The 192nd
edition of Never Too Late invites the IPKat readers to revisit last week’s
highlights.
WIPD
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.
Copyright
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.
Patents
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.
PREVIOUSLY ON 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!
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Ieva Giedrimaite
on
Wednesday, May 09, 2018
Rating:
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html