Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat Last Week!

Been too busy to up with last week's IP news? No problem! As always, the IPKat is here to bring you a quick summary -the 155th edition of Never Too Late.

When the court just doesn't get your humour
Kat friend Sabine Jacques (University of East Anglia) brings news that a Canadian court has made the first application of the parody exception under Canadian copyright law. The court considered other jurisdictional definitions of parody before determining that the case in hand was not for the purpose of a parody because users are likely to be confused and the defendant’s intent was not humorous but aimed at embarrassing or punishing the plaintiff.

Kat friend Jeremiah Chew (Ascendant Legal) reports on an interesting case from Singapore involving a trademark invalidation proceeding based on lack of distinctiveness. The trade mark in question “BIG BOX” was found to be devoid of distinctive character, wholly descriptive, and a generic term in relation to all the services in its specification.

Kat friend Edoardo Di Maggio (J.D. Candidate at Singapore Management University) updates us on the forthcoming developments in the Singapore copyright system, following the 2016 public consultation which addressed a wide variety of issues, from the creation of a voluntary copyright registration system to the implementation of technological protection measures.

Kat friend Riyadh Al-Balushi (SOAS University of London) talks us through the recent and ongoing diplomatic crisis of Qatar, what that means in relation to IP and how it affects Qatari rights-holders. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has been successful in creating a number of pan-GCC intellectual property initiatives that are legally operational in Qatar as well as the rest of the Gulf. However, these are now threatened by the current diplomatic crisis due to political differences between Saudi, Bahrain, and the UAE on one side, and Qatar on the other.

Dr Felix Trumpke (Quinn Emanuel) reports on the German Supreme Court (“Bundesgerichtshof”) ruling (Decision of 16th May 2017, X ZR 120/15 – Abdichtsystem) which held that a foreign company selling patent infringing goods to customers outside of Germany may be liable for patent infringement in Germany. The decision further included some interesting findings with regard to the claim for recall of infringing products from the distribution channels. 

The on-going saga between Eli Lilly and Actavis regarding Lilly's pemetrexed disodium product has kept the English courts busy for years. The culmination of the litigation was heard back in April and the UK Supreme Court has just posted a summary of their decision. The summary stated that the Supreme Court allows Eli Lilly's appeal and holds that Actavis' products directly infringe Eli Lilly's patent in the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain. The Court dismisses Actavis' cross-appeal on the basis that if its products did not directly infringe, they would indirectly infringe to the extent held by the Court of Appeal.

And, of course, the weekly updates Monday Miscellany and Sunday Surprises.

Photo credit: rawdonfox


Never Too Late 154 [week ending Sunday 2 July] I Book Review: Patent Drawing Rules I German Supreme Court holds that extra-territorial delivery can result in patent infringement I Canadian Supreme Court holds promise doctrine "unsound" in AstraZeneca v Apotex Nexium dispute I EU General Court finds bad faith in VENMO trade mark dispute I “Correction” of expiry dates for granted SPCs now finally possible in Italy...sometimes I Book Review: The Law of Trade Secret Litigation Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act I Chanel victorious in California court battle against Amazon sellers of counterfeit goods I Simplifying Community Registered Design litigation in the UK - Spin Master v PMS I 77M v Ordnance Survey - access to justice for SMEs in IPEC I Canadian Supreme Court holds that Google can be ordered to de-index results globally I Life as an IP Lawyer: Copenhagen, Denmark I UK UPC ratification timetable to continue in September, while Prep Committee acknowledges German constitutional hold-up I Hendrix's portrait is original afterall say Paris Court of Appeal I Covfefe ... the trade mark?! I Injunction available after claimed licence fees paid - PPL v JJPB I Trademark application for the devil's horn withdrawn I Jo Johnson to continue as IP Minister I UPC Order on Privileges & Immunities placed before Parliament today I Celebrate 120 years of AIPPI in Sydney I Event invitation - The Pirate Bay communicates to the public: are there any more online infringement questions to be answered? I Re-using Amazon item numbers (ASINs) for similar goods can constitute trade mark infringement and passing off

Never Too Late 153 [week ending Sunday 25 June] | US Supreme Court holds provision preventing registration of disparaging trade marks unconstitutional | Wolfing down those veggies: it's a matter of the right descriptive term | A googol of generic questions in Ninth Circuit's Elliott v Google decision | Life as an IP lawyer | Former Constitutional Court judge weighs in on UPC ratification suspension | AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that a red sole may not be just a colour | Trump and his coat of arms | BMW wins appeal over use of trade mark to promote spare parts business | Around the IP Blogs | Saturday Sundries

Never Too Late 152 [week ending Sunday 18 June] German Constitutional Court stops implementing legislation for Unitary Patent Package | Conference report: Innovation and Competition in Life Sciences Law - Part I | Conference report: Innovation and Competition in Life Sciences - Law Part II | Special K and beyond: tennis brands | CJEU says that site like The Pirate Bay makes acts of communication to the public | The challenge of big data: we ignore it at our professional peril | German court orders Google to stop linking to Lumen Database | Event report: Trends in the creative digital economy | A Tale of Stability - Business Models in the Creative Industries | Paris Tribunal supports heir's claim to looted painting | Kiss singer seeks trade mark registration for hand gesture | Tuesday Wonders | Sunday Surprises

Never Too Late 151 [week ending on Sunday 11 June] Mozart and Other Pirates | TILTing Perspectives 2017 report (1): The healthcare session | TILTing Perspectives 2017 report (2): The IP session and the Key Note | Application to amend nappy patent not so watertight - IPEC holds nappy patent invalid for added matter and lack of clarity | SugarHero and the Snow Globe Cupcakes - Copyright and Food Videos | Mr Justice Birss introduces the brand new FRAND Injunction in Unwired Planet v Huawei | French Counseil d'État invalidates decrees implementing law on out-of-commerce works | A Tight Squeeze: Matters of Comity and Justiciability | Life as an IP Lawyer: Milan | AIPPI/AIPLA Event: Copyright in a digital age - US and UK perspectives
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 Saturday, July 15, 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.