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

Edition 178 of Never Too Late is here to recap last week’s highlights here on the IPKat (week ending 14th January)

The longstanding dispute relating to various issues over the use of the MERCK trade mark is set to continue  The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has remitted Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1834  case back to the High Court. The IPKat summarises the rationale applied by the Court of Appeal and outlines the bases for remitting the case.

Fashion law enthusiasts are invited to submit papers to the special fashion law issue of Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) by Monday, 14 May 2018.

Kat Neil Wilkof contemplates on the powerful collaborative effort between two psychologists - Kahneman and Tversky - which changed the way that psychology was understood. Neil also reflects on his personal angle to this story of collective genius and relationship. This is one instance in which joint contribution was exactly that, at least for a while.

Annsley Merelle Ward delves into the analysis of the French Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on sufficiency of disclosure, second medical use and dosage regime claims in the battle between MSD and Teva and Actavis concerning Propecia (finasteride).
IPKat Asian Correspondent Tian Lu provides a summary of the very first annual report from an e-commence giant in the area of IP protection. Inter alia, online fake goods, the role of data technology and law enforcement, and the offline battle are discussed in this report.

GuestKat Mirko Brüß takes the IPKat back the CJEU for yet another pending decision on the right of communication to the public. How does the analysis of the ‘new public’ criterion change when the alleged infringer not merely links to the copyrighted image and  embeds it on his homepage, but also makes its copy on the server of  it own website, which is then  made  available to the public?

IPKat enjoys going down the memory lane!
The Swedish Supreme Court has determined that domain names (‘’ and ‘’ in given case) must be viewed as a form of property and thus could be seized by the state when used as “tools” to aid and abet copyright infringement. But what are the potential implications of such decision? Does the possibility of forfeiture of domain names substantially empower the rights holders? Or do the blocking orders still remain the most efficient measure within the rights holders’ arsenal?

In the aftermath of bidding farewell to the US participation, Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) continues its negotiations over international IP regulation. The challenges that the CPTPP faces include the rapid development of technology and appropriate business models, substantial changes in the geography of IP (three Asian countries are now among the world’s top five patent filing states) and a shift in the negotiating forces (the US and EU do not dominate the game anymore). It remains to be seen whether a multilateral format for international negotiations will be the best way to tackle those challenges. Guest Kat Franczeska Papadopoulou argues that one size does not necessarily fit all.

Image credits: Dat NT


Never Too Late 177 [week ending 7 January] Unwired Planet American style in TCLv Ericsson | Supreme Court of India in Prius trade mark battle declare that evidence of reputation spillover must be explosive and Has the Indian Supreme Court Moved the Bad Faith Analysis to the Back Seat? | AIPPI Event Report: Unjustified threats - are you threatening me? | The ethics of Artificial Intelligence - the next step? | The IPKat team: arrivals, farewells, and news "Stars" on the football field; less so in the Trademark Office? | German ‘hate-speech’ law tries to regulate Facebook and others - will it work? | Brands and ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship? Brussels court in FN Herstal v Heckler & Koch wrestles with combination invention v mere aggregation of features | Brexit: requests to Govt from IP professional bodies | Street heart: urban murals as common goods | Have your say on the UK implementation of the EUPortability Regulation: public consultation now open!

Never Too Late 176 [week ending 31 December] Can the Buddhist notion of Bodhi be appropriated as a trademark? | Book Review: Intellectual Property in Australia | This Kat will be a JudgeKat and bids farewell | Congratulations to Sean Dennehey! | AIPPI Event Report: Are you sitting comfortably....? Patent Roundup 2017

Never Too Late 175 [week ending 24 December] Linking for profit, technical means and burden of proof - German BGH applies CJEU case law to Google’s Image Search | Release by IP Australia of draft of legislation for partial implementation of Federal Government's response to Productivity Commission final report | Rainier days ahead for Starbucks as it loses trade mark opposition in Singapore | Females and felines in intellectual property law | CJEU rules that ice cream sold as ‘Champagner Sorbet’ can be branded as ‘Champagne’ | A Kat's 2017 Copyright Awards

Never Too Late 174 [week ending 17 December] The first modern blockbuster IP merchandising campaign? Disney, Davy Crockett and the coonskin cap I UPC - update from UK on statutory instruments I The ILO rules reinstatement of Board of Appeal member, but EPO resists I INTA calling: The 2018 Ladas Memorial Award competition for paper on a trademark subject I R 0003/15: surprising interpretation of feature violates right to be heard I Germany: Bundespatentgericht annuls Nespresso capsule shape mark I Wind in the sails for atypical trade marks in the EU - graphical representation following the recent EUTM reforms I Coty, distribution agreements and luxury brands I Around the IP Blogs! I Monday Miscellany
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Ieva Giedrimaite on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 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.