Are you wondering about the IP topics of the week? A.I. and much more in this round of Around the IP blogs!Copyright
The Kluwer Copyright Blog reports on the decision of the Vienna Higher Regional State Court in case Puls 4 v YouTube, which found that a platform operator is not (as of yet) obliged to monitor the information it transmits or stores or to investigate circumstances which point to unlawful activity. Consequently there was no evidence to suggest that the user who illegitimately uploaded the infringing videos had already violated the plaintiff’s copyrights, nor that YouTube knew about it. Still on the Kluwer Copyright Blog, there is a good discussion of the impact of automated copyright enforcement mechanisms on cultural diversity.
Trade marks
The IPWatchdog discusses the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) decisions to declare invalid the UK trade mark registration for the shape of the company’s popular Babybel cheese, as the trade mark did not meet Sieckmann and Libertel's requirements.
Patents
The IPWatchdog analyses the European Patent Office's new guidance for examination for AI and ML patent applications (issued in November 2018) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's revised guidance directed to what constitutes patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 (issued in January 2019) and considers how these guidance will shape the examination of Artificial Intelligence Inventions.
Patently-O reports on President Trump's “memorandum on combating trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods” and discusses the level of authority given to the USPTO as the government’s expert patent law agency. It writes about Romag 's petition to the Supreme Court in Romag v Fossil "Whether, under section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), wilful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of an infringer’s profits for a violation of section 43(a), id. § 1125(a)."
Around the IP blogs
Reviewed by Antonella Gentile
on
Sunday, April 07, 2019
Rating:
Reviewed by Antonella Gentile
on
Sunday, April 07, 2019
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html