what is the link between the new AVMSD and the old ECD?

Earlier this year the European Commission (EC) made two proposals for a new copyright Directive, and for amending the audiovisual media services Directive (AVMSD). In this post from PeebBeep! Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon focuses on the fate of the status given to certain categories of intermediary providers by the E-commerce Directive.

Protecting the Apple iWatch Standby screenshot as a trademark Device in China? Sorry not possible

Kluwer Trade Mark Blog reports on a recent judgment by the Beijing IP Court which refused four applications by Apple to obtain trade mark protection for the standby screen of the iWatch. The applications were rejected by the Trademark Office for lacking distinctiveness and the Beijing IP Court agreed.

Old + new = learning experiences

IP Tango keeps us up to date on a cooperation agreement recently signed by Mr Luiz Otávio Pimentel, the Brazilian Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI)’s president and the UK IPO. The aim of the agreement is for collaboration to exchange information, experiences and views.

US Bill Would Introduce a Copyright Claims Board

1709 blog informs us of the introduced of a US bill, the Fairness for American Small Creators Act, which would amend the Copyright Act to introduce a Copyright Claims Board (the Board).

Sofosbuvir - a $2.54bn infringement in the US, but not in Europe

Tuffy the cat addresses the common misconception that getting a patent for an invention also gives the right to commercialise it. As you are likely aware, a patent only gives you the right to stop others from doing what the claims cover, while being free to put your invention into practice is dependent on not being found to infringe anyone else's patent. Tuffy provides us with a good recent example of this in the case of Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v Gilead Sciences Inc.

A Magical decision? GC decides in Excalibur City v EUIPO

Marques 46 explains two decisions (Cases T-565/15 and T-566/15) on 20^th September 2016 in Excalibur City v EUIPO, where the EU General Court disagreed with the EUIPO's Board of Appeal and found that there was no likelihood of confusion between applications for the mark MERLIN'S KINDERWELT and two earlier Italian trade marks for KINDER owned by Ferrero.