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

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. 

Photo credit: PROLebatihem


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! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher on Tuesday, May 16, 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.