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.

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.

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 20th 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.
Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher on Wednesday, December 21, 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.