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

The 197th edition of Never Too Late is out. Plenty exciting headlines, including an invitation to IPKat’s birthday feast, a busy buzz around Artificial Intelligence, a couple of new releases from the CJEU quarters and more!


Same time this week IPKat will be celebrating the best of its teen age years and invites the IP community to join the festivities: The IPKat is turning 15 ... and is inviting you to the birthday party!


Kat Neil Wilkof discusses an article published by Michael Poyker, which explores how convict labour may lead to greater innovation and patenting: Prison labor: a boon to greater patenting?

Intern Kat Rose Hughes dives deep into  the  artificial intelligence (AI) universe to review a series of recently published international patent applications filed by DeepMind: DeepMind: First major AI patent filings revealed

Katfriend Gwilym Roberts of Kilburn & Strode provides an insight into the ethical dilemmas that arise in the AI patenting area. Is AI “just a new technology” or a “supersoftware”? What happens when The Machine starts inventing itself? An Apology to the Machine

On 30 May 2018, the EPO held a ‘first of its kind’ conference on ‘Patenting Artificial Intelligence’. Katfriend Olga Gurgula (Lecturer in Law at Aston Law School and Visiting Fellow at Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford) was on hand to report back to the IPKat readers: Report: EPO conference - Patenting Artificial Intelligence

Midsummer Kat

Kat Eleonora Rosati reports on the  Advocate General’s Opinion in Bastei Lübbe C-149/17, which  considers whether it is compatible with EU law to provide that the owner of an internet connection, through which copyright infringements have been committed, may escape liability  by indicating, without the need to provide any further details, that a family member has also had access to such connection. Respect of family life cannot be abused to trump copyright protection, says AG Szpunar

The District Court of Limburg (in Maastricht, The Netherlands) addressed whether making available streams to unlicensed content (where the IPTV subscription fee is paid) amount to an infringement of copyright/related rights. The judgment (in Dutch) is available here. Kat Eleonora Rosati discusses: Dutch court rules that for-profit provision of links to unlicensed content is an infringement

Trade Marks

GuestKat Nedim Malovic reviews a recent CJEU judgment vis-à-vis the KENZO ESTATE mark. The court relied on the reasoning of C-408/01, Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux  to  conclude that while registration of a contested mark could not be prevented for mass-consumed foodstuffs that are bought in any local shop (the goods falling within Classes 29 to 31),  the same would not be true for the other specifications,  because  use of the word ‘KENZO’ would be tantamount to riding on the coat-tails of KENZO’s prestige and repute: CJEU confirms differential treatment of what amounts to unfair advantage for well-known trade marks in its KENZO ESTATE/KENZO judgment


Book Review Editor Hayleigh Bosher reports on a recent judgement in a US cybersquatting case known as the Grumpy Cat case, which revolved around the scope of the licence agreement. Tails of a Cybersquat Claiming Grumpy Cat and an IP Licence

IP Protection

Hejab Azam, a copyrighter from PatSnap, provides her insights about protecting IP in China via a non-disclosure agreement or an NNN agreement (non-use, non-disclosure and non-circumvention): Guest Post: NDAs & NNNs in China.

Weekly Roundup: Never Too Late


Never Too Late 196 [week ending 3 June] European Commission proposes Regulation to limit SPC protection with "export manufacturing waiver" | Paparazzi & copyright: where are we and where should we be? | When Norway's oil giant Statoil announced a rebranding, it was not "horsing" around | Report on IPO’s 2018 European Practice Committee Conference (2/2) | Yes Virginia, there is IP practice outside of London: a special interview | Conceptualizing Copyright Exceptions in China and South Africa | Contentious Trade Mark Registry Proceedings | Friday Fantasies | Around the IP Blogs!

Never Too Late 195 [week ending on 27 May] Coreper agrees common position on text of draft DSM Directive | Sleepwalking towards a perpetual (news?) publishers’ right in online publications |  German Court: TV show may not use ‘bloopers’ from other network without permission |  US Congress considers extending copyright term | Swedish ISP Telenor will voluntary block The Pirate Bay | You don't think that street names matter: Try telling your grandchildren that your fancy office is on "Crustacean Street" | Stay of injunction in public interest: Edwards Lifesciences v Boston | Intermediaries and IP: 5 key principles of EU law | When is a decision on its merits not over? When Sky v SkyKick leaves rightsholders in limbo | The Intellectual Property Owners Association | Report on IPO’s 2018 European Practice Committee Conference (1/2) |  Book review: Propertizing European Copyright – History, Challenges and Opportunities |  GDPR notification | Thursday Thingies | Around the IP Blogs.

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

Image credits: Otoko Jennings

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 Monday, June 25, 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.