Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week

Catch up with the latest developments in the IP world with the new edition of Never Too Late!

Trade marks

GuestKat Nedim Malovic takes a look at a decision of EUIPO first Board of Appeal concerning the relevant public’s perception of the polysemic term SPA, which, on the one hand, is the designation of the Belgian town Spa, where there is also a health spa, well-known to the Belgian public; on the other hand, it is also the common name that designates a spa-facility (a hydrotherapy facility).

GuestKat Ieva Giedrimaite writes about the Guns N' Roses' complaint for unauthorized use of their trade mark for beers.

Rosie Burbidge reports on IPSoc event and the talk from Simon Malynicz QC, SkyKick's leading counsel.


GuestKat Rose Hughes reports on a recent English High Court case (Emson v Hozelock), in which Mr Justice Nugee, in a follow-up to the classic UK case Windsurfing, considered the issue of when a disclosure may be considered public.

Katfriend, Léon Dijkman, reports on the decision in Philips v ASUS from the Dutch Court of Appeal - the first Dutch decision after Huawei v ZTE dealing with a FRAND-defence.

Alex Woolgar takes a look at Ablynx NV and Anor v VHsquared Limited and Ors [2019] EWHC 792 (Pat), a useful judgment concerning the application of the Brussels I Regulation to patent disputes where there is also a purported choice of jurisdiction by contract.


Hayleigh Bosher takes a look at a recent dispute before Judge Hacon in the IntellectualProperty Enterprise Court regarding Eminem's first album. Still Hayleigh writes about Pop star Ariana Grande being sued for posting two photographs of herself on her Instagram page.

Kat Eleonora Rosati reports on the DSM directive's publication on the Official Journal of the European Union: it is now Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC.

Still Eleonora writes about an error in the Italian translation of the directive spotted by Valentina Borgese, Carmine Di Benedetto, Daniele Cerulla and Daniele Fabris.

IPR Carousel

Kat friend Matthieu Dhenne discusses the Paris Court of Appeal's decision in Conversant v LG which provides an interesting discussion on essentiality and the application of the new French Trade Secrets Act.

GuestKat Peter Ling discusses the Opinion of AG Pitruzzella in case C-688/17 concerning the intriguing question of whether a “launch at risk” (i.e. the commercialization of a product without first suing for cancellation of any relevant patents prior to market entry) should exclude any compensation in the event that an IP right is wrongly issued.

Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo writes about the conference TILTing perspectives. The theme of this year's conference is ‘Regulating a world in transition’.

Mathilde Pavis reviews Public rights – Copyright’s Public Domains by Graham Greenleaf and David Lindsay.

Africa Correspondent Chijioke Okorie reports on The Agreement on African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) with a specific focus on the Protocol on Intellectual Property.

Rosie Burbidge reports on the Invista v Botes saga.

Ruth Soetendorp reviews Intellectual Property, Finance and Corporate Governance, by Janice Denoncourt.

