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

Easter Kat.. 
Want to catch up on IP before the Easter break? No problem! Here’s the 143rd edition of Never Too Late.

Following the CJEU’s decision in Christie's France (C-41/14), Katpost here, the subsequent Supreme Court decision has found that the royalty payment could be made by the buyer or the seller, or shared by them, as long as the artists’ rights were duly respected. However, according to The Art Newspaper, in the context of other proceedings against Christie's, the Versailles court has stated that the royalty must be paid by sellers, without exception. 

The Supreme Court was live online to hear Tom Mitcheson QC (supported by  Andrew Waugh QC and leading Stuart Baran) for Eli Lilly against Danny Alexander QC (leading Thomas Raphael QC) for Actavis.

In relation to Nike Intl’s EP 1 571 938 "footwear incorporating a textile with fusible filaments and fibers" the German Federal Patent Court had previously declared that all claims invalid for lack of inventive step starting from the German published examined application ("Auslegeschrift") DE 1 085 173 of 1954 in combination with US 2,440,393 of 1948. On appeal, the Federal Court of Justice upheld the Federal Patent Court's decision (X ZR 119/14 of 31 January 2017).

Tian Lu reviewed “A Self-Study Guide for the Pre-Examination of the EQE – Part I: The Legal Questions” by Cees Mulder. The book is a study guide for the entrance exam of the European Qualifying Examination (EQE) covering twelve main topics.

Darren considers the apparent inconsistency between on the one hand the UK after Brexit being a member of the UPC Agreement when the UPC is required to apply EU law and make references to the CJEU, and the Government’s white paper “Legislating for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.” He argues that since the UPC is not a domestic court, it is an international court, this policy statement is simply irrelevant to the matter of the UPC.

Tian clears up some misunderstandings about the Chinese trade mark system in response to several news reports that suggested “China is trying to curry favour with the new American president by granting him preliminary approvals to his 38 trade mark registrations” (e.g. here and here).

We're looking to fill an intern post and are soliciting Expressions of Interest for GuestKat roles! Anyone interested in joining the Kat team should provide information about their career, motivation and a writing sample here before Thursday, 20 April 2017.

Annsely gives us a run-down of the latest 166 page judgment in the Unwired Planet cases from Mr Justice Birss in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2017] EWHC 711.

Former guest Kat Darren Meale (Simmons & Simmons and IPEC DDJ) brings us a useful review of the past twelve months in trade mark litigation.

Eleonora takes us through Case E-5/16 - Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights – appeal from the municipality of Oslo - a recent case from the EFTA Court whereby the Oslo Municipality sought to register a number of artworks by Norwegian artists, that would soon enter the public domain under the Norwegian Copyright Act, as trade marks.

Following a statement from the Secretariat of State warning against unauthorised use and misuse of the image of Pope Francis, the Secretariat of State has hired a well-known law firm to monitor and repress any unauthorised third-party uses of the image of His Holiness. Considering the Vatican observes the provisions contained in the Italian civil code for this issues, it is likely that to be upheld since Italian image right protection has been interpreted generously.

Weekly round ups never too late and Wednesday whimsies.


Never Too Late 141 [week ending on Sunday 2 April] Conference report: Online platforms and intermediaries in copyright law I Fun with Fujifilm Declarations! An AIPPI Rapid Response Event I WIPO's statistics for 2016: Asia continues to roar I UK UPC ratification still on track despite Article 50 trigger I Does Mr Justice Arnold's decision in Teva v MSD show just how large a role patent law has come to play in assessing SPC validity? I When today's pizza meets ancient law: how would you decide? I The Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court - where are we now? I GS Media and its implications for the construction of the right of communication to the public within EU copyright architecture: a new article I Preview of the new Danish trade secrets proposal I Avoiding objections to claiming priority in Mexico: Standarized presentation of priority data I No admission after the show has started - transfer of priority right must occur prior to filing of subsequent application (T 577/11) I Wednesday Whimsies

Never Too Late 141 [week ending on Sunday 26 March] | UK Industrial Strategy | “What is this thing called love, this funny thing called love”? And while you're at it, what is a covenant not to sue? | The Perks of Being a Coffee Seller - Star Box | Telstra loses big in keeping its information confidential in Australian patent dispute |«Printed by Jouve» it’s not |Welcome clarification on the Malaysian law of well-known marks; but there is still judicial work to be done | BREAKING: US Supreme Court holds cheerleading uniforms eligible for copyright protection| Italian Supreme Court rules that mere reproduction of Vespa image may amount to counterfeiting|The Delhi University photocopy case comes to an abrupt end after publishers withdraw lawsuit |Traditional Knowledge: beware of patent protection | Wish to discuss GS Media and linking?|

Never Too Late 140 [week ending on Sunday 19 March] | Friday Fantasies | Kat konfusion regarding passing off: likelihood of confusion and the Starbucks (HK) case | Thursday Thingies | Wednesday Whimsies | First live blocking order granted in the UK |The scope of a well-known mark: not always as broad as some might wish | Monday miscellany | Around the IP Blogs | UK's IP Enforcement Framework-IPO Research Bid Opportunity (Update) 

Never Too Late 139 [week ending on Sunday 12 March] | Friday Fantasies | Biosimilars and generics as "rip-offs": when the facts may not matter | UK's IP Enforcement Framework - IPO Research Bid Opportunity | Curtain - Merpel's final EPO post | Amgen, Pfizer, Alphabet and Uber face up to trade secrets in biosimilars, self driving cars and product launch plans | BREAKING: Politico publishes (part of) draft copyright report by MEP Comodini Cachia | Parallel imports are permitted--unless they are not: the case of SAMSONITE in Singapore | UPC to open in December - a triumph of hope over experience? | The KitKat shape mark – no merging of territories for proof of acquired distinctiveness
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher on Saturday, April 15, 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.