 |
| Wake me up when it's spring! |
Too
busy powering through the January blues to keep up with IPKat? No problem! It’s
February, you made it and here is the 133rd edition of Never Too
Late.
Veronica
reports on the 11th edition of the Pan-European Intellectual Property Summit,
which took place on 1st and 2nd December at the World Customs Organization in
Brussels.
Neil considers the implications of well-known quotes that transcended their specific context and become part of a broader verbal heritage. However the quotes are often not identical to what was originally said in due to the process of transmission and public adoption.
The
trademark licensing question that won't go away: the standing of a licensee to
sue
Kat friend Taapsi Johri of K&S Partners, Gurgaon, India, shared this report of an Indian court decision that found that jurisdiction of a court in a suit for infringement cannot be claimed based on the place of business of a “permitted user” of the trademark in question.
Kat friend Taapsi Johri of K&S Partners, Gurgaon, India, shared this report of an Indian court decision that found that jurisdiction of a court in a suit for infringement cannot be claimed based on the place of business of a “permitted user” of the trademark in question.
Guest post from Steven Baldwin (Allen
& Overy), summarizing 2017's recent patent
decisions.
An overview of the UK
Group of AIPPI annual session of reviewing the year's patent cases. Andrew
Lykiardopoulos QC summarised a year’s worth of patent cases in a 90 minute
presentation.
The
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in OTK v SFP, C-367/15 answered no to the question of
whether the Enforcement Directive (Directive
2004/28) prevent Member States from providing in their legislations the
possibility to award punitive damages in IP cases?
The UK
Supreme Court ruled by an 8 : 3 majority that the Government cannot initiate
the process for the UK leaving the EU (the notification under Article 50 of the TEU)
by itself using the Royal Prerogative, but instead an Act of Parliament is
needed.
Neil
reviews Copyright in Jewish Law by Rabbi Nachum Menashe Weisfish’s (Feldheim,
Jerusalem and New York, 2010)
Following
a referral from the Czech Supreme Court in New Wave CZ v Alltoys (Case C-427/15) the CJEU explained that you do not
need to start IP infringement proceedings in order to get information about an
infringer under Article 8(1) IP Enforcement Directive.
Tian
looks at the most recent decision by the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC)
on the “Michael Jordan” case from the perspective of linguistics.
Plus
the weekly round ups Around the IP Blogs
and Sunday Surprises
PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never Too Late 132 [week ending on Sunday 22 January] |When
this Kat doesn't know, he reaches out to Kat readers: what really happened at the
dawn of modern commercial trademark use? I Social media, "WikiLeaks"
and false news in the 18th century: Thomas Jefferson and the "Mazzei
letter" I Does the economic impact of SPCs necessitate SPC Regulation reform? The European Commission
wants to find out I A look at the proposal for the ePrivacy Regulation I BGH:
to cease means to recall I Never too Late x2 I Around the IP Blogs
Never Too Late 131 [week
ending on Sunday 15 January] |
Arrow declarations can be granted: Fujifilm v AbbVie | Guest Post - China's
Patent Boom | Watch out lawyers - do you own your name?
Never Too Late 130 [week
ending on Sunday 8 January] |
Around the IP Blogs | Sunday Surprises | Trademark and co-branding as a badge
of … did you say "location"(?) | 15 fully-funded IP PhD positions are
calling for candidates | Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! |
Around the IP Blogs | Biosimilars battle in clearing the way - Fujifilm v
AbbVie continues | Book review: Maintenance time and the industry development
of patents
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher
on
Monday, February 06, 2017
Rating:
Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher
on
Monday, February 06, 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