Around the IP Blogs!

IPKat has been busy web-crawling over the past week and is delighted to bring its readers a roundup of the most exciting IP posts.


Northwestern University, Pritzker Law School, has released three databases on technology standards and standard-setting organisations. The databases are available free of charge for all academic researchers. IP Finance reports: Northwestern Releases Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations Databases and Congratulations to Dr. Roya Ghafele!

The traditional rule of assignor estoppel prevents prior owners of a patent from later challenging the validity of the patent. In Arista Networks case, the Federal Circuit was faced with the question of whether assignor estoppel applies to prevent an assignor from later challenging a patent in an inter partes review proceeding. Resting its analysis on the statutory language, the Court ruled that assignor estoppel finds no basis in the AIA. PatentlyO review is available here: Inventors Can Challenge their Own Patents – But Only at the PTAB.


On Thursday, the Australian Parliament passed the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement)  Act 2018, which extends Australia’s site-blocking regime to cover search engines such as Google. It also makes a range of other amendments to the existing site-blocking regime. Katfriend Fiona Phillips (Fiona Phillips Law), who has previously wrote to IPKat about the intended reform, now announces the done deal on her FP LAW blog.

The 1709 Blog recaps the Balenciaga America case, where the luxury fashion house is being sued in the Southern District of New York for having allegedly copied the designs of a New York souvenir manufacturer. Plaintiff has recently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a seizure order of seizure; defendant has raised the following defences: the high legal standard for a preliminary injunction has not been reached; the non-protectability    of the subject matter and the applicability of fair use. See full analysis here: Looking Further Under the Airbrushed Hoodie.

Trade Marks

Wajos GmbH filed a 3D mark consisting of a glass container. Both the EUIPO’s examination division and Board of Appeal (BOA) held that the mark was a mere combination of non-distinctive components not differing from other amphora-like containers available on the market and consequently it was not eligible for registration. The General Court reversed, holding that the BOA had assessed the (lack of) distinctive character of the mark on the basis of an erroneous perception of the characteristics and nature of the trademark applied for. Specifically, the Court decided that the combination of the elements constituting the mark applied for gave the container in question a particular appearance, which differs from that of traditional amphorae that are not normally made of glass. Kluwer Trade Mark Blog’s case analysis is available here: Amphorae are not made of glass: really?


Kluwer Copyright Blog offers an analysis of the EU Withdrawal Agreement through the perspective of IPR regulation, which presents no surprises, but provides more detail, much of which was foreshadowed in the “no deal” Technical Notices published a few weeks ago (IPKat discussed them here, here, here and here).  In connection with the overview of regime applicable to specific rights, jurisdiction provisions, rights exhaustion, transitional period of a unitary patent and … (naturally) Northern Ireland: IP and the draft Brexit Agreement: no surprises (except maybe in Northern Ireland?)

Image Credits: THE FASHION LAW
Around the IP Blogs! Around the IP Blogs! Reviewed by Ieva Giedrimaite on Monday, December 03, 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.