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

Missed last week’s IP highlights from around the globe? Do not worry, the 181st edition of Never Too Late comes to the rescue!

Feeding the inner genius!
Book review: ‘Copyright and Information Privacy: Conflicting Rights in Balance’. GuestKat Mathilde Pavis takes IP Kat readers through a new book which discusses the regulation of file-sharing in the United States, Canada and Italy to examine its impact on the privacy rights of internet users.

In A legislative initiative that merits attention: Mandatory mediation in Greece in trademark, patent and industrial designs infringement disputes, Kat friend Marina Perraki described an interesting legislative initiative in Greece, which seeks to make mediation mandatory with respect to a wide spectrum of IP disputes.

Austria refers Facebook ‘Hate-Speech’ case to the CJEU: GuestKat Mirko Brüß reflects on a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from the Austrian Supreme Court for clarification on the scope of Art. 15 (I) of the E-Commerce Directive and the host provider privilege.

Kat Eleonora Rosati shares her insights about the case of 'Maasai IP' and a broader trend towards the recognition of certain ethnic groups' elements of identity as deserving of legal recognition in Protection of traditional knowledge and cultural expressions: the case of 'Maasai IP'.

A spectrum of specificity - Article 3(a) of SPC Regulation: Reference to the CJEU from the English Court of Appeal in a case [2018] EWCA Civ 49 seeks to ascertain whether a compound that is represented by a Markush formula in a patent claim, but not identified elsewhere in the patent specification, is a product "protected by a basic patent" for the purposes of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation.

In Can ‘public morals’ prevent the use of religious symbols and motifs in advertising? No, says the European Court of Human Rights: Kat Eleonora Rosati discusses the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision in Sekmadienis v Lithuania, which clarifies the relationship between freedom of commercial expression and the vague notion of “public morals”.

Can an internet service provider be held liable for infringing activities of its subscribers? What mental state is required to establish the requisite intent for contributory copyright infringement: actual knowledge, willful blindness or negligence? GuestKat Mirko Brüß reports on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision in BMG v Cox - when does an ISP lose its safe harbour protection?, which addresses these questions.

In Embrace my beloved frog, as a guardian, IP Kat Asia Correspondent Tian Lu explains the phenomenon of a “frog baby” game in China.


Never Too Late 180 [week ending 28 January] EPO revokes CRISPR patent – a clear cut case of invalid priority?|Blocking injunctions and their costs: some details of the forthcoming Supreme Court round of Cartier | When does copyright protection arise in works of applied art and industrial models and designs? A new CJEU reference | Trial sequence in SEP litigation - time for a rejig? | Bad faith confirmed for ALEXANDER trade mark application? | Is a circular logo for coffee confusingly similar to the Starbucks’ one? Yes, says the General Court | Fine-tuning the SPC Regulation; a never-ending story?

Never Too Late 179 [week ending 21 January] Scents and trade marks - The EU reform of olfactory marks and advances in odour recognition techniques| French government claims back « » (as trade mark and domain name) | Swedish Patents and Market Court of Appeal requests CJEU to clarify notion of ‘shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods’| New presidency of the Council of the European Union ... new position on the EU copyright reform? | Image rights and the unauthorized use of one's own portrait on cigarette packs| Presentation of information: Is the EPO stretching the line for patentable subject-matter, again? | Prosecution history - as relevant as any inventor evidence?".

Never Too Late 178 [week ending 14 January] A Merck-y appeal is remitted to the High Court | Into fashion law? Here's a call for papers for JIPLP special fashion law issue | When two minds became one (at least for a while): the collaborative genius of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky | French Supreme Court in Finasteride second-medical use litigation acknowledges patentability of dosage regime claims | Alibaba released the 2017 Annual Report on Intellectual Property Protection | Córdoba - The CJEU to re-visit the Right of Communication to the Public | Swedish Supreme Court confirms that domain names constitute property that can be seized by the state | Multilateralism v Bilateralism: What’s in it for international IP regulation?

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 EU Portability Regulation: public consultation now open!

Image credits: Mariana Kajlich
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 Monday, February 12, 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.