Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week!

Too busy playing in the snow to want to keep up with the latest IP news? No problem! As always, the IPKat is here to bring you a quick summary -- the 173rd edition of Never Too Late (for week ending 10th December 2017).

Neil asks “Why do there seem to be so many willing purchasers of counterfeit goods?”
Snow Cat by orangeaurochs
He notes that, moral arguments, equating counterfeiting with stealing, do not seem to be very effective. Further, whilst the criminalizing counterfeiting may carry some weight, this only reaches only a small number of offenders. He considers Kasie Brill’s (executive director of the Global Brand Council for the U.S. Chamber's Global Innovation Property Center) ten suggestions for better consumer conduct. Brill’s approach focuses on the dangers of counterfeit goods for certain consumer products, such pharmaceuticals.

Katfriend Darren Meale (Simmons&Simmons) explains the joined Cases T-101/15 and T-102/15 Red Bull v EUIPO. The decision concerns two trade mark registrations for energy drinks for the colour combination blue and grey, with the marks’ descriptions as applied for. The EU General Court held that neither of Red bull’s registrations was valid, not on grounds of distinctiveness, but because they do not fit the requirements of a trade mark – as the marks were not sufficiently precise
Fellow blogger (1709 Blog) and attorney (Fidal), Marie-Andrée Weiss, explains the details of the new French geographical indication (GI) scheme for Limoges porcelain.

The Court of Justice of the European Union issued its decision in the matter of Coty Germany v Parfümerie Akzente. Coty Germany (a seller of luxury cosmetic goods) brought proceedings against Parfümerie Akzente (distributor) in order to prevent it from selling on the platform “”. The CJEU held that a selective distribution system for luxury goods, designed primarily to preserve the luxury image of those goods, does not breach the prohibition of agreements, decision and concerted practices laid down in EU law.

Continued reporting from on the 2017 AIPPI 2017 World Congress in Sydney, with a little help from our friend Daniel Lim (A&O). The panel session focused on the increasingly important topic of protection of partial designs, defined by the panel as being “parts(s) of a product less than the whole” – e.g. the handle of a pan (as opposed to the whole pan including the handle).

AusKat, Tom Reid (Accenture), is back with his final report from AIPPI's Congress in Sydney, this time on computer-implemented inventions and the work of AIPPI on this year's resolution.

Alex Woolgar (A&O) reports on the final session on a brand's use of social media to communicate their social responsibility initiatives, at the INTA Brand Authenticity Conference. The final session of the conference dealt with the use of social media to communicate on CSR issues. Claus Eckhartt of Bardehle Pagenberg moderated a panel of Adam Garfunkel of Junxion and Michelle Mancino Marsh of Arent Fox.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has kindly informed us that they are looking to commission research around exhaustion of rights. This work will encompass multiple research projects with the current proposals looking at: the role of price differentials, sector specific impacts and enforcement impacts.

Mr Justice Arnold referred two questions to the CJEU on the SPC Regulation in Merck Sharp & Dohme v Comptroller-General of Patents [2016] EWHC 1896 in July 2017. AmeriKat looks at the Court of Justice of the European Union response to Arnold J's questions in Case C-567/16 which held that an end of procedure notice does not amount to a granted marketing authorization for purposes of Article 3(b). 

Kat friend Adar Ortal reports on the case of Habitat Ltd. and Avraham Majerowicz vs. CAFOM Habitat International S.A et al. The District Court of Tel Aviv ruled that the trademark HABITAT, registered in Israel in multiple classes more than 40 years ago by a local furniture and house ware retailer, should be cancelled on the ground that it was registered in bad faith, since it was done with the knowledge that HABITAT was an "international mark" that enjoyed "international goodwill." 

The EU Justice Sub-Committee of the House of Lords' EU Committee will consider enforcement and dispute resolution post-Brexit as part of an inquiry launched Wednesday.  The inquiry will focus on whether there is a continuing role of the CJEU post-Brexit and how EU law will be dealt with in national courts.  Written comments are due by Friday, 19 January 2018.


Never Too Late 172 [Week ending 26 November] EMA relocation: and the winner is...Amsterdam! I In memoriam: Azzedine Alaïa, the King of Cling (and what it tells us about the fashion industry) I Athens Court of Appeal applies CJEU GS Media linking decision and interprets 'profit-making intention' restrictively I Damages awarded for the ‘loss of opportunity’ to commercialise photographs following infringement ILost their marbles? When can you register a geographical name as a trade mark? Mermeren v Fox ISir Robin Jacob calls for System 2 thinking for patent law I Florence court prohibits unauthorized commercial use of David's image I Thursday Thingies [Week ending 3 December] Clash of the beer pongs - Breakthrough Funding Ltd v Nearby Media Ltd I WTO establishes panel to examine Qatar’s complaint against UAE I What's next for trade marks in the UK and EU? Report on JIPLP/GRUR trade mark conference I BREAKING: CJEU rules in that the making available of copies of TV programmes saved in the cloud must be authorised by rights owner I The VCAST decision: how to turn a private copying case into a case about communication/making available to the public I France: patent infringers can be ‘named and shamed’…within reason I BGH rules on international jurisdiction of German courts in EU trade mark cases I EU Commission sets middle course for SEP licensing in Europe I Judge Hacon’s 10 (+ 1) commandments on joint authorship under UK copyright law. I UK House of Commons committee progresses final stages of UPC ratification I INTA Brand Authenticity Conference (Report 1): Building brand value via ethical and sustainable credentials; INTA Brand Authenticity Conference (Report 2): Building brand value via ethical and sustainable credentials and INTA Brand Authenticity Conference (Report 3): Building brand value via ethical and sustainable credentials I Now available!: English translation of Dutch Supreme Court decision in MSD v Teva highlights UK Supreme Court's Actavis decision I Student essays: how to write a good piece? I Around the IP Blogs!

Never Too Late 171 [week ending Sunday 12 November]  Düsseldorf Court of Appeal in SISVEL v Haier publishes "guidebook" to SEP litigation under Huawei/ZTE | Swiss Supreme Court weighs in on K = Na | Beware the special requirements of software protection in Brazil | The protection of vehicles using trade marks and registered designs - London Taxis vs Scooters |  Who is going to win the big EU Commission SEP licensing battle - "use-based" or "licence to all"? | Is TRIPS preventing vulnerable countries from accessing basic drugs? The case of South Africa |  The New Intellectual Property of Health | Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment | When the cutting edge technology passes you over: The "winner takes it all" (and it ain't your home town) | Can a film be released without mention of the name of its director? | Saturday Sundries | [week ending Sunday 19 November] Birss J in Accord v Research Corporation Technologies attempts to cut the red tape on the right to claim priority | Looking for answers on ANSERA | Speech from European Judges Forum: But Sir Robin, let's be frank, we will put (just to be short), in Milan the Central Court... | Special interview with Patricia Kelly, Director General of IP Australia | "Intellectual Property Arrangements: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report" | "Australian Government Response to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements" | When public domain works meet trade mark law: Norwegian Industrial Property Office applies EFTA Court’s judgment and dismisses applications to register Vigeland’s artworks as trademarks | Event report: The private copying exception and the compensation of harm in a dematerialised environment | How far away is global trade secrets protection? US industry's call to action as EUIPO analyzes baseline data | IPIB: How competitive is your IP service firm? | Erasing Kevin Spacey: performers' rights to the rescue? | Around the IP Blogs! | Sunday Surprises
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 Thursday, December 21, 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.