Been away and want to catch up with the recent IP news? No problem! As always, the IPKat is here to bring you a quick summary -- the 174th edition of Never Too Late.
“With less than 10 shopping days to Christmas, it is worth taking a Kat’s eye retrospective of what may have been the first big-time modern IP merchandising campaign.” – In this holiday season, IPKat’s own Neil Wilkof shares his earliest memory of craving a holiday gift, in the mid-1950’s, when America was awash with Davy Crockett mania.
Guest Kat Eibhlin Vardy provides a quick update from the UK on the outstanding legislation that will enable the UK to ratify the UPC Agreement.
Merpel discusses the recent major development in the saga of the suspension of the member of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, which, however, still has failed to bring the affair to a conclusion.
For Kat readers with an academic bent: INTA is currently accepting submissions of original papers on trademark law or a matter that directly relates to, or affects, trademarks for its 2018 Ladas Memorial Award competition. INTA’s Ladas Memorial Award is an annual international competition that is open to both students and professionals.
In R 0003/15 of 28 November 2017 the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal found the right to be heard of the patentee infringed, annulled the Technical Board's decision and sent the case back for re-hearing. Kat Mark Schweizer recaps the rather surprising interpretation, and would like to thank KatFriend Heiko Sendrowski for the news alert.
Kat Mark Schweizer discusses George Clooney and his “what else?” coffee the recent news that the German Federal Patent Court found Nestlé's German shape mark in the form of a "Nespresso" capsule invalid for coffee: the essential characteristics of the mark conformed to (the drawings of...) German patent DE 27 52 733 (with a priority of 1976) and were all essential to obtain a technical result.
Roberto A. Jacchia and Giulia Beneduci (De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani in Milan) contribute a guest post, in which they share some interesting thoughts on non-traditional trade marks and the impact of recent EU trade mark reforms.
A few days ago the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued the much-awaited decision Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, C-230/16. Want to know the essentials of the case? See the summery made by InternKat Cecilia Sbrolli.
And the weekly routines, Around the IP Blogs! and Monday Miscellany.
Photo courtesy of Qi-cheng.
PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never Too Late 173 [Week ending Sunday 10 December] Why is it so difficult to the make the case against counterfeiting (or does it just seem so)? | The Red Bull colours: no trade mark registration for indeterminate colour combination | Limoges porcelain now protected by French GI scheme | BREAKING NEWS - CJEU holds that preserving luxury image of products in selective distribution agreements is not contrary to competition law | AIPPI Congress Report 15: Partial Designs: Full Protection? | AIPPI Congress Report 16: Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions | INTA Brand Authenticity Conference (Report 4): Brands, social media and CSR | Commissioned research opportunity - exhaustion of rights | BREAKING: CJEU holds that SPCs cannot be obtained on the basis of an "end of procedure notice" pursuant to Article 3(b) SPC Regulation | You snooze (for 40 years) you lose – HABITAT mark (un)enforced in bad faith | Role of CJEU post-Brexit to be considered by House of Lords inquiry
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!
Reviewed by Tian Lu
on
Monday, December 25, 2017
Rating:
Reviewed by Tian Lu
on
Monday, December 25, 2017
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[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)
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