Never too late! if you missed the IPKat last week!

With the Autumn term now in full swing, catch-up with IPKat courtesy of the 199th edition of Never Too Late! This week we have an update on one of IPKat's favorite topics, copyright and tattoos, as well as a timely discussion on the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on community IP rights. 

Feeling the Autumn chill

With 6 months to go to the withdrawal date of the UK from the European Union, GuestKat Rosie Burbidge asks what a no deal Brexit would mean for community IP rights, and provides some practical advice for the concerned IP owner: What does a no deal Brexit mean for trade marks and designs?


The IPKat has long been fascinated with the intricacies of copyright law as applied to tattoos. Merpel herself once considered getting a tattoo, but decided against the idea, in view of the various IP and cultural issues (IPKat post here). Kat Eleonora now provides an update on copyright and tattoos, in particular litigation in a scenario where the owner of the body (clearly a tangible medium) on which the tattoo is affixed is not also the owner of the copyright in the work (the tattoo): Copyright and tattoos: where are we now?

GuestKat Nedim Malovic charts the progress of a copyright case in Sweden. In 2017 four men were sentenced by Linköping District Court to jail for their role in running and operating the torrent websites Dreamfilm, PirateHub, TFplay, and Tankafetast. The defendants unsuccessfully appealed the case to the Court of Appeal, on the grounds that since the content available on the platforms was already available on other platforms, it had not been made available to a new public. Two of the defendants have now appealed the case to the Swedish Supreme Court: Swedish Supreme Court to rule on damages relating to online copyright infringement

Trade marks

In 2015, IPKat reported on the CJEU ruling that the exclusive licencee of the DAVIDOFF HOT WATER registered EU trade mark for the Coty perfume, could request the personal details of a bank account’s owner after the bank account had been used for selling trade mark infringing products on eBay (IPKat post here). GuestKat Mirko Brüß now reports on the return of the HOT WATER trade mark to the CJEU, once again following a referral from the FCJ (case No I ZR 20/17). The FCJ seeks clarification as to whether it would overstretch the limits of liability to hold Amazon accountable for infringing goods that are stocked for Amazon Marketplace vendors without any knowledge of the infringing nature on Amazon’s side: CJEU back in ‘Hot Water’ – when are infringing goods being ‘offered’?

Kitten perfume
Kat Neil Wilkof considers the issue of generic names and trade marks, by way of a brief history of Polish breads. Do you know your bialy from your cebularz? A bagel is a bagel is a bagel, and a pita is a pita is a pita: but is a bialy a cebularz? 

Author: Rose Hughes


Never Too Late 198 BREAKING: CJEU rules that Louboutin red sole mark does NOT fall within absolute ground for refusal | The Broad's CRISPR patent: The curious case of the missing declaration | Kymouse's stay of execution | The AmeriKat's Top 3 upcoming IP summer events | BREAKING: UK Supreme Court rules that ISPs do NOT have to pay implementation costs in Cartier case | who should control the 1500-year old monastery manuscript of the Garima Gospels? | Mexican GIs and the registry of foreign GIs and AOs | 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 Tuesday, September 18, 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.