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

This Kitten is delighted to bring you the 144th edition of Never Too Late!

It’s Never Too Late to catch up!
InternKat Hayleigh Bosher covers the latest posts from some IP blogs.

IPKat Annsley Merelle Ward announces the Fordham IP conference’s 25th anniversary program, covering IP and policy, which took place in New York.

Katfriend Colm Ahern reports on the European Commission’s initiative entitled “Standard Essential Patents for a European digitalized economy”, which aims to address 5G technology, Internet of Things and SEP enforcement.

IPKat Eleonora Rosati discusses the US and Italian copyright provisions in the context of the alleged moral rights infringement due to the placement of Kristen Visbal’s sculpture known as “Fearless girl” opposite Arturo Di Modica’s sculpture entitled “Charging Bull”. The letter sent by Di Modica Lawyers to the mayor of New York can be reviewed here.

IPKat Annsley Merelle Ward announces the launch of the International chapter of ChIPs, a non-profit organization, which aims to advance women in technology, law, and policy.

IPKat Eleonora Rosati provides a useful checklist for determining whether a copyright exception established in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) applies to a specific case. 

Guest Kat Eibhlin Vardy summarizes the Rapid Response event organized by AIPPI on the case Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Limited v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited, [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat), from the perspective of patent and competition law.

Guest Kat Rosie Burbidge recaps the case SoulCycle Inc v Matalan Ltd, [2017] EWHC 496 (Ch), in which the appeal to the dismissed opposition to registration of the mark SOULUXE, based on prior registered marks that include the word SOUL, was dismissed.

Guest Kat Rosie Burbidge summarizes the case Apple Inc v Arcadia Trading Limited, [2017] EWHC 440 (Ch), in which the appeal to the refusal of registration of the mark IWATCH for various goods in class 9, on the ground of descriptiveness, was dismissed.


Never Too Late 143 [week ending on Sunday 9 April] | Can you use the Pope's image on T-shirts and gadgets? | Can a public domain artwork be registered as a trade mark or would that be contrary to public policy and morality? | Wednesday Whimsies | Retromark: a year in trade marks | BREAKING: Birss J hands down first FRAND decision in Unwired Planet v Huawei | Katcall: So You Think You Can Blog? GuestKats and InternKat | “Curry favour with Donald Trump'” by granting trade mark rights… seriously? | The UPC after Brexit - is CJEU jurisdiction a deal-breaker? | New book for the preparation for the Pre-Examination of the EQE | Oldie but goldie - when is old prior art a suitable starting point for inventive step analysis? | Tune in LIVE for tomorrow's Eli Lilly v Actavis Supreme Court showdown | French court rules that resale right royalty must be only paid by sellers

Never Too Late 142 [week ending on Sunday 2 April] | Conference report: Online platforms and intermediaries in copyright law | Fun with Fujifilm Declarations! An AIPPI Rapid Response Event | UK UPC ratification still on track despite Article 50 trigger | 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? | When today's pizza meets ancient law: how would you decide? | The Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court - where are we now? | GS Media and its implications for the construction of the right of communication to the public within EU copyright architecture: a new article | Preview of the new Danish trade secrets proposal | WIPO's statistics for 2016: Asia continues to roar | Wednesday Whimsies | Avoiding objections to claiming priority in Mexico: Standarized presentation of priority data | No admission after the show has started - transfer of priority right must occur prior to filing of subsequent application (T 577/11)

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? | Around the IP blogs | 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

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] | Shall we dance? Regulatory approval, trade secrets and the transatlantic biosimilars patent wars | 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 Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo on Sunday, April 30, 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.