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

The 214th edition of Never Too Late takes a look at what the Kats have been blogging about between the 21st to 27th of January!

The week kicked off with a book review by Eibhlin Vardy on International Patent Litigation – Developing an Effective Strategy.

The Fortnite lawsuits were the focus of a post by Mathilde Pavis, who concluded that the performers may well have a legitimate case that the dancing choreography being copied may suffice to infringe copyright. This was followed up by Katfriend Charlotte Waelde who explored whether the Fortnite dances could be a quotation, or fall within any other copyright exceptions.

Fortnite expert Kat
GuestKat Nedim Malovic discussed the EUIPO’s rejection of the trade mark CHEESE for cannabis. In part as the relevant customer would apparently consider this name to be descriptive!

Apple’s brand position was discussed by Neil Wilkof in this post. The focus was in whether the iPhone is an aspirational product in the light of worse than expected sales figures.

The Swedeish Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (SFIR) had its yearly big event, and this was reviewed by GuestKat Frantzeska Papadopoulou. During 2018, the relatively new Swedish Patent and Market Court received 27 new lawsuits, while it reached a final ruling in 24. Additionally, the Swedish Supreme Court found hypothetical license fees too detached from reality to be a useful tool, as explored in this post by Eleonora Rosati.

In the first trade mark opinion of 2019, Advocate General Szpunar weighed in on issues relating to the “genuine use” requirement for an EUTMR as discussed by Peter Ling.

Tian Lu wrote about the confirmation of the CNY 260 million fine against video-sharing played QVOD, in the latest example of China’s increasing IPR enforcement.

DeepMind patent applications were the focus of this exploratory post by Rose Hughes. The success (or lack thereof) of the filed applications is reviewed.

The patent drawing requirements, and their fitness for purpose were discussed in another post by GuestKat Rose Hughes. In particular, how best to present data in the field of biotech and pharmaceutical applications.

Katfriends Gian Paolo Di Santo and Gabriele Girardello explained the Italian perspective on the Trade Secrets Directive, in the light of the sensitive historical background to the topic.

The Swiss Federal Patent Court case 2018/004 was the focus of this post by Katfriend Rodolfo Bretscher. The case included the court discussing the differences between the EPO and German caselaw on selection patents.

Nigerian law regarding forfeiture orders was discussed by Katfriend Chijioke Okorie in relation to the potential forfeiture of a trade mark as a part of a criminal conviction This followed news of a jury in California convicting a motorcycle club and finding that their trade mark could be subject to civil forfeiture.

Finally, there was an in memoriam post for photographer Walter Chandoha. He was a professional photographer who took over 90,000 photos of cats!


Never Too Late 213 [Week ending 17 Feb] Book Review: European Libraries and the Internet: Copyright and Extended Collective Licences | Book review: European Design Law: A practitioner's guide (2nd edition) | Discount on IPKat Book of the Year Award winning titles! | Lost in translation: Are animal models predictive of a treatment effect? | EUIPO says McDonald's 'BIG MAC' trade mark may be revoked due to lack of genuine use | “Let Me Be Frank”: Kevin Spacey gambles with infringement | Technicalities in copyright litigation in Nigeria: MCSN v Compact Disc Technology | Mr Justice Nugee grants Philip Morris ex parte pan-EU preliminary injunction for heated tobacco device design | From Star Wars to diversity: An audience with Lady Hale - President of the UK Supreme Court | GPL Cooperation Commitment: Promise of Collaborative Interpretation

Never Too Late 212 [Week ending 10 Feb] A 12th century tale of an orphan work (it's all about the teeth) | AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that quotation exception is not limitless and that there is no fair use in the EU | Drinking culture: what’s wrong with it? | Brexit and Brands – 77 days to go | The intractable question of "inadmissible" or "late filed" appeals - G1/18 | Event Report: UCL IBIL - Pregabalin: Where stand plausibility and Swiss-form claims? PART 1 | Untangling jurisdiction under the Design and Brussels Regulations: should I stay or...? | The IPKat Book of the Year 2018 Winners are... | Book Review: The Subject Matter of Intellectual Property | Book Review: The EU Design Approach A Global Appraisal | IPKat congratulates three new IP silks

Never Too Late 211 [Week ending 6 Jan] EUIPO Fourth Board of Appeal allows registration of Bacardi bottle as an EUTM | Beats secures trade mark victory with EUIPO Fourth Board of Appeal | Thanks to higher resolution image, American Airlines has eventually managed to register its logo with the US Copyright Office| You can't buy love ... nor can you prevent others from using it in their trade marks |The HABITAT mark (and co-habitation): Part II |Trade mark classes are not Nice and easy | Lets Get It On...Trial - Another Copyright Infringement Case for Ed Sheeran |Smells like IP infringement? |Orphan Drugs, a successful regulation after all? Or just about to experience its pitfalls?| Choco-tech: A Christmas Selection Box | Book review: Law, Art and The Commons.

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: if you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Jonathan Pratt on Tuesday, February 26, 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.