In December of 2016, the U.S. Copyright Office released a Report on Software Enabled Consumer Products. Notably, the U.S. Copyright Office believes that, at least in the context of copyright law, that there is not a need for new legislation -- current flexibilities in the law can accommodate technological change.
Mike Mireles reports the recently released Highlights report by Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) concerning its FY2015 annual survey, and explains why the results of the survey are promising.
 |
| CopyKat, PasteKat... |
* JIPLP
JIPLP’s Editorial board member Danny Friedmann (IP Dragon and Simone Intellectual Property Services Hong Kong) shared some interesting comments on Hong Kong's new patent system, following the changes introduced by the Patent (Amendment) Bill 2015.
Tibbie McIntyre brings the first CopyKat of the year -- Disney’s Lightning McQueen wins in Chinese Copyright case, Cars vs. Autobots.
The Delhi High Court has restrained 3 domestic collection societies from granting any such license till April 24th 2017 -- turns out that only registered societies can grant licenses in respect of copyrighted work(s).
The fashion law blog brings an exclusive report of the case: BURBERRY LIMITED (UK) ET AL V. MOISEE, 1:16CV05943 -- After filing a strongly-worded trademark infringement suit against rapper Burberry Perry this summer in the U.S., Burberry has been handed the final victory in this “irreparable harm” case.
Lessons from Chanel and Coty’s "Smell-Alike" Victory
A Netherlands court has held that use of perfume comparisons constitutes trademark infringement when it crosses the boundaries of comparative advertising. The flourishing trade in “smell-alikes” is a thorn in the side of the makers of well-known perfumes, including Chanel and Calvin Klein. However, thanks to a recent judgement from the District Court of The Hague, these parties’ ability to fight such practices has been strengthened.
Photo courtesy of Ms. Nyske Blokhuis.
Around the IP Blogs
Reviewed by Tian Lu
on
Sunday, January 08, 2017
Rating:
Reviewed by Tian Lu
on
Sunday, January 08, 2017
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.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