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

The 192nd edition of Never Too Late invites the IPKat readers to revisit last week’s highlights.  


This year the World IP Day was celebrated by honouring female inventors and creators around the globe. InternKat Rose Hughes introduces some of the most outstanding female inventors of modern times: Celebrating female inventors on World IP Day!

Embracing the  theme of this year’s WIPD, Zoe Fuller (Bird & Bird) shares her impressions of the London Chapter of ChIPs' event "Women, Coding and the Future": Event Report: Women, Coding & the Future.


An opinion has been issued by the Advocate General regarding the communication to the public right provided by Article 3 (1) of the InfoSoc Directive. AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona concluded that the use of a photograph in case C-161/17  does not amount to an infringement. GuestKat Mirko Brüß provides his insights: AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona denies communication to the public in ‘Cordoba’ case.

Kat Eleonora Rosati brings the readers back to the seemingly unending Monkey Selfie case. Here, despite the out-of-court settlement, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that while an animal has constitutional standing, it lacks statutory standing to claim copyright infringement of the photographs known as the "Monkey Selfies", hence the US Copyright Act does not enable an animal to file a copyright infringement suits. BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules that Naruto has no standing under US Copyright Act

User Generated Content

GuestKat Nedim Malovic reviews a Transparency Report recently released by Google/Youtube. The report focuses on a sexual, spam or misleading, hateful, abusive, violent or repulsive content and Artificial Intelligence capabilities in an automated flagging thereof: YouTube’s new Transparency Report reveals centrality of automated notices and automated takedowns.


Ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement came as a major announcement in the UK patents world. GuestKat Eibhlin Vardy reports: BREAKING NEWS: UK ratifies UPC Agreement.

Another breaking story came from the CJEU, where Advocate General Wathelet handed down his opinion in the reference from Mr Justice Arnold in Teva v Gilead (C-121/17) concerning Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation. AmeriKat Annsley Merelle Ward provides a summary: BREAKING: "Specifically, precisely and individually identifiable", AG Wathelet adds to the Article 3(a) SPC Regulation wrangle.

Tristan Sherliker from Bird & Bird reports on the recent decision from the Beijing High Court in IWNCOMM v Sony, which has provided insights on how Chinese legal system interprets FRAND licensing obligations in telecoms cases and gives guidance on how to conduct FRAND negotiations, as well as addressing the issue of indirect infringement: A telecoms blockbuster: Beijing High Court upholds patent injunction in IWNCOMM v Sony.

No likelihood of confusion when it comes to cornet
Trade Marks

GuestKat Nedim Malovic reviews the saga of the EUTM “Bobo Cornet” figurative sign, The General Court carried out a visual, phonetic and conceptual analysis of the BOBO CORNET and OZMO CORNET signs and on that basis found no likelihood of confusion between the two marks. No likelihood of confusion between ‘Bobo Cornet’ and ‘Ozmo Cornet’, says the General Court.

Legal Remedies

Christopher Weber (Kather Augenstein) reports on the role of proportionality when granting an injunction in Germany: The Wundversorgung decision - proportionality and injunctive relief in Germany.

On the other side of the world, in China, an introduction of the punitive damages is on the horizon. Roya Ghafele (OxFirst) updates: China to adopt punitive damages for IP infringement – An economic commentary.

Fashion IP

What is the scope of effect of a competition law/antitrust law when fashion “piracy” takes place, but the IP laws do not necessarily provide effective relief? Kat Neil Wilkof recounts an attempt in the 1930's by the Fashion Originators Guild to engage in private collective action and the judicial push-back that ensued: When fashion sought to protect itself through private collective action: recalling the Fashion Originators Guild?

Weekly Roundups: Wednesday Whimsies, and Never Too Late.


Never Too Late 191 [week ending 22 April] Fearless Girl will be moved due to ... viability concerns | Fordham 2018 Report 1: Building Out the House - Music Licensing | Premaitha's strike out gamble fails before Carr J in new Illumnia patent battle | Poor reception for jurisdiction challenge to global FRAND licence relief | Boards bite back but need real teeth - Guest Contribution | What makes a family? Bridgestone opposition two tyred, fell flat | Public interest in Plant Variety Rights. How high is the bar for the grant of a compulsory license? | IT Law Summer School returns to beautiful Cambridge | BREAKING: German FCJ declares AdBlock Plus legal | Book review: Droit d’auteur 4.0 / Copyright 4.0 | From IP practitioner to murder mystery author: Roz Watkins and "The Devil's Dice" (a pity about that patent attorney in the opening scene) | Weekly Roundup: Around the IP Blogs!

Never Too Late 190 [week ending 15 April]  Swedish Patents and Market Court of Appeal says that an ISP may not be required to hand over information about subscribers’ IP addresses |  The EU copyright reform and the legacy of CJEU case law: lip service? | Rich writer, poor writer | Regeneron v Kymab - Part II: Interpretation and Infringement |  Facebook and music rights: the “not-so-heard-not-GDPR-related-news”. Will it be the new music global service? | Are viewers of on-line contents entitled to the truth? “Excellences & Perfections” and the saga of Amalia Ulman | What is the final destination of autonomous vehicles? | More than just a game - IP and interactive entertainment | The Danish Act on Trade Secrets has now been adopted | From IP practioner to murder mystery author: Roz Watkins and "The Devil's Dice" (a pity about that patent attorney in the opening scene) | Weekly Roundups: Monday Miscellany; Around the IP Blogs!; Friday Fantasies and Sunday Surprises

Never Too Late 189 [week ending 1 April]  It is the year 2050, and the last trademark litigator has retired | RETROMARK: A year of trade marks - Part 1: Costs after Cartier | Right of publicity not a right to control one's own image by censoring disagreeable portrayals, says appeals court in de Havilland case | EU Commission publishes paper on consequences of Brexit on copyright | Brexit 'cliff-edges' - Alliance for Intellectual Property paper | Del Toro and The Shape of a Lawsuit | Copyright, exceptions and cultural institutions: Australia is listening! | Google cannot hide behind its algorithms, German court finds | Does the InfoSoc Directive envisage digital exhaustion? Questions in the Tom Kabinet CJEU reference finalized (at last) | Court of Appeal, following EPO, reverses Carr J in Regeneron v Kymab dispute | Regeneron v Kymab - Part I: Sufficiency | How do you protect patents from judicial and expert hindsight? | 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!

Image Credits: Geoffrey Wiseman
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 Wednesday, May 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.