Been away and want to catch up on last week's IP news? No problem! As always, the IPKat is here to bring you a quick summary -- the 146th edition of Never Too Late.
Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection)
Is YouTube an active host and, if so, ineligible for the safe harbour protection within Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive? IPKat Eleonora Rosati analyses the interesting response provided by this decision of the Tribunale di Torino (Turin Court of First Instance).
 |
| Happy World IP Day! Miaowww🎈 |
The AmeriKat, Annsley, sends her greetings of Happy World IP Day at a height of 37,000 feet.
Protecting the SOVEREIGN - The Royal Mint v The Commonwealth Mint
GuestKat Rosie Burbidge brings a very readable piece answering this question: “Can the Royal Mint register SOVEREIGN as a trade mark for ‘gold commemorative coins’”?
Mark Schweizer discusses freedom of panorama -- an area of law in Europe that has proved problematic.
IPKat Neil Wilkof provides his insights on the large shadow casted on ESPN in the hyper-charged world.
IPKat Eleonora Rosati discusses the newly issued and meanwhile long-awaited CJEU’s decision in Filmpeler, C-527/15.
Ever-productive Eleonora gives a more detailed review on the Filmspeler decision, and explains why it is a MAJOR copyright decision.
IPKat Rosie Burbidge provides a closer look on the long-awaited US Supreme Court decision in Star Athletica v Varsity Brands.
Fordham 25
The AmeriKat, Annsley Merelle Ward, continues her reports from the Fordham IP Conference. This week she brings readers the parts of Pharma, IP & Competition, The sun rises on plausibility, but where (and when) will it set? and FRAND, SEPs & PAE's.
With the ink yet to dry on the judgment of Birss J on the non-technical issues arising from the Unwired Planet litigation ... Steven Willis (Bristows) updates readers the Court of Appeal’s decision in the first of the three related technical trials to receive judgment from the Patents Court in 2015/16.
Dai Rees, former chairman of the Technical Board of Appeal and the author of “Inventive Step: The Stories We Tell”, explains to IPKat readers how one could go about telling a convincing invention story.
Last but not the least, the weekly routines of IP round-up: Tuesday Miscellany, Around the IP Blogs and Never Too Late.
Photo courtesy of Kim de Beer.
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 142 [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
PREVIOUSLY ON 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 142 [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: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Tian Lu
on
Tuesday, May 09, 2017
Rating:
Reviewed by Tian Lu
on
Tuesday, May 09, 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