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.
PREVIOUSLY
ON NEVER TOO LATE
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!
Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher
on
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Rating:
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