IPKat is once again here with your weekly tour of the IP blogs! Highlights this week include a decision on the Scottish-ness of the term "Glen", a summary of the Apple v Samsung US design case and further adjustments to the 2018 pre-EQE answer script.
Patents
Earlier this year, IPKat reported on this years controversy over the pre-EQE (IPKat post here). The Salted Patent blog reports that several candidates who appealed their result for the exam have been successful, and that three answers in the Examiners' Report have been amended: Pre-Exam 2018 - congratulations to those with ambiguous answers.
IPwatchdog consider the reported disappearance of the famous "don't be evil" mantra from Google's code of conduct: Google Changes Its Code of Conduct After Years of Being Evil Towards Patent Owners.
Trade marks
In March of this year, IPKat reported on the Glen Buchenbach trade mark case (here). In summary, The Scotch Whisky Association (TSWA) took offense at the use of the term "Glen" in the name of the German produced whiskey. The TSWA sued the producers of Glen Buchenbach on the grounds that ‘Glen’ infringes the registered geographical indication ‘Scotch Whisky’, in breach of Article 16 (a) - (c) of the Regulation No 110/2008 regarding the definition, description, presentation, labelling and protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks. The District Court of Hamburg referred a number of questions to the CJEU, in view of the fact that past cases decided by the CJEU involved product names or descriptions that included (part of) the protected geographical indication, whereas there was no similarity between the disputed designation (‘Glen’) and the protected geographical indication (‘Scotch Whisky’). Marques Class 46 reports on the judgement now issued by the CJEU: Scottish Glens, German Whisky and the question: Are you befuddled?
Brazil has made further steps towards participation of the Madrid Protocol. IPTango reports on the meeting between the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) and WIPO officials at INPI headquarters: Brazil and the Madrid Protocol: are they nearly there?
Afro-IP considers the legal aspects of vehicular shapes in South Africa, and particularly how the law of shape trade marks is applied: "I see a boat on a river" - The copyright of vehicular shapes.
The Fourth Board of Appeal (BoA) of the EUIPO has once again been told off by the General Court (GC). Particularly, the GC recently ruled that the BoA was not competent to rule upon the question of genuine use of its own motion in inter partes proceedings, if this was not subject matter of the proceedings. The Kluwer Trademark Blog has the full story: Competent or not competent? That’s the question…
Designs
Michael Risch of Written Description provides a neat summary of the Apple v Samsung US design case, and predicts that Samsung is unlikely to win on appeal: A Couple Thoughts on Apple v. Samsung (part ?100?)
Author: Rose Hughes
Patents
Earlier this year, IPKat reported on this years controversy over the pre-EQE (IPKat post here). The Salted Patent blog reports that several candidates who appealed their result for the exam have been successful, and that three answers in the Examiners' Report have been amended: Pre-Exam 2018 - congratulations to those with ambiguous answers.
IPwatchdog consider the reported disappearance of the famous "don't be evil" mantra from Google's code of conduct: Google Changes Its Code of Conduct After Years of Being Evil Towards Patent Owners.
Trade marks
 |
| Schottisch Whisky? |
 |
| Scottish Fold Kat |
Afro-IP considers the legal aspects of vehicular shapes in South Africa, and particularly how the law of shape trade marks is applied: "I see a boat on a river" - The copyright of vehicular shapes.
The Fourth Board of Appeal (BoA) of the EUIPO has once again been told off by the General Court (GC). Particularly, the GC recently ruled that the BoA was not competent to rule upon the question of genuine use of its own motion in inter partes proceedings, if this was not subject matter of the proceedings. The Kluwer Trademark Blog has the full story: Competent or not competent? That’s the question…
Designs
Michael Risch of Written Description provides a neat summary of the Apple v Samsung US design case, and predicts that Samsung is unlikely to win on appeal: A Couple Thoughts on Apple v. Samsung (part ?100?)
Author: Rose Hughes
Around the IP blogs!
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Monday, June 18, 2018
Rating:
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Monday, June 18, 2018
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
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