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

Catch-up on IPKat with the latest edition of Never Too Late! Highlights this week include the Louboutin red sole mark decision, a curious declaration on the EP register and a decision from the UK Supreme Court on payment of the implementation costs of an injunction. 

Trade marks

The big news this week was the CJEU ruling on whether the Louboutin red sole mark is a valid trade mark or not? BREAKING: CJEU rules that Louboutin red sole mark does NOT fall within absolute ground for refusalKat Eleonora Rosati has followed this case through all its twists and turns, from the first opinion (IPKat report hereand the variously interpreted second opinion of the Advocate General (AG) Szpunar (IPKat reports here and here). Stay-tuned for a detailed analysis of the judgement once this becomes available. 


Attentive observers of the EP patent register caught sight of a puzzling declaration fleetingly present on the file of The Broad Institute's recently revoked CRISPR patent EP2771468The Broad's CRISPR patent: The curious case of the missing declaration. In a high-profile decision earlier this year, the EPO revoked the patent during opposition for invalid priority (IPKat post here). 

The Regeneron v Kymab battle continues in the UK courts. Earlier this year, IPKat reported on the UK Court of Appeal decision that Regeneron's patents for its highly valuable Velcoimmune mouse platform for antibody therapeutics (EP1360287 and EP2264163), were sufficient and infringed by Kymab (IPKat posts here and here). Following continued disagreement between the parties, the Court of Appeal has now issued its judgment on the form of order: Kymouse's stay of execution


AmeriKat provides a round-up of the must-attend IP events of the summer: The AmeriKat's Top 3 upcoming IP summer events.

Ready for the summer social calendar

Kat Eleonora Rosati reported on UK Supreme Court ruling that the ISPs (internet access providers) in a case do not have to bear the costs of implementation of blocking injunction issued against them pursuant to section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA), requiring them to block access to a number of websites making available for sale goods infringing trade mark rights: BREAKING: UK Supreme Court rules that ISPs do NOT have to pay implementation costs in Cartier caseThe Supreme Court decision overturned decisions at first instance (IPKat report here and here) and on appeal (IPKat report here).

Property versus Public Interest

Kat Neil Wilkof explores the competing interests surrounding the illuminated Christian manuscripts of the Garima Gospels. Is the public interest of scholarly access at odds with the original purpose of housing the Gospel's in their current home? Who should control the 1500-year old monastery manuscript of the Garima Gospels?

Amendment to Mexican Industrial Property Law

Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo summaries the recent amendment to Mexican Industrial Property Law, particularly with regards to appellations of origin (AOs) and geographical indications: Mexican GIs and the registry of foreign GIs and AOs

Weekly Roundup: Around the IP Blogs!


Never Too Late 197 [Week ending 10 June] The IPKat is turning 15 ... and is inviting you to the birthday party! | Prison labor: a boon to greater patenting? | DeepMind: First major AI patent filings revealed | An Apology to the Machine | Report: EPO conference - Patenting Artificial Intelligence | Respect of family life cannot be abused to trump copyright protection, says AG Szpunar | Dutch court rules that for-profit provision of links to unlicensed content is an infringement | CJEU confirms differential treatment of what amounts to unfair advantage for well-known trade marks in its KENZO Guest Post: NDAs & NNNs in China.ESTATE/KENZO judgment | Tails of a Cybersquat Claiming Grumpy Cat and an IP Licence | 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: if you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Rose Hughes on Wednesday, June 27, 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.