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

Catch-up with the latest developments in IP, with the 200th edition of Never Too Late! This week's highlights include a report on algorithmic fashion and a perspective on the KitKat shape-mark case. 

GuestKat Mirko Brüß reports on the latest referral from the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) to the CJEU, on the questions of platform liability and the right of communication to the public. The case, which has been going on since 2009, concerns a lawsuit between the music producer Frank Peterson and YouTube (and Google). Peterson is seeking damages from YouTube and Google because certain videos remained available on YouTube, even after Peterson had asked the platform to remove the content: BREAKING: FCJ refers case regarding YouTube’s liability for damages to the CJEU.

Kat Eleonora Rosati explores the growing trend for fashion houses to produce garments that consumers already want, so called "algorithmic fashion". Eleonora considers how this is achieved and the potential IP issues that may be involved: Fashion, algorithms, and copyright: is it all about what we want or rather what we didn't know we want?

Intrigued by algorithmic fashion
GuestKat Rosie Burbidge considers the potential sticky consequences for EU trade marks of the CJEU's ruling on the four fingered KitKat shape mark (Joined Cases C‑84/17 P, C‑85/17 P and C‑95/17 P). Particularly, what does the opinion mean for acquired distinctiveness in the EU, in view of the The General Court and the Advocate General’s favoured approach, whereby sufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness through use is required for every Member State. Rosie asks what this may mean in practice: Time for a break - catching up with KitKat

200 Kats
GuestKat Mathilde Pavis reviews the The Economics of Open Access – on the Future of Academic Publishing, by Thomas Eger and Marc Scheufen. The book analyses the impact of ‘open access’ on the academic publishing market world-wide. The study is partly based on a data set of over 10,000 responses from 25 different countries, documenting scholars’ views on open access policies and how they engage with them in practice. The book concludes that, on the whole, open access policies are supported by the vast majority of academics: Book review: The Economics of Open Access – on the Future of Academic Publishing.


Never Too Late 199 [Week ending 9 Sep] What does a no deal Brexit mean for trade marks and designs? | Copyright and tattoos: where are we now? | Swedish Supreme Court to rule on damages relating to online copyright | CJEU back in ‘Hot Water’ – when are infringing goods being ‘offered’? | A bagel is a bagel is a bagel, and a pita is a pita is a pita: but is a bialy a cebularz?

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! if you missed the IPKat last week! Never too late! if you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Rose Hughes on Friday, September 28, 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.