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

Catch-up with IPKat this week! Highlights include more on the DSM Directive, an event report on IPO's 2018 European Practice Committee Conference and, of course, IPKat's GDPR update. 


Last week, the Council’s permanent representatives committee (Coreper) finally agreed a common position on the text of the draft Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive). Kat Eleonora Rosati summarizes the key points and most notable elements of the textCoreper agrees common position on text of draft DSM Directive. Last week IPKat was also delighted to host a guest post from Professor Lionel Bently (University of Cambridge) on the state of the debate around the proposed EU press publishers’ right: Sleepwalking towards a perpetual (news?) publishers’ right in online publications.

Sleepwalking Kat

In Germany, GuestKat Mirko Brüß reports on a recent judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne that short video clips taken from other networks' TV shows for entertainment purposes are not permissible as a parody or a quotation and thus need to be licensed: German Court: TV show may not use ‘bloopers’ from other network without permission.

GuestKat Hayleigh Bosher reports on the news of a Bill put before the US Congress that extends copyright protection for sound recordings (that were fixed before 1972) until 2067: US Congress considers extending copyright term

GuestKat Nedim Malovic reports on the development in Sweden that internet service provider (ISP) Telenor, which has long fought against site-blocking in Sweden, will voluntarily begin blocking The Pirate Bay. Telenor's decision follows the landmark ruling of the Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal last year ordering Swedish ISP, Bredbandsbolaget (B2) to block access to The Pirate Bay and Swefilmer: Swedish ISP Telenor will voluntary block The Pirate Bay.

Kat Neil Wilkof wonders whether, in an age where image is (nearly) everything, the name of the street can have an economic and reputational effect on the parties involved, following the recent relocation of a notable local law firm to a street which, in English, translates as “Crustacean Street”: You don't think that street names matter: Try telling your grandchildren that your fancy office is on "Crustacean Street"

Pill Bug

GuestKat Eibhlin Vardy analyses the recent case in the UK patent court concerning the stay of an injunction in the public interest: Stay of injunction in public interest: Edwards Lifesciences v Boston.

Intermediary injunctions

Kat Eleonora Rosati discusses intermediary injunctions in EU IP law for IP rights, as provided by the InfoSoc Directive (Art 8(3)), for copyright, and the Enforcement Directive (Art 11, third sentence) for other IP rights: Intermediaries and IP: 5 key principles of EU law.

Trade marks

Kat friend Jake Campbell (TLT) shares with IPKat his thoughts on the recent case in the UK Patent Court of FIL Ltd & Anor v Fidelis Underwriting Ltd & Ors, and reflects on why the shadow cast by Mr Justice Arnold's reference to the CJEU in Sky v SkyKick clouds the result: When is a decision on its merits not over? When Sky v SkyKick leaves rightsholders in limbo.

Event Report

Asia Correspondent Tian Liu provides her first report on The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)'s 2018 European Practice Committee Conference in Amsterdam: Report on IPO’s 2018 European Practice Committee Conference (1/2). Covered in the first installment: "Current legislative and juridical trends in the US" and "The present and future of discovery and trade secrets". 

Book review

GuestKat Mathilde Pavis reviews Caterina Sganga's new book considering the question well-known to intellectual property lawyers: is copyright a property right? Book review: Propertizing European Copyright – History, Challenges and Opportunities

GDPR update

Not to be left out of the GPDR party, IPKat provides its own update for subscribers to the blog: GDPR notification.

Weekly roundups: Thursday Thingies, Around the IP Blogs!

Image credits: Sleepwalking - GIPHY
Amsterdam - Shovy Rahman

Author: Rose Hughes


Never Too Late 194 [weeks ending 13th and 20th May] Important amendments under Mexican law regarding patents, utility models and industrial designs | Decoding the Scope of Patent Protection: Singapore after Eli Lilly v. Actavis |  Can YouTube be primarily liable for users' infringements? | De Gaulle’s manuscripts: ‘public archives’ and ‘public domain’ – same difference in France? | When the movie drives the book (wait a minute, there is no movie yet) | The Royal Wedding and Intellectual Property Rights... Relax! | Doctor! Doctor! My trade mark opposition has been dismissed! | Retromark Volume III: the last six months in trade marks | An IPSOC Q&A with Mr Justice Birss | The EU Commission proposes new whistle-blowing rules: should IP and trade secret holders tremble? | Around the IP Blogs | Thursday Thingies | Friday Fantasies

Never Too Late 193 [week ending 6 May] The 18th World IP Day: A good day in China for J’adore Dior  | European Pharma Law Academy returns to beautiful Cambridge | Monday Miscellany | Around the IP Blogs! |When it comes to IP enforcement, Chinese IP maths: 3 + 15 = more than 18? | Swedish court holds that Google can be only ordered to undertake limited delisting in right to be forgotten cases | Book review: You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v MGA Entertainment Exposed Barbie’s Dark Side | Book Review: Patent Pledges Global Perspectives on Patent Law’s Private Ordering Frontier

Never Too Late 192 [week ending 29 April] Celebrating female inventors on World IP Day | Event report: Women, Coding & The Future | AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona denies communication to the public in ‘Cordoba’ case | BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules that Naruto has no standing under US Copyright Act | BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules that Naruto has no standing under US Copyright Act |  BREAKING NEWS: UK ratifies UPC Agreement | BREAKING: "Specifically, precisely and individually identifiable", AG Wathelet adds to the Article 3(a) SPC Regulation wrangle |  A telecoms blockbuster: Beijing High Court upholds patent injunction in IWNCOMM v Sony | No likelihood of confusion between ‘Bobo Cornet’ and ‘Ozmo Cornet’, says the General Court | The Wundversorgung decision - proportionality and injunctive relief in Germany | China to adopt punitive damages for IP infringement – An economic commentary | When fashion sought to protect itself through private collective action: recalling the Fashion Originators Guild

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: if you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Rose Hughes on Monday, June 04, 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.