The long Easter weekend provides a perfect opportunity to review what is happening around the IP world in this edition of Around the IP Blogs.
Copright
Kluwer Copyright Blog has a number of posts this week, looking at a couple of interesting cases. Firstly, BBC v Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Ltd looking at the extent of the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal, to set the terms of licences of foreign copyrights. The other post looked at Mei Fields Designs Ltd v Saffron Cards and Gifts Ltd and questions surrounding ownership and assignment of copyright.
Kluwer Copyright Blog has a number of posts this week, looking at a couple of interesting cases. Firstly, BBC v Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Ltd looking at the extent of the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal, to set the terms of licences of foreign copyrights. The other post looked at Mei Fields Designs Ltd v Saffron Cards and Gifts Ltd and questions surrounding ownership and assignment of copyright.
ConflictofLaws posts about the issues regarding private International law undermining national attempts to avoid “upload filters” when implementing the DSM Copyright Directive. In particular, the post looks at whether private international law renders the purported aim of making upload filters “unnecessary” as virtually impossible.
Trademark
Kluwer Trademark Blog continued the strong form of its Copyright and Patent Blogs with many posts this week. The first looked at the CJEU decision regarding “Other characteristics” of the new Article 7(1)(e)(iii) EUTMR and their retroactive applicability. Next up was a summary of Adidas’ exploits in Argentina regarding their three-stripes trademark. Finally, there was a review of the recent case between Kroma Makeup EU LLC v. Boldface Licensing & Branding Inc., USA involving the Kardashian sisters.
 |
| A Kat that is interested in the three stripes |
Patent
Kluwer Patent Blog also had a number of posts this week. First up was a look at a recently published Decision from the Barcelona Commercial Court number 5 on whether a video is sufficient indicia of infringement for an ex parte preliminary injunction. Next was on the European Parliament’s adoption of legislation introducing an SPC manufacturing waiver. There was also a review of the recent developments in Chinese Patent cases. This was followed by a summary of the recent cases in the English Patents Courts. Finally, the EPO has published its draft Strategic Plan 2023 and is holding a consultation thereon, as set out in this blog post.
EPLAW posted about the recent case in the Netherlands between Nutrition Sciences N.V. v. Noba B.V.in relation to the field of ingredients for live stock feed. There was also a summary of the Court of Milan’s departure from their previous position regarding the issuance of an urgent declaration of non-infringement.
Dennis Crouch of PATENTLY0 posts on the slightly confusing finding of the Federal Circuit in E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC (Fed. Cir. 2019) that “100%” in a claim does not actually mean One Hundred Percent. There is also a summary of the publication by a group of pro-patent senators and members of Congress of their suggestions for Section 101 patent reform.
General
IP Draughts published an interesting piece on the challenges faced by those taking on the role of General Counsel, particularly in the light of the Mueller Report.
Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our
Policies section.
If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.
Comments
Post a Comment
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