Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

This kitten is delighted to bring you the last edition in 2016 of Never Too Late, number 128!

Ready to celebrate New Year's Eve
InternKat Tian Lu recaps forthcoming events, Geneva Internet Dispute Resolution Policies 1.0 project and the UK IPO call for IP valuation experts.

Guest Kat Rosie Burbidge analyzes the case Property Renaissance Ltd (t/a Titanic Spa) v Stanley Dock Hotel Ltd (t/a Titanic Hotel Liverpool) & Ors, [2016] EWHC 3103 (Ch). It involves trademark cancellation action for non-use, trademarks infringements and passing off.

Book Review: two new methodology books for EQE candidates: Smart in C and Tactics for D
InternKat Tian Lu reviews “Smart in C” and “Tactics for D”, both written by Nyske Blokhuis and Cees Mulder. The books are the perfect choice for those who are preparing for the European Qualifying Examination (EQE).

InternKat Hayleigh Bosher summarizes the highlights of some IP blogs, including the refusal for trademark registration of the iWatch screenshot.

Neil Wilkof ruminates about the interrogation held on 18 July 1573 by the Inquisition court to the famous Venetian Renaissance painter Veronese regarding the work first known as “The Last Supper” and later as “The Feast in the House of Levi”. A very interesting post regarding institutionalized censorship of printed works!

Guest Kat Eibhlin Vardy recaps the case Teva UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG, [2016] EWCA Civ 1296. The case addresses whether the “permission to appeal may be granted more readily in patent cases”.

Andrew Sharples discusses the impact on European Patent Office practice regarding the European Commission Notice concerning the Directive 98/44/EC, in which was found that products (plants, animals and their parts) obtained by essentially biological processes are not patentable.

This kitten outlines the latest news of the proposal of the Digital Single Market and Unified Patent Court Agreement as well as some forthcoming events.

Guest Kat Rosie Burbidge discusses the case NVidia Corporation & Ors v Hardware Labs Performance Systems Inc, [2016] EWHC 3135 (Ch). The case deals with whether an English letter sent by a German company to a US company based on EU trademark infringement constitutes a groundless threat under the Trade Marks Act 1994.


Never Too Late 127 [week ending on Sunday 18 December] | Around the IP Blogs | Top-level Property Rights Protection Guideline released in China | CEIPI/EAO Conference--"Copyright Enforcement in the Online World" | More on the Swedish application of GS Media | Mini UPC Update: UK signs Protocol on Privileges & Immunities | When a holiday e-card meets IP: Well done, IPOS! | Unregistered designs for eXreme storage | Academic publishing houses lose appeal against Delhi University & photocopy shop | GS Media finds its first application in Germany | Monday Miscellaneous | Part 36 offers in the IP Enterprise Court

Never Too Late 126 [week ending on Sunday 11 December] | Will Iceland's EU trade mark end up on ice? I Obviousness over the CGK - dead or alive? I Will UK industry suffer from Government's "ratify now, repent at leisure" UPC stance? | Indian Trade Marks Registry to widen its doors for recording “well known” marks | Mediaplayers and streaming: AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona in Filmspeler proposes broad interpretation of notion of 'indispensable intervention' | AIPPI Rapid Response Report: Debating Lyrica's recurring pain on plausibility, abuse and infringement | PPDs and standard disclosure - can you have your cake and eat it? | BREAKING: Unanimous Supreme Court in Samsung v Apple finds that damages may be based on a component, not whole product | (Belatedly) remembering Raymond Niro, the most influential person in patent litigation whom you may have never heard of | Genuine use of three dimensional EU trade marks - heated arguments over ovens | Wild Boys Sometimes Lose It: Duran Duran fail to reclaim their US copyright |Around the IP Blogs

Never Too Late 125 [week ending on Sunday 4 December] | "tronc"--the most bizarre rebranding of 2016? | Next week - UK Supreme Court hears the Brexit case | The proposed new VAT rules on e-publications: do they have any implications for copyright and digital exhaustion? | Negative decision for anti-HIV therapy patent: Merck Sharpe & Dohme v Shionogi Co Limited | Book review: Copyright and E-Learning | Friday Fantasies | Fontem see their patent “vaporised” – the dangers of added matter | BREAKING: Antidote found for poisonous priorities | Around the IP blogs | AIPPI Congress Report 5: Antitrust and Pharma - seeking a balance | When the Rolling Stones visited 2120 South Michigan Avenue in Chicago | No measure of success in passing off cup case | BREAKING NEWS: UK signals green light to Unified Patent Court Agreement | Book Review: Copyright Beyond Law | Mr Justice Carr's decision in Victoria Plumb is about Adwords (honest)

Never Too Late 124 [week ending on Sunday 27 November] | Sunday Surprises | EU law forbids the resale of non-original tangible copies of computer programmes | EQE roundup | Technology law on the menu in Madrid | IP Summit 2016 | Announcing JIPLP Conference on the Present and Future of EU and UK Copyright | East meets West: the EU-China IP Forum Part 1 and Part 2 | Around the IP Blogs | Rocket in the Patents Court: Napp Pharmaceutical v Dr Reddy's and Sandoz | Top 5 things IP lawyers must remember about English contract law

Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo on Friday, December 30, 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.