This Kitten is delighted to bring you the highlights from some recently published IP blogs!
Nathaniel Boyer and Dori Hanswirth of LimeGreen IP News recaps James Paul McCartney v Sony ATV Music Publishing LLC. The case involves a declaratory judgement sought by Sir Paul McCartney to confirm the validity of his request for reversion of the assignment of copyright to Sony of works created as part of The Beatles as well in connection with his career as a soloist. McCartney did so by serving a series of notices based upon section 304 of the US Copyright Act 1976.
 |
| This Kitten enjoyed a lot reading some IP blogs! |
Moving to trademarks, John L. Welch of The TTABlog discusses Luxco, Inc. v Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C. in which the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (USPTO) dismissed an opposition based upon genericness, lack of legitimate control and fraud, filed by Luxco against registration of the certification mark TEQUILA filed by the Mexican Tequila Regulatory Council (TRC).
Over at Kluwer Trademark Blog, Bettina Clefsen reports on Cases 25 W (pat) 59/14 and 60/14, in which the German Federal Patent court cancelled trademark registrations consisting of dextrose sweets whose shapes enabled easy storage and consumption and were therefore necessary to obtain a technical result.
Moving to the topic of standard essential patents, Marco Lo Bue muses on TrustinIP whether the new IP policy of one of the standard setting organizations (the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers -IEEE-) complies with competition law.
Finally, turning to the field of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions, Afro-IP blog summarizes some initiatives, whose goal is to enable traditional communities to commercialize in an effective manner their indigenous knowledge. These initiatives include the South African Traditional Knowledge Bill and the Maasai Intellectual Property Initiative.
Around the IP Blogs!
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Monday, February 13, 2017
Rating:
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Monday, February 13, 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