Around the IP Blogs!

Another busy week in the IP blog world! If you didn’t have enough time to even take a Katnap and require an update on recent IP news, here’s an overview of (some of) last week’s IP blog posts!


The Nirvana Smiley Logo to the left and
Marc Jacobs' design on the right
IPWatchDog reports on the lawsuit filed by Nirvana (if you need help remembering this particular band, they have hit songs such as: Smells Like Kat’s Spirit) against clothing designer Marc Jacobs, as well as fashion retailers Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, over the use of Nirvana’s smiley face logo on the designer’s clothing. IPWatchDog debates whether there exists a likelihood of confusion, taking the concluding stance that there was an intent to trade off the Nirvana brand as the marks are extremely similar and the marketing includes references to Nirvana songs.

IP Debate analyses the effect of the recent ratification of The Beijing Treaty on the film industry with respect to audio-visual performance and moral rights, taking a comparative look at France, UK, and the US compliance with 6bis of the Berne Convention and how The Beijing Treaty could impact on all this. Undoubtedly the contracts between performers and productions companies will be massively impacted as the Treaty shifts weight to the performers.

Trade marks

The Stanley Cup also makes
for a good Kat bowl
The Trademark Blog reports on the National Hockey League’s (NHL) decision to take action against The Hockey Cup LLC for selling a Stanley Cup-shaped drinking stein. They claim that the latter infringes the trade dress of their own replica Stanley Cup trophies, charms, etc, sold on their online store. Despite the Stanley Cup being used as a drinking device (during celebrations), the NHL did manage to defend their claims and defeated the motion to dismiss.

Patently-O reports on the USPTO’s refusal to grant the application to register the trade mark “FUCT” by Erik Brunetti. The decision with was overturned by the Federal Court on appeal, has now been petitioned for a Supreme Court review. Surprisingly, Brunetti did not oppose the petition but has asked the Supreme Court to address an additional question. This Kat is interested to see whether the court addresses both questions or just the one proposed by the Government.


EPLaw comments on the case between AstraZeneca and Sandoz regarding 2 of AstraZeneca’s patents and Sandoz’s marketing of its generic solution. Originally the District Court invalidated AstraZeneca’s patents due to lack of an inventive step. However, the Court of Appeal of The Hague confirmed the validity of AstraZeneca’s patent and ruled that Sandoz had infringed these patents through the marketing of its generic solution for injection in a prefilled syringe.


IP Draughts in a two-part blog has drafted a proposed set of standard contract terms for IP assignments and licences. These draft terms are influenced by the default terms that exist for sale of goods contracts (i.e. the UK’s Sale of Goods Act 1979). The idea behind these terms would be to avoid the need to continually include these terms in licensing agreements to address the issues made by vague national law.

Image Credits: TMZ; IMGUR

Around the IP Blogs! Around the IP Blogs! Reviewed by Tosshan Ramgolam on Wednesday, January 23, 2019 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.