Been away and want to catch up with last week's IP news? No problem! As always, the IPKat is here to bring you a quick summary -- the 154th edition of Never Too Late.
IPKat Nicola Searle reviews the colouring book Patent Drawing Rules book written by Murray H. Henderson, which is a guide to the multitude of USPTO and WIPO rules associated with drawings, photographs and reproductions in patent applications.
The AmeriKat Annsley reports on a fresh decision of the German Supreme Court holding that a foreign supplier can be liable for patent infringement of its customers in Germany even if the supplier itself only delivers outside of Germany.
The AmeriKat Annsley provides a timely and in-depth analysis on the much-awaited decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the appeal between AstraZeneca Canada v Apotex (2017 SCC 36). The Court unanimously rejected the controversial "promise doctrine" in relation to the utility requirement under Canadian patent law.
GuestKat Rosie Burbidge summarizes the trade mark dispute between Venmo and VEN, which hinges on whether there is good or bad faith at the time of filing.
For those IP lawyers who are craving a scoop of SPC news, AmeriKat Annsley invites Micaela Modiano (Modiano & Partners) to bring us news of a recent decision of the Board of Appeal of the Italian Patent and Trade Mark Office.
The well-read IPKat Nicola Searle reviews The Law of Trade Secret Litigation Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) by J. Patrick Huston, which “organizes, analyzes and synthesizes all of the 48 UTSA-adopting states’ published court opinions (state and federal).” It seeks to create a coherent and uniform construction of the UTSA, and serve as a guide for practitioners and a reference in teaching.
GuestKat Rosie Burbidge reports that recently Chanel settled a dispute with at least 24 Amazon sellers who had been selling counterfeit goods.
GuestKat Rosie Burbidge also reminds readers that there are so many hints in the recent decision Spin Master v PMS [2017] EWHC 1477 (Pat) that Mr Justice Carr wants it to get wider circulation. As he puts it, the CMC raised the issue of “how to achieve short, cost-effective hearings where one or perhaps both parties are preparing for a much longer trial.”
On 15 June 2017, His Honour Judge Hacon dismissed Ordnance Survey’s application to transfer proceedings from the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to the Chancery Division in 77M Ltd v Ordnance Survey Ltd [2017] EWHC 1501 (IPEC). One of the AmeriKat's colleagues, Josh Angrave, summarizes the decision for readers.
Recently the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision [Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34] in the important and longstanding litigation between Equustek Solutions and Google, concerning an issue that has become particularly sensitive over time: can Google be ordered to de-index results from its search engine globally, i.e. in respect of all country versions of its search engine? Katfriend Nedim Malovic (Sandart&Partners) explains the Supreme Court’s affirmative response.
“One of the IPKat's key objectives is to bring this global IP community closer together by sharing IP decisions, legislation and practice from across the world with our readers, with the aim that by understanding our unique perspectives on the culture of IP practice we can work together to make IP a success story for innovators, creators, users and the public” – thanks to AmeriKat Annsley for contributing to those aims by interviewing Emil Jurcenoks (Plesner), an IP lawyer from Copenhagen.
The Order on Privileges & Immunities had been laid before the UK Parliament brought several e-mails questioning the legislative steps needed to ratify the UPC Agreement (UPCA) and the Protocol on Privileges & Immunities (PPI) – thereof the AmeriKat Annsley did some research into the steps required and timing following the recent election.
“Last week, the Paris Court of Appeal corrected the Paris Tribunal's interpretation of the originality condition with regard to photographic works. Or did they? ” – GuestKat Mathilde Pavis brings an in-depth inquiry into the case.
 |
| Covfefe... #$%%^&**? |
Who knows what is the 'covfefe' used by US President Donald Trump in one of his (regular) tweets? The word though has been seen as a wannabe trade mark, but is it indeed registrable? Or even, should it be registered? – Katfriend Oliver Fairhurst (Lewis Silkin) brings a very readable explanation of the queries.
GuestKat Rosie Burbidge discusses injunctions: should an injunction be granted when the licence fees which were the reason for a claim being issued have all been paid? What about if further licence fee payments (incurred after the claim form was issued) have not been paid?
GuestKat Mathilde Pavis discusses the recent decision from the USPTO notified the withdrawal, by express abandonment, of Gene Simmons's trade mark application for the hand gesture known as the devil's horns. The application for the registration of the hand gesture was keenly followed by this Kat who relishes reading positions and opinions of IP offices or courts on unusual marks.
The Kat friend James Thomson at the UK IPO delivers the news that it was confirmed that Jo Johnson will continue as Minister responsible for IP.
The AmeriKat Annsley forwarded the email from UK IPO's Unified Patent Court Taskforce, updating about the Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017.
The AmeriKat points out the program highlights of the 120th AIPPI Annual Congress from 13-17 October 2017 in Sydney.
Invitation of a tea party conference in which several keen questions will be addressed regarding the fresh Pirate Bay decision. The IPKat's Eleonora Rosati is joining forces with Simmons&Simmons to organise a panel discussion devoted to analysing the judgment, as well as its significance for both EU copyright law and the policy discussion currently unfolding in Brussels.
GuestKat Rosie Burbidge (probably a fan of the big bang theory) analyzes the recent IPEC case, Jadebray & Noa and Nani v Clarke-Coles [2017] EWHC 1400 considered whether the Amazon’s use of ASINs could constitute trade mark infringement and passing off in certain circumstances.
Photo courtesy of Ms. Hua Zhang.
PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATE
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 150 [week ending on Sunday 4 June] BREAKING: German court makes two (very important) copyright references to the CJEU | Implausibly incredible or just plain insufficient? | Marks misleading the public on the paternity of copyright works are fraudulent - say French Supreme Court | Should the court be indifferent to consumer indifference regarding the mark? | ‘Display At Your Own Risk’: A Tour into ‘Copyright Surrogacy’ | To UPC or not to UPC? That is the question... (Part 1) | Book Review: Patents for Technology Transfer | Event Report: Combat the Copycats
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat Last Week!
Reviewed by Tian Lu
on
Wednesday, July 05, 2017
Rating:
Reviewed by Tian Lu
on
Wednesday, July 05, 2017
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[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)
![[UPCKat] UPC Court of Appeal confirms that opt-outs may be withdrawn for patents subject to pre-UPC national litigation](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpmrXJ0cC3SxOoivC5ULhM28pQmX9tykkfzReC-ZaHlNPANbFKM6qY-jGJUpJbI6VWkoJH2kL867Uqs-KAOosZHW-Voz25uAZwOw2RUO65FeTgLEbGFtTAq6tQ-9-uzLRW4oHj1EcMR2xqvSOVOXN2BSRYuMJvTGXub5Htcij5mAgo2HX2M90LXA/s72-c/cat%20opt%20out.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