 |
| Never miss out with Never Too Late |
Too busy to keep up with all the IPKat
posts last week? No problem! Here is the 147th edition of Never Too Late to
bring you up to speed.
In the case of Regina v Wayne Evans
[2017] EWCA Crim 139 the Court of Appeal emphasised the importance of
deterrence sentencing in favour of the music industry. The court then set out
some considerations to take into account when sentencing in relation to
copyright infringement under s.107 of the CDPA 1988.
Patent litigator and AIPPI
member Rachael Cartwright (Bristows)
reported on the AIPIP Rapid Response event following the handing down of
the latest judgment in the Unwired Planet cases (see IPKat
summary here).
The Intellectual
Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill received Royal Assent on 27 April
2017 and is anticipated that it will commence in October 2017. Rosie summarises
the key changes to be expected.
Kat friend Mikołaj
Rogowski explains why he has coined the term ‘socialistic brand’ which
describes a unique group of signs sharing a common historical pedigree, namely
brands that were used within the individual states of the former Eastern Bloc,
often by various actors within a given industry. Mikolaj discusses how it can
help us understand the role of trade marks that emerged from a given moment of
history.
Kat Friend Carlos Castrillo of
Castrillo & Castrillo brought our attention to a promising development with
respect to the patent application process in Argentina. Resolution
056/2016 provides that the National Patent Administration be authorized to
benefit from the substantive examination previously carried out by certain
other patent offices, with the goal of reducing examination workload and
improving patent quality.
Katfriend Nedim
Malovic (Sandart & Partners) reports on decision [here] of
the Swedish Data Protection Authority (DPA) which recently investigated
Google’s handling of the right to be forgotten (the possibility for users to
file a request regarding the delisting of personal details from search
results), and concluded that, if Google is required to delist the results of a
specific search, it may also be necessary to de-list the search result when
searches are made from countries outside Sweden and – more generally -
Europe.
A General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO)
was recently granted by HHJ Hacon in the latest of the long running series of
disputes between Perry v FH
Brundle and others [2017] EWHC 678 concerning Mr Perry's
allegations of patent infringement and related actions for unjustified threats
of patent infringement.
Weekly roundups: Monday
Miscellany, Wednesday
Whimsies
Photo credit: PROLebatihem
PREVIOUSLY
ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never Too Late 146 [week ending on Sunday 30 April] Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection) I Happy World IP Day! I Protecting the SOVEREIGN - The Royal Mint v The Commonwealth Mint I BGH on the freedom of the seas, ahm, panorama I ESPN: When Teflon is not enough in the face of platform disruption I BREAKING: CJEU in Filmspeler rules that the sale of a multimedia player is a ‘communication to the public’ I Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision I Varsity Brands and Star Atheltica - A Closer Look I Court of Appeal dismisses Huawei's first appeal in Unwired Planet patent fight I Once upon a time: Inventive step argumentation as storytelling I Tuesday Miscellany, Around the IP Blogs, Never Too Late
Never Too Late 145 [week ending on Sunday 23 April] Should
investment in innovation worry about geographic dispersion? Steve Case says
"yes", but what about Pareto?|Trade mark trolls in Cuba: an
update|Double-check your docketing!|Fordham 25|Unwired Planet v Huawei: Is
FRAND now a competition law free zone? Not so fast…|European patent troll boom
spurs Google, Adidas, Intel & Daimler backed IP2Innovate to demand
Commission "get tough with US patent trolls"|AIPPI Report: Recapping
2016's most important soft IP cases
Never Too Late 144 [week ending on Sunday 16 April]
Around the IP blogs |Time to celebrate, debate and have fun! Register for
Fordham IP conference's 25th anniversary|Commission Roadmap: No Directive on
SEPs (for now)|Author of Wall Street Charging Bull is raging over Fearless
Girl, but does he have a valid moral right claim?|Launch Event: Advancing women
in tech, law and policy, ChIPs comes to London on 27 April 2017|Am I covered by
that UK copyright exception? Here's my checklist|Fujifilm v AbbVie: practice,
procedure and policy analysis|Overturning a trade mark opposition decision -
Part 2 - SOULUXE - likelihood of confusion|Overturning a trade mark opposition
decision - Part 1 - IWATCH, descriptive goods and acquired distinctiveness
Never Too Late 143 [week ending on Sunday 9 April]
French court rules that resale right royalty must be only paid by sellers I
Tune in LIVE for tomorrow's Eli Lilly v Actavis Supreme Court showdown I Oldie
but goldie - when is old prior art a suitable starting point for inventive step
analysis? I New book for the preparation for the Pre-Examination of the EQE I
The UPC after Brexit - is CJEU jurisdiction a deal-breaker? I “Curry favour
with Donald Trump'” by granting trade mark rights… seriously? I Katcall: So You
Think You Can Blog? GuestKats and InternKat I BREAKING: Birss J hands down
first FRAND decision in Unwired Planet v Huawei I Retromark: a year in trade
marks I Can a public domain artwork be registered as a trade mark or would that
be contrary to public policy and morality? I Can you use the Pope's image on
T-shirts and gadgets? I never too late I Wednesday whimsies
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher
on
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Rating:
Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher
on
Tuesday, May 16, 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