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
PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATE
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 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!
Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher
on
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Rating:
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