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

The 207th edition of Never Too Late is here! Highlights this week include further commentary on Warner-Lambert v Actavis, an IPO report on design infringement and a curious case of lexical transformation...

Byron the Christmas Kat

IPKat was delighted to host an analysis by Adrian Aronsson-Storrier (University of Reading) on the topic of contractual override of new mandatory exceptions in the draft Directive on copyright in the Digital Single MarketContractual override and the new exceptions in the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Proposal.

Kat Eleonora Rosati considers the recent interim decision in the Venice courts that acknowledged copyright protection in the design of a yacht (RG 2236/2018): Venice court tackles copyright protection for architectural works as applied to yachts.

The Marrakesh Treaty is a WIPO-administered convention seeking to facilitate “the production and international transfer of specially-adapted books for people with blindness or visual impairment”. GuestKat Mathilde Pavis reports on the initiation of proceedings for infringement by the European Commission against 17 (out of 28) Member States for non-compliance with the Directive (Directive (EU) 2017/1564) requiring the transposition into national law of the Marrakesh Treaty: Marrakesh Treaty is no paper tiger: EU Commission sues 17 countries for non-compliance

In the wake of the experts’ report recently delivered to President Emmanuel Macron urging France to give back Africa's cultural heritage, Mathilde also considers the relevance of the report to IP and whether the "decolonization" should also apply digital cultural heritage: Give Africa its cultural heritage back … But keep its digital cultural heritage?


Kat Neil reflects on the lexical transformation of the “troll” from stock character in Scandinavian mythology (and plastic dolls with bright colored up-combed hair...) into a staple of contemporary IP discourse, not once but twice: The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling"

Kat Troll Doll
IPKat provided further depth commentary on Warner-Lambert v Actavis, delving into the detail on plausibility (No pain, no gain: Plausibility in Warner-Lambert v Actavis) and infringement (Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis).

Trade marks

GuestKat Nedim Malovic reports on the decision of the EU General Court on whether the EU word mark SPINNING for exercise equipment and training is generic: Is SPINNING generic? EU General Court explains how the relevant assessment is to be undertaken

Nedim also highlights an interesting decision from the UK High Court concerning determination of the law applicable to an online trade mark infringement: High Court employs ‘intention to target’ approach to determine application of EU/UK law in online trade mark infringement case.


GuestKat Rosie Burbidge summarizes the key findings and recommendations in the recently published government report on design infringement. The report covers both unregistered and registered designs and includes the key (but unsurprising?) finding that unregistered design rights are more commonly litigated and have a much higher success rate than registered designs: There's a new IPO report on designs infringement - game-changer or stating the obvious?

Weekly round-ups: Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week!Thursday Thunders

by Rose Hughes


Never Too Late 206 [Weeks ending 18 and 25 Nov] BREAKING: CJEU says NO to copyright in the taste of a cheese | The Levola Hengelo CJEU decision: ambiguities, uncertainties ... and more questions | Enforcing copyright in government documents? Not as uncommon as one might think | Linda Nochlin, "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists"? Relevant as ever, controversial as ever, | Buyers beware! …You may owe re-sale right royalties | BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court unanimously dismisses Warner-Lambert's painful Lyrica appeal | Why is this Kat laughing (hint: it's all about his blue shirt)? | AIPPI Rapid Response event - Unwired Planet (Court of Appeal decision) | Take your seat at the Bench: an evening with the IP/tech judges | General Court annuls Delegated Regulation 665/2013 on energy labelling of vacuum cleaners | Book review: Artist, Authorship & Legacy: A Reader | Book review: Cross-Border Copyright Licensing: Law and Practice

Never Too Late 205 [Weeks ending 4 and 11 Nov] Chinese Supreme Court: hoarding trade marks in bad faith falls within scope of “illegitimate means” | 3-second cinematic sequence sufficiently distinctive to be a trade mark, says EUIPO Fifth Board of Appeal | 'Winter Is Coming' vs 'Sanctions Are Coming': a 'trademark misuse' also in languages other than Dothraki? | Auctioning Art(ificial Intelligence): The IP implications of Edmond de Belamy | Report from 2018Annual Meeting of the European Policy for Intellectual Property Association | The drumbeat gets louder: is anti-competitive conduct trumping innovation as the foundation for high tech dominance? | Criminal conviction over disparaging religious doctrines not a violation of freedom of expression: potential IP implications of the latest ECtHR ruling | Event Report: Trade Mark Conference 2018 | What can be the main events in the life of a copyright work in Europe? Here's another map | Complicating designs: whither the EU reforms, and what impact will Brexit have? | Book Review: Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names | Thursday Thingies | Around the IP Blogs

Never Too Late 20[Week ending 28 Oct] Court of Appeal reaffirms UK as SEP litigation hotspot in upholding Birss J in Unwired Planet | Much Ado About FRAND: What you need to know about today's Court of Appeal Unwired Planet decision | AIPPI UK Rapid Response Event: Unwired Planet v Huawei - 13 November at 6PM | Lord Kitchin applies the "markedly different" infringement approach in Actavis v Eli Lilly in Icescape v Ice-World | AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that copyright cannot subsist in military report in important fundamental rights case | Australia considers reform of its website blocking regime, including possibility to target search engines and new types of injunctions | Swedish Court orders ISP to block access to The Pirate Bay and other Torrent sites | What's your party drink? - Asolo v Red Bull | Questioning the trade mark judges

Never Too Late 203 [Weeks ending 14 and 21 Oct] Does FEYONCÉ blur BEYONCÉ's distinctiveness? | Why pay more? What "opaque hotel inventory" teaches us about brands and search costs. | Swatch versus Apple: If you "Tick different" does that mean that you "THINK DIFFERENT"? | Argos goes to the Court of Appeal but leaves empty handed | Retromark Volume IV: the last six months in trade marks | World Food Day! Patentable foods: The "Impossible" and the eggless | Advertisement distributed by Swedish ISP held to be sexually discriminatory | Italian Supreme Court holds that an unauthorized derivative work may be both infringing and protectable | CJEU weighs on liability of owner of internet connection used to infringe copyright | GCC diplomaticcrisis update: Qatar’s new request for consultation with Saudi to address IPviolations | Brexit and Brands Part 4 | Blockchain and intellectual property - where are we now and what does the future have in store? | Special interview with Mariana Karepova, the President of the Austrian Patent Office | ChIPs Global Summit Report 1: Politics and Technology - When D.C. met Silicon Valley | Book review: Kritika - Essays on Intellectual Property (vol 3) | Tuesday Tiddlywinks
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, December 19, 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.