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

This Kitten is delighted to bring you the 137th edition of Never Too Late covering the posts from 20 until 26 February!

What?! February is almost Gone!!!!!!!
Neil Wilkof ruminates about the interesting story of patents and the clothespin industry in 19th century Vermont, a kind of Silicon Valley of its time.

Eleonora Rosati invites readers to attend “European copyright – quo vadis?”, which will take place on 28 and 29 April 2017 in beautiful Florence. It will discuss Article 11 (press publisher’s right) and Article 13 (so-called “value gap”) contained in the Proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market.

Guest Kat Rosie Burbidge recaps the Argos Ltd v Argos Systems Inc case, [2017] EWHC 231 (Ch), which involves whether the use of the sign as a domain name and AdWords (within the Google advertising program) constitutes trademark infringement and passing off.

Katfriend Nedim Malovic analyses the Universal Music Ltd and others v B2 Bredband AB case, PMT 11706-15, which considered the grant of an injunction to block access to The Pirate Bay and Swefilmer websites.

Mark Schweizer discusses Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’ v Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich, ECLI:EU:C:2017:36, which addressed a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of Article 13 of the Enforcement Directive.

Katfriend Kevin Wong gives his insights on Audi AG v Lim Ching Kwang, [2017] SGIPOS 2, TM No. T0911230B. This Singapore case ruled on the revocation and invalidity of the trademark “AOne” based on the lack of genuine use and bad faith in filing the application.

Nicola Searle reviews the book entitled “The Informal Economy in Developing Nations”, edited by Erika Kraemer-Mbula and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent. The book provides an interesting approach regarding the innovations generated in the informal market and the challenges for developing a policy to protect them under the IP laws.

Katfriend Vanessa Delnaud highlights the main differences between the copyright law in the United Arab Emirates and in common law countries, focusing on ownership of works made by employees, the assignment of future copyright and the waiver of moral rights. 

This Kitten reports on the GIPC Index launch, the repeal of section 52 of CDPA, an OxFirst webinar as well as forthcoming events in Singapore, Geneva, Puerto Rico, Michigan, and Szeged.

Katfriend Okan Can summarizes the recent changes contained in the new Turkish IP Code of Industrial Property regarding trademark law, such as the registrability requirements and various features relating to opposition, cancellation, infringement and criminal proceedings.


Never Too Late 136 [week ending on Sunday 19 February] | Tartan Army scores own goal? | Book review: "Brandfather: John Murphy, The Man Who Invented Branding" | IP Summit 2016 (Second Part) | Around the IP Blogs! | Monday miscellany

Never Too Late 135 [week ending on Sunday 12 February] Playing Polo with potential defendants | KYLIE trade mark battle spinning around | When the IP community reaches out to the broader public: the story of IDIA in India | Too big to pay? Employee-inventor compensation in the Court of Appeal | Willow Tea Rooms: A tale of tea and trade marks (Part 2) | BREAKING: AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that The Pirate Bay makes acts of communication to the public | No more counterfeiters! Chanel, Apple, Bayer, LVMH (and more) write to President Juncker on revision to IP Enforcement Directive | Is German SEP litigation set to increase with the "confidentiality club decision" of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf? | Trying to find balance? Come to UCL IBIL's copyright panel on Wednesday | After Sweden and Germany, GS Media finds its application in the Czech Republic

Never Too Late 134 [week ending on Sunday 5 February] | Around the IP Blogs | King Tut's tomb: conservation or replication (but don't forget the "aura")? | The next round of Cartier: UK Supreme Court will hear appeal re costs of intermediary injunctions | New National IP Strategic Action Plan in China | Full decision of Enlarged Board of Appeal in partial priority / poisonous divisionals referral (G01/15) published | INGRES Conference Part II - Trade Secret, Copyright, Design and Trade Mark Law Developments | 5 mistakes to avoid in IP student essays ... and not only there | INGRES Conference Part I - European Patent Law Developments | Remembering Masaya Nakamura, the "Father of Pac-Man" | Monday Miscellany

Never Too Late 133 [week ending on Sunday 29 January] | IP Summit 2016 (First Part) | When a quote becomes famous: even if it was never quite said that way | The trademark licensing question that won't go away: the standing of a licensee to sue | Would you like a side of Mr Justice Arnold on SPCs with your wind turbine? Teva v Gilead, Abraxis v Comptroller and Wobben v Siemens kick of 2017's patent cases | AIPPI (UK) Event: 2016's patent cases - all you really need to know | BREAKING: CJEU rules that EU law does NOT prevent punitive damages in IP cases | Supreme Court rules Act of Parliament is needed to initiate UK leaving the EU | Book review: "From Maimonides to Microsoft: The Jewish Law of Copyright Since the Birth of Print" | Applications for information on infringers can be made outside of IP infringement proceedings | The Michael Jordan case in China – to be continued | Around the IP Blogs | Sunday Surprises
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 Monday, February 27, 2017 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.