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

Take the opportunity provided by the holiday break to catch-up on all you may have missed on IPKat! Never Too Late 188 (week ending 25th March) is here with your Easter weekend summary. 


Keep up to speed with Chinese telecom litigation: Shenzhen court issues written judgment in Huawei v Samsung caseRichard Vary of Bird & Bird summarises the take home messages from the Shenzhen Intermediate court's written judgments in two standard-essential patent (SEP) infringement cases, filed by Huawei against Samsung. The court particularly addressed the issue of whether fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments bind affiliates in a group of companies. In their reasoning, the court at least partly followed the German approach by basing their decision to grant an injunction on the conduct of the parties during negotiations. 

The results of the preliminary examination (pre-EQE) for European Patent trainees were released last week. Even before release of the official mark scheme, the claim analysis section was the subject of considerable debate: Controversy looming for this year's pre-EQEThis Kat is aware that her reference to the exam as "multiple choice" has itself proved a point of contention: is a choice between true and false, multiple choice? Perhaps we can all agree that the paper is "binary choice", the question remaining whether binary is itself "multiple" (but surely there are in fact 3 choices, T, F and no answer..?). Perhaps an illustrative example of the complexities that can arise in the interpretation of words, and the consequent problems with reducing such analysis to a simple binary (or even multiple) choice exam format!

Easter Kat
Trade Marks

GuestKat Frantzeska looks into the recent Frank Industries vs Nike case concerning the alleged unauthorised use by Nike UK of the registered trademark LNDR (UK and EU mark) owned by Frank Industries (FI): Courts continue to struggle to find appropriate forms of injunctive relief when social media is involved: Frank Industries versus Nike. The case highlights the difficult task faced by the courts presented with a request for an interim injunction relating to use on social media: balancing protection of a registered trademark and the irreparable damage that might result from erasing social media threads in connection with the alleged infringer.  

Kat friend Simon Klopschinski, of rospatt osten pross, provides an in-depth analysis of a recent IP related arbitration case in the US, in which trademarks and licenses were sufficient to constitute an “investment” under Article 25 of the ICSID ConventionBridgestone v. PanamaInvestment disputes, trademarks and licenses, and ICSID tribunals-"Bridgestone v. Panama"

GuestKat Mathilde explores the potential issues of trade mark law in Marine Le Pen's recent announcement of the re-branding of the National Front (‘Front National’), including renaming of the party to ‘Rassemblement national’ (National Rally)Will trade mark law stop Marine Le Pen’s new campaign?


Kat friend Natasha Rao (Allen & Overy) provides an Event Report on this year's INTA Designs conference: Event Report: INTA Designs Conference 2018. Topics discussed included Harmonisation and Brexit, Global enforcement and anti-counterfeiting, Filing strategies, Global enforcement and anti-counterfeiting and Technology and the future of designs. 


Kat Eleonora reports the recent French court (Versailles Court of Appeal) decision relating to whether the unauthorized 'appropriation' of a substantial part of a photograph for use in a painting amounted to copyright infringement: French court finds appropriation of photograph not sufficiently 'transformative' and therefore infringingThe outcome of the case was in striking contrast to that of a recent Swedish case with a similar factual background, as also reported by IPKat last week: Swedish Supreme Court says that painting based on photograph is new and independent creation and hence … non-infringing.

GuestKat Mathlide reports on the 5 Pointz case over in the US: The 5 Pointz case: a response (on the risk of cultural gatekeeping in copyright), regarding the right to object to any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of works of ‘recognized stature’ (US Code, Title 17, §106). 

Following on from the introduction into Irish law of a copyright exception for text and data mining (TDM) (IPKat post), Kat Eleonora analyses the new law from an EU perspective, and particularly whether and to what extent national TDM exceptions having a different scope from an EU one, would survive the introduction of an EU exception: National and EU text and data mining exceptions: room for coexistence?

Holiday reading

For the copyright enthusiast, Booker reviewer Kat Hayleigh reviews two research handbooks on copyright law: Book Reviews: Research Handbooks on Copyright Law and History of Copyright Law

Katfriend Alex Mogyoros, a doctoral student at the University of Oxford, provides IPKat with a review of Jeffrey Belson's Certification and Collective Marks: Law and Practice: Book Review: Certification and Collective Marks.

Finally, don't miss IPKat's weekly tour of the IP blogosphere: Around the blogs!.


Never Too Late 187 [week ending 18 March] Irish Government proposes introduction of Irish text and data mining exception | Infighting at Nigeria’s main collecting society – Powers of the sector regulator | Unlawful street art used in a promotional campaign: H&M withdraws its complaint | General Court confirms that ‘La Mafia se sienta a la mesa’ cannot be a trade mark on public policy grounds | Nando's v Fernando's: Food for thought | Spanish Supreme Court puts an end to a “sui generis” case concerning database “sui generis” right |  The protection of genetic resources, traditional resources and folklore 35 meetings later… | Book review: ‘Rethinking Intellectual Property – Balancing Conflicts of Interest in the Constitutional Paradigm’ | Friday Fantasies

Never Too Late 186 [week ending 11 March] The best and the brightest: key UK and EU design decisions from 2017 | German design law on the brink of change following yesterday's CJEU decision in DOCERAM v CeramTec | Greece: new notice and take down administrative mechanism for online copyright cases now in force | A new type of authors' organization: an exclusive interview with the Executive Director of Authors Alliance | Can Mattel be prevented from making its own Frida Kahlo Barbie doll? | The 5 Pointz case: Should works of art be protected from destruction? | 9th Circuit ‘slam-dunks’ claim of copyright infringement by Nike photograph of Michael Jordan and ‘Jumpman’ logo | loses to German publisher and is found liable for damages | AIPPI UK Event Report: Registration, notice and infringement - is certainty an illusion? | L'Oréal v RN Ventures: exclusive licence registration and costs recovery | Eighth Granted Petition for Review | In Memoriam Trevor Baylis: the life-saving wind-up radio and the precarious lot of the sole inventor

Never Too Late 185 [week ending 4 March] Exclusive interview with Johanne Bélisle, Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office| Patents and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. What indications for the future on the basis of patent activity? | GuestPost: Is there really a problem with NPE litigation in Europe? |  Do patents and literature have something in common? | The 1st specialized IP Tribunal of Northwest China unveiled in Xi'an |  Sweet! (or not?): cookie-shaped cushions without trade mark owner's permission |  Sieckmann kicks in once again: when is a representation of a sign an acceptable representation for the sake of registration? | GUCCI as a well-known mark, with special attention to evidence, surveys, and unfair advantage | Book Review: Copyright User Rights, Contracts and The Erosion of Property

Never Too Late 184 [week ending 25 February] BREAKING: UK IPO launches technical consultation on draft regulations transposing the EU Trade Secrets Directive | Here we go again? Strong brands as a barrier to entry, this time from "The Economist" | UK IPO publishes consultation on implementing Trade Mark Directive 2015 into UK law | Top 10 issues from submissions before UK Supreme Court in Warner-Lambert v Actavis second medical use battle | EPO looking for new legally qualified members of the Boards of Appeal | Repair or reconstruction: Where do you draw the line for exhaustion under patent law? | L'Oreal v RN Ventures - The Registered Design Perspective | More than Just a Game: Music, video games, GDPR & technical protective measures” (Report 2 and Report 3) | German FCJ: doctors can have their profile deleted from rating site - but can they?

Author: Rose Hughes
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Rose Hughes on Saturday, March 31, 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.