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

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 158th edition of Never Too Late.

Expert tactic!


Over time, “communication to the public” seems to have become an increasingly complex, yet not clearly defined concept. What a delight then to read a road map! Thanks to IPKat Eleonora Rosati for bringing the simplified chart presenting the concept based on the most recent decisions of the CJEU. More IP materials can be found via Eleonora’s IP website here


Sometimes marketing/trade mark strategy can be hard to comprehend ... News said that Coca-Cola is about to launch in the US a successor to Coca-Cola Zero under the name Coca-Cola Zero Sugar, which baffled IPKat Neil Wilkof, the Coke fan. 


Via Katfriend Darren Meale comes the news that, together with Royal Bank of Scotland’s IP Legal Counsel Mark Cruickshank, he is organising a roundtable on Brexit specifically focused on brand owners in the financial services industry.


Former Intern Kat Eleanor Wilson attended the CREATe's inaugural seminar on the issue of openness in science, culture, and everything between. The relevancy of the topics considered warrant publishing Eleanor's summary of the event. 


On July 27, Germany's Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) referred a new copyright case to the Court of Justice of the European Union: I ZR 228/15 - Reformistischer Aufbruch – see the report brought by IPKat Eleonora Rosati.


IPKat Eleonora Rosati, timely as always, summarises the recent opinion of Advocate General in Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, C‑230/16 [the Opinion has already received a thorough and interesting commentary by leading competition law blog Chillin’Competition].


“An emerging theme in economics of innovation is the recognition that our standard definition of innovation is restrictive and generally ignores innovation occurring outside the boundaries of businesses.” – IPKat Nicola Searle reviews G.M. Peter Swann’s book “Common Innovation: How We Create the Wealth of Nations”, in which the author seeks to further those arguments, by delving into common innovation, which he defines as “innovation carried out by ‘the common man and woman’ for their own benefit”.


At the end of June the EPO published a notice stating from 1 July 2017 plants and animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process will no longer be patentable. Gemma Barrett (Bristows) explains what this means.


Further to the blog post above, Kat friend Florica Rus considers issues raised as a result of these amendments.

Copyright protection of minimalist furniture design

Mark Schweizer reports on the recent decision made by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court clarifying the requirements for the "individual character" of (super) minimalist furniture design. 


Attention foodie and an IP enthusiast! InternKat Hayleigh Bosher brings two GI-related developments in the UK and New Zealand. Grab your wine!


Guest Kat Mathilde Pavis discusses the decade-long trade mark dispute between two wine-making companies -- will the latest court decision be indeed the finale of the dispute? 


The 10th Anniversary EIPTN Conference (sponsored by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the European Patent Office) took place at the University of Lund in Sweden at the end of June. Dr Jane Denoncourt (Chair EIPTN, Conference Convenor and Senior Lecturer at Nottingham Law School) reports on the event. 

Around the IP Blogs

InternKats Cecilia Sbrolli and Tian Lu surfed about the IP blogosphere and returned with some very interesting articles for readers’ digestion and rumination.


Photo courtesy of Wang Ti.

PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATE

Never Too Late 157 [week ending Sunday 23 July] | Sky v SkyKick - no CJEU reference re removal of own name defence to EUTMs | An improved improver? UK Supreme Court moves towards a UK Doctrine of Equivalents in Lilly pemetrexed battle? | An improved Improver? Part 2 | It may be use, but is it trade mark use? | The protection of TV formats: an Italian mock trial | What can the possible implications of the CJEU Pirate Bay decision be? A new paper | In memoriam of Kenneth Jay Lane: "My designs are all original"; "original from someone" | French Commercial Tribunal : clarity in paternity is key 

Never Too Late 156 [week ending Sunday 16 July] A film is a film is a film: at Cannes, it's not that simple | BGH grants compulsory license in preliminary proceedings | An improved Improver? UK Supreme Court moves towards a UK Doctrine of Equivalents in Lilly pemetrexed battle | The Smoking Gun - Is IP research the next tobacco scandal? | the special world of pesticide products, counterfeits and parallel imports | New CJEU reference ... asking whether InfoSoc Directive envisages digital exhaustion | Freedom of panorama in Italy: does it exist? | Can Crowdsourcing Solve the Orphan Works Problem? | the EU IPO Observatory study finds trade secrets rule the roost over patents in Europe | Mock (culinary) trial at INTA 2017 | Weetabix in New Zealand Customs dispute over local rival Weet-bix 

Never Too Late 155 [week ending Sunday 9 July] First application of the parody exception in Canadian law - long live Deckmyn!| "Big Box" not found generic or lacking distinctive character, but still .... | Changes to the Singapore copyright system: an update on the recent public consultations | he diplomatic crisis of Qatar and Gulf Cooperation Council's IP | Bundesgerichtshof's landmark ruling to hook extra-territorial patent infringement in Germany | BREAKING: Eli Lilly success as UK Supreme Court finds Actavis products directly and indirectly infringe pemetrexed patent | Monday Miscellany | Sunday Surprises

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: If you missed the IPKat Last Week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat Last Week! Reviewed by Tian Lu on Thursday, August 10, 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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.