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

The latest edition of never too late is here! 

Trade marks

GuestKat Nedim Malovic reported on the EUIPO Board of Appeal decision to allow registration of the Barcadi bottle as an EU trade mark, under  Class 33 (Alcoholic beverages except beers) of the Nice Classification: EUIPO Fourth Board of Appeal allows registration of Bacardi bottle as an EUTM. Another interesting decision from the Fourth Board of Appeal concerned a trade mark found to conflict with Beats figurative EU trade marks: Beats secures trade mark victory with EUIPO Fourth Board of Appeal. Nedim also reported on the complex and challenging path to registration at the US Copyright Office for the logo of American Airlines: Thanks to higher resolution image, American Airlines has eventually managed to register its logo with the US Copyright Office.
Howie is all ears for the latest trade mark news

Kat Elenora provided commentary on the decision by the Singapore IP Office on whether a trader can prevent other traders from registering a trade mark which includes the word “LOVE” for use on jewellery? You can't buy love ... nor can you prevent others from using it in their trade marks.

Kat friend Adar Bengom summarised the Israel Supreme Court's decision on the HABITAT trade mark: The HABITAT mark (and co-habitation): Part II.

The UK High Court appeal of the successful application by EasyGroup to revoke two trade marks for non-use, was reviewed by GuestKat Rosie Burbidge: Trade mark classes are not Nice and easy.


GuestKat Hayleigh Bosher followed up on a previous post about an ongoing case in the UK against Ed Sheeran, in relation to his song "Shape of You", with commentary on Sheeren's alleged copyright in the US of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On": Lets Get It On...Trial - Another Copyright Infringement Case for Ed Sheeran.

Following on from IPKat's frequent reports of IP disputes in the fashion industry, GuestKat Rosie Burbidge comments on Nirvana's decision to commence proceedings in California for copyright infringement against designer Marc Jacobs: Smells like IP infringement?

Regulation of medicinal products

GuestKat Frantzeska Papadopoulou explored the issue of the regulation of orphan drugs in the context of the General Court decision on an action brought by Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma (BMS) against the Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the case T‑329/16: Orphan Drugs, a successful regulation after all? Or just about to experience its pitfalls? 

IP courts in China

Asia correspondent Tian Lu reported on the establishment of the the '3+17 IP Judicial System' in China: At last, the sun rises: China will establish the National IP Appeals Court in 2019.

Another excuse for a photo of
a chocolate British Shorthair...

IPKat readers were given a seasonal treat of choco-tech in Choco-tech: A Christmas Selection Box.

Book review

GuestKat Mathilde Pavis reviewed “Law, Art and The Commons”,  in which Merima Bruncevic “explores the possibility of constructing a legal concept of the cultural commons”: Book review: Law, Art and The Commons.

Round-up postsSunday SurprisesNever Too Late


Never Too Late 210 [Week ending 23 Dec] Time to celebrate: IPKat remains the most popular IP blog and the most popular copyright blog of all time! | Substance or device - a distinction without a difference? | Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Is the thirty-eight session going to be the lucky one? | The Opinion of the Advocate General in the case C-443/17 (Abraxis case). A lost case for second medical indication SPCs? | German Court prohibits sale of certain iPhone models | In math we trust – China cyberspace writers’ village joins judicial blockchain platform | A Kat's 2018 Copyright Awards | CJEU rules that warehouse storage of counterfeits due for sale falls within scope of distribution right | Why is this Kat laughing once again (hint: it's all about another blue shirt in his wardrobe)? | Brent takes a tumble, trade marks invalidated for being descriptive

Never Too Late 209 [Week ending 16 Dec] BREAKING: AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that unlicensed sampling MAY be a copyright infringement and German free use may be contrary to EU law | The AG Opinion in Metall auf Metall: it's not a fundamental rights violation to say that sampling requires a licence | AG Hogan advises CJEU to rule that German press publishers' right is unenforceable | EU Copyright Reform, Fundamental Rights & Life as CJEU Judge at the ERA Copyright Conference | Building a Long Term Brand Protection solution - the Lego story [Part 3] | Whole visible surface or predominant colour? Cadbury's plays spot the series mark | Trade marks: the limits to a MONSTER’s reach in Singapth seore | EPLAW Congress Report: Who has the better patent litigation tools in Europe? | Tennis in 2018: Did intellectual property hold serve? | Book Review: The Modern Law of Copyright AKA Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria | Book Review: Reconciling Copyright with Cumulative Creativity | Around the IP Blogs!

Never Too Late 208 [Week ending 9 Dec] Commercial use of image rights: Paris Tribunal boosts models and performers’ protection | General rules on direct and indirect liability for copyright infringement instead of Art. 13 | Double trouble: fresh CJEU reference from Swedish Supreme Court regarding scope of communication to the public inside cars | BREAKING NEWS: The first Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List has been published! | First blocking orders issued in Greece ... but how effective are they? | ECtHR rules that prohibiting linking to defamatory content might be freedom of expression violation: what implications (if any) for copyright? | Protecting reggae – Cultural heritage needs IP | Revenge porn: …still no IP rights in sight | BREAKING: TBA decides that Rule 28(2) EPC, excluding plant products produced by essentially biological processes from patentability, is void | ”Baby you can drive my car” period is over. Welcome the Self-driving vehicles | Brand Protection - fresh perspectives from a Frankfurt conference [Part 1]; and Brand Protection Conference [Part 2] | New joint IPKat/BLACA event! The topic is ... Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | Book review: Copyright law and derivative works

Never Too Late 207 [Week ending 2 Dec] draft Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market: Contractual override and the new exceptions in the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Proposal | Venice court tackles copyright protection for architectural works as applied to yachts | Marrakesh Treaty is no paper tiger: EU Commission sues 17 countries for non-compliance | Give Africa its cultural heritage back … But keep its digital cultural heritage? | The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling" | No pain, no gain: Plausibility in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Is SPINNING generic? EU General Court explains how the relevant assessment is to be undertaken | High Court employs ‘intention to target’ approach to determine application of EU/UK law in online trade mark infringement case | There's a new IPO report on designs infringement - game-changer or stating the obvious? | Thursday Thunders
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, February 06, 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.