Monday Miscellany

EUIPO: The IP metro

The Intellectual Property Metro: the EUIPO has prepared a handy map to have a everything you need to know regarding the structure and content of the main IP rights right in front of you. Download this map – it will help you register and know your rights.

«The private copying exception and the compensation of harm in a dematerialised environment: challenges and opportunities ». Oct. 16, 2017.

Conference organised by AUVIBEL, under the chairmanship of Professor Frank Gotzen, 
KU Leuven and with the collaboration of &DE BANDT Attorneys

AUVIBEL is very pleased to invite you to a conference that it is organising. Law, economy and technology are often considered to be incompatible. In an increasingly digitalised environment, the mission of AUVIBEL should however be examined from a multidisciplinary perspective. To that end AUVIBEL proposes to analyse the scope of the private copying exception simultaneously from a legal, economic and technological perspective. 

The conference will take place in the Palace of the Academies in Brussels and offer participants the opportunity to attend the presentations of specialists in these areas and to interact with them. The written contributions of the keynote speakers will be available at the conference. The afternoon shall be concluded with a cocktail offered by AUVIBEL. 

See the full details here.

CIPA calls on IPReg to reduce fees by 10 per cent following huge rise in staff costs

CIPA is calling on the intellectual property regulator to conduct a full review of practice fees with a view to reducing them by 10 per cent, after criticising a huge rise in staff costs over the past five years.

CIPA welcomes the announcement from IPReg that it does not intend to increase practice fees in 2018, but believes that this does not go far enough.

Dr Tony Rollins, President of CIPA said: “There has been an increase in IPReg’s staff costs of almost 300% since 2013 and CIPA finds this totally unacceptable.

“Staffing has increased at an average cost of £53,000 a year, from £150,000 in 2013 to a proposed £423,000 in 2018, without any proper justification for this.”

IPReg proposes to increase its staff costs by £83k in 2018 and has recruited two senior roles – a Chief Executive and a Head of Registration – following the resignation of its founding Chief Executive, Ann Wright, this summer.

Dr Rollins said: “CIPA sees no justification for the new Head of Registration post and received no detailed explanation for it, despite making our opposition clear in our two previous meetings with IPReg.

“CIPA believes that, if IPReg believes that this post is essential, it should be funded through cost savings made elsewhere.”

From the surpluses it generates in each financial year, IPReg has generated a reserve of sufficient size to safeguard the organisation.

CIPA believes that it would be possible to reduce practice fees by 10 per cent and has made suggestions to IPReg as to how this might be achieved through efficiency savings, such as outsourcing aspects of regulation.

CIPA is therefore calling for a full review of the practice fees payable by patent and trade mark attorneys and takes the view that the appointment of two senior roles should be funded by efficiency savings and not through the historic surplus.
Whether you are an avid reader, a talented writer, or both, Edward Edgar Publishing will treat you with its new Interactive Entertainment Law Review, edited by Dr Gaetano Dimita, Professor Jon Festinger and Dr Marc Mimler. The bi-annual journal is a peer-reviewed hub for scholarly articles concerning all areas of the law revolving around interactive entertainment. If you wish to contribute with a paper, more information can be found here.

AssimilateIP, a specialist in providing IP training for businesses and industry, will be holding on 23 October and 27 November three training sessions, on Introduction to Intellectual Property, Freedom to Operate and Freedom to Operate for the Life Sciences and Pharmaceutical Industries. Here you can find more information on these training sessions and also how to register. AssimilateIP kindly offers IPKat readers a 10% discount on its registration fees!

Flying to the Mexican Altoplano, this year's IP Statistics for Decision Makers (IPSDM) conference will be held in Mexico City at the Camino Real Polanco on 14 and 15 November. The conference will center on empirical evidence based in IP statistics and analysis. Registration closes on 18 October; for more information on the event as well as registration,, here.

Climbing on Uluru, IP Australia has launched an open consultation on five topics (Amending inventive step requirements for Australian patents, introducing an objects clause into the Patents Act 1990, amending the provisions for Crown use of patents and designs; amending the provisions for compulsory licensing of patents and introducing divisional applications for international trade marks). There is a paper on each topic and the public is invited to respond by written submission to the questions listed on the papers by Friday 17 November.

Closing off in Brussels, the Institute for Law and the Web (ILAWS) at the University of Southampton, UK curated a debate on Better regulation for copyright: Academics meet Policy Makers, held at the European Parliament in Brussels on 6 September last. The debate was articulated in three panels-- neighbouring rights for publishers, platform liability and copyright on data. Here you will find more information as well as the link to download of the full debate!

And... to end the week with news that will glue your eyes to the screen, there is an ongoing IP dispute between two Gorillas in San Francisco. They are not conventional hirsute gorillas, but a glue and acannabis companies that share the same commercial name. It would seem that success of marijuana brand can lead to sticky trademark lawsuits!

Monday Miscellany Monday Miscellany Reviewed by Tian Lu on Monday, October 09, 2017 Rating: 5


  1. I love the Intellectual Property Metro, but why does a Trade Mark end up in the Public Domain? Should there not be a small closed circuit with a cycle of, say, 10 years, for some of them?
    George Brock-Nannestad

  2. In contrast to George B-N, I find the graphic over-simplisitc in its attempt to imply that the main IP rights travel on tracks of the same gauge. Just a glance at the Copyright Line demonstrates my point. Apart the first station (which I assume is meant to represent 'fixation' - not sure "formalize" is a good word in view of what Berne has to say about formalities), none of the intermediate stations actually need to be called at, yet the right goes to the end of the line, which is rather out of scale by comparison with the other 'lines'. And of course if the Copyright train does call at some of those stations, a host of new copyright trains may be magically created, each with its own separate duration: performance right, sound-recording right, publication right and so on. The same cannot be said of most of the other IP rights which largely revolve around licensing as their main alternative means of exploitation, aside from the main track in each case.

    And no mention of the Hammersmith and City Line of IP rights, Database Right!

  3. ...And why does the trade mark line expire, and why does the patent line not 'renew', and why does it seem harder to register a TM than have a patent granted (EUIPO?), and...
    This is a nice idea but it seems very poorly executed.

  4. Hello,

    is anyone participating in the conference about private copying organised by Auvibel? Since I figured out that it will be mainly held in Dutch and French it will not be worth going for me, but I would be very interested to hear something about it. So if anyone is going and wants to share her/his opinion, I would be very glad.

  5. Hi MGS, our InternKat Cecilia will attend and report back.

  6. Hello Eleonora,

    that is nice to hear. Looking forward to the report. Thanks for the quick response.


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.