Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat Last Week!

The IPKat's usual round up of posts is in its 189th edition

It is the year 2050, and the last trademark litigator has retired is the beginning of an intriguing piece of IP fiction by the pen of Kat Neil. What happens to the litigator? Read more to find out!
2050: A Kat's Odyssey
Kat friend Elisabetta Elia attended the Simmons & Simmons Retromark event and kindly reported on it for us: RETROMARK: A year of trade marks - Part 1: Costs after Cartier is the first leg of the series!
Olivia de Havilland, the actress most remembered for her interpretations in movies such as Gone with the Wind and To Each His Own, did not particularly appreciate her portrayal in in a TV miniseries called Feud: Bette and Joan. However, as reported by Kat Eleonora, the Right of publicity not a right to control one's own image by censoring disagreeable portrayals, says appeals court in de Havilland case, basing its decision on First Amendment protection.
This week, there have been important news on Brexit concerning copyright as the EU Commission publishes paper on consequences of Brexit on copyright. Kat Eleonora gives us a concise summary of the paper.
Olivia de Havilland and her silver screen counterpart
Following on the Brexit paper, another paper followed: Brexit 'cliff-edges' - Alliance for Intellectual Property paper. Guest Kat Eibhlin comments on the publication, which expressly aims to avoid ‘kite-flying’ and ‘wolf-crying’, identifies 5 IP specific risks presented by Brexit and a series of “asks”.
If you have been intrigued by this year’s Oscar Best Picture winner, you will be even more mesmerized by the lawsuit that followed. In Del Toro and The Shape of a Lawsuit TechieKat Verónica goes down to frame detail.
Copyright, exceptions and cultural institutions: Australia is listening! As reported by Guest Kat Mathilde, the Australian government, following the 'Productivity Report' published in 2017 has now opened a consultation on copyright exceptions and how to best negotiate copyright in the cultural sector. The consultaition is open until 4 June 2018.

Google cannot hide behind its algorithms, German court finds: the Higher Regional Court of Cologne issued an interesting judgement concerning Google and its duty of care with regards its code. Guest Kat Mirko comments on the case.

Does the InfoSoc Directive envisage digital exhaustion? Questions in the Tom Kabinet CJEU reference finalized (at last) and brought to us by Kat Eleonora.

The AmeriKat reports that the Court of Appeal, following EPO, reverses Carr J in Regeneron v Kymab dispute and also providing a summary of English law in sufficiency.  Intern Kat Rose commented on the case, focussing especially on the sufficiency aspect in Regeneron v Kymab - Part I: Sufficiency. Stay tuned for Part II!  
How do you protect patents from judicial and expert hindsight? This and other questions were analysed during the seminar "Inventive Step in the UK and Use of Experts in Patent Litigation", as reported by Katfriend Rachel Mumby.

Weekly Roundups: Monday Miscellany


Never Too Late 188 [week ending 25 March]  Shenzhen court issues written judgment in Huawei v Samsung case | Controversy looming for this year's pre-EQE | Courts continue to struggle to find appropriate forms of injunctive relief when social media is involved: Frank Industries versus Nike | Investment disputes, trademarks and licences, and ICSID tribunals-"Bridgestone v. Panama| Will trade mark law stop Marine Le Pen's new campaign? | Eventt Report: INTA Designs Conference 2018 | French court finds appropriation of photograph not sufficiently 'transformative' and therefore infringing | Swedish Supreme Court says that painting based on photograph is new and independent creation and hence...non-infringing | The 5 Pointz case: a response (on the risk of cultural gatekeeping in copyright) | National and EU text and data mining exceptions: room for coexistence? | Book Reviexs: Research Handbooks on Copyright Law and History of Copyright Law | Book Review: Certification and Collective Marks | Weekly Roundups: Around the IP 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: if you missed the IPKat Last Week! Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat Last Week! Reviewed by Cecilia Sbrolli on Monday, April 09, 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.