Our usual web tour,
bringing you IP news and perspectives across the spectrum from last
week!
First stop on our tour is
Norway. Probably a disappointing and shocking one for Marie Schrader
to hear (this one for Breaking Bad fans, see here), Norway:
PURPLE HAZE; Norwegian courts rule that purple is not perceived as a
trade mark for inhalers, reported by Thomas Hvammen Nicholson of
the Kluwer Trademark Blog. And by the way, UltraViolet has been was as the colour of the year, by the Pantone Colour Institute.
Next,
a plunge into UK's law, Mark Henderson of IPDraughts asks the
question When
is an exclusive licence not an exclusive licence? In his post he
provides a short guide to clients' questions on the subject together
with the bench's take in case Oxford
Nanopore Technologies Ltd & Anor v Pacific Biosciences of
California, Inc & Anor [2017]
EWHC 3190 (Pat).
 |
| Kat on a search to find Ultra Violet |
Then,
a jump on the Trans-Siberian train to stop first in Russia which recently ratified the Hague Agreement. The Marques Blog gave more details
on the ratification here.
Next halt is in China where the Beijing
IP Court delivers the first judgment on GUI design infringement in
China, as reported by Yangjin Li of the TrustinIP Blog.
On other news, Rita Matulionyte of the Kluwer Copyright Blog discusses Australia’sRecent Copyright Reform and Prospects for 2018, in particular the
Copyright Amendment (Disabilities and Other Measures) Act 2017,
implementing the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement and the
Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017.
Lastly,
two different aspects of sharing content online: Mike Mireles of IP
finance in KODAK
BACK: Plugging Leaks in the Marketplace for Digital Photos,
discussing the new platform put into place by Kodak to track and
licence digital content online; and Liz Dowthwaite of CREAte
discussing her research on how creators of free content are able to
monetise on their work online in Research
Blog Series: Monetising Free Content.
Around the IP Blogs!
Reviewed by Cecilia Sbrolli
on
Monday, January 29, 2018
Rating:
Reviewed by Cecilia Sbrolli
on
Monday, January 29, 2018
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