Kat Eleonora Rosati writes about the Cambridge summer school devoted to all things IP.
Never Too Late 222 [Week ending 12 May] Traveling south (and even further south) | Things come in threes – Paris Tribunal guts Facebook’s T&C’s | Guess guesses wrong regarding a common inverted triangle device | Court of Justice: use of figurative signs may constitute unlawful evocation of a PDO | BREAKING: UK Supreme Court rules that ISPs do NOT have to pay implementation costs in Cartier case | AIPPI Event Report: Are you sitting comfortably? A soft IP storybook on the Byzantine World of Trade Marks with Benet Brandreth | Fordham 27 Recap: Reports 1-14 | European Pharma Law Academy returns to Cambridge | New joint IPKat/BLACA event on 'The EU DSM Directive: End of the Story?' | The IPKat—the new features just keep on coming | Book review: Art and Modern Copyright – the Contested Image
Never Too Late 221 [Week ending 5 May] Book review: Competition Law and Intellectual Property in China | Assigned or not assigned? - the tricky issue of priority right transfer (T 0725/14) | Everything is awesome: Lego blocks “Lepin” trade mark registration | AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that copyright protection in designs simply arises when they are original | Fordham 27 (Report 14): Priority | Fordham 27 (Report 13): PTAB | “AGING BACKWARDS” for fitness-related goods and services? Insufficiently distinctive, says EUIPO Fourth Board of Appeal | For archives only: crafting copyright limitations and exceptions for archives in South Africa | A slippery design can't slide away from invalidation at EUIPO | The end of code – long live data | Fordham 27 (Report 12): SPCs | Fordham 27 (Report 11): Views from judicial decision makers | Fordham 27 (Report 10): Patent Potpurri | 50 days: Chinese SPC IP Tribunal closes its first case | Book Review: European Fashion Law, a Practical Guide From Start-up to Global Success | News from the WIPO SCCR: a light at the end of the tunnel? | IT Law Summer School returns to Cambridge with an IPKat discount | Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery? Not when it comes to BMW trade marks, says Frankfurt Regional Court | Hellwig and VMware go in peace (for now) | The Trade Mark Adventures of Zara: Fashion Markets Moving Fast | The first non-traditional trademark registrations have been granted in Mexico | Fordham 27 (Report 9): Biologics and Biosimilars | Fordham 27 (Report 8): Second Medical Use/Plausibility | China amends trade mark and unfair competition law to tackle trade mark squatting and enforcement issues | Fordham 27 (Report 7): AI | Fordham 27 (Report 6): FRAND | Fordham 27 (Report 5): In-house Counsel Panel | Fordham 27 (Report 4): Government Leaders’ Perspectives on IP | Happy 'IP and Sports' World IP Day! | Fordham 27 (Report 3): DMCA - 20 years later | Fordham 27 (Report 2): IP - Past, Present & Future | Fordham 27 (Report 1): Key Current IP Issues: Reflections & Analysis | Event Report: IPAN World IP Day Celebrations | German Federal Court of Justice refers new case on communication to the public | Non-traditional trademarks and other amendments to the Mexican IP Law (Second Part) | Follow the IPKat page on LinkedIn! | Swiss Supreme Court Confirms Preliminary Injunction in Kivexa case | Non-traditional trademarks and other amendments to the Mexican IP Law (First Part) | BREAKING: Unwired Planet v Huawei Part III: Huawei is given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court | Singapore's "FinTech Fast Track" initiative is doing swimmingly well, thank you | IP and the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2019 (Nigeria) | IP plays a role in decolonising cultural heritage: over 100 experts warn France | The boot is on the other foot: French Supreme Court reconsiders the notion of informed user | IPKat in NY: Fordham IP Conference | DSM Directive Series #4: Article 17 obligations ... in a chart | Where is Haar and how did it get there? Observations on Geography while Waiting for G2/19 | AIPPI Event Report: Actavis v ICOS Supreme Court Rapid Response | Paul Rawlinson (1962-2019) | Retromark Volume V: the last six months in trade marks | BREAKING: Council adopts DSM Directive | USPTO find two male torso-shaped perfume bottles confusingly similar | Guitar headstock not distinctive for … guitars, says EUIPO Board of Appeal | Conference report - More than Just a Game | What is bad faith? AG Kokott provides some indications | Pepper gets spicy: The EPO President's Referral to the EBA | Book review: Accords de technologie / Technology Transactions | More Than Just a Game V - IP and the gaming industry | Event report: Retromark – the conference | Re-imagining Marie Louise Fuller's copyright of dance in Fuller v Bemis | Conference report: 'Injunctions and flexibility in patent law' | DSM Directive Series #3: How far does Article 14 go? | IP: at the rhythm of bossa | AI generated make-up: another IP dilemma to solve? | Have you used the IP5 Collaborative Search and Examination (CS&E) pilot? | IP and Sociology: the symbolism of IP | Access to Copyright Protected Works by Persons with Disabilities – Thoughts on the WIPO SCCR Scoping Study | Oracle files an opposition in its final (?) duel with Google | Conference Report: Should we say "no" to automatic injunctions and "yes" to proportionate remedies? | Gleissner trade mark application is Trumped | Book review: Who Owns the News? A History of Copyright | That was exhausting: sale of individual bracelet link infringes trade mark | Do tapirs look like pigs? ‘Peppa Pig’ EUTM wins invalidity battle before EU General Court | HBO fails in attempt to protect Game of Thrones trade marks | BREAKING: President to refer the patentability of plants produced by essentially biological processes to the EBA | DSM Directive Series #2: Is the press publishers' right waivable? | IP and innovation in a post-demutualised Nigerian Stock Exchange | Book Review: Non-Conventional Copyright, Do New and Atypical Works Deserve Protection? | Mr Justice Carr grants TQ Delta injunction after finding ZyXEL "holding out" in latest SEP battle | AIPPI UK Event Report: AI Generated Innovation | No interim injunction for copyright infringement => not a Happy Camper | DSM Directive Series #1: Do Member States have to transpose the value gap provision and does the YouTube referral matter? | Report on Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union Event | Warner Music signs distribution deal with AI generated music app Endel | Conference report: “Can robots invent and create? A dialogue between Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property” | The 10 Highlights of copyright in China 2018 | USPTO conference on Artificial Intelligence and IP: a report | BREAKING: Supreme Court confirms no hard line on inventive step test in finding Cialis dosage patent obvious | BREAKING: EU Parliament adopts DSM Directive | Smart watches: a helping hand or sinister culture of surveillance? | No Allies for Oracle’s Win Against Google | Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery? On copyright in truthful depictions | Italian Supreme Court confirms approach to damage determination in image rights cases | "A loaf of bread", the Walrus said, “is what we chiefly need", but did he remember IP? | The proposed fair use exception under South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill | "Should everyone else change, or just the Patentee?": Progress of the Broad's CRISPR appeal | Smart Contracts: Pros and Cons of the New Shiny Thing | The patentability of computer simulated methods - another referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal | Seal the deal: Canadian court waxes off copyright infringement in Pyrrha Design Inc. v. Plum and Posey Inc. | BREAKING: CJEU delivers another blow to SPC owners in Abraxis Article 3(d) (or 1(b)) battle | Book review: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the EU Member States | Italian Supreme Court clarifies availability of safe harbours, content of notice-and-takedown requests, and stay-down obligations | CJEU applies Louboutin, clarifying notion of ‘shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods’ | When does AI infringe copyright? | Bad faith in registering a trademark when there was a pre-existing relationship and the registrant "hijacked" the mark | Trying to understand Article 13 | The U.S. college admission scandal: when brands, brand equity and status "break bad" | A brief introduction of the new Chinese Foreign Investment Law and its protection for IPR | There is no such thing as too much Peruvian (and other) IP news from Latin America | The 2018 copyright registration statistics of China | Danladi v Tiwalope Savage and another - (Nigerian) “Blurred Line” or “Shape of You”? | Paris Tribunal strikes again and guts Google’s T&C’s…including its copyright clauses for user-generated content | Another RCD unfit for appeal | ‘SO…?’ and ‘S.O.’ confusingly similar, says EUIPO Fourth Board of Appeal | BREAKING: TQ Delta proceeds to September RAND Trial after partial win before Mr Justice Carr | Patent Oscars: The good, the bad and the ugly | MARRY ME is descriptive for online dating (even if you are really just dating)

Never Too Late 220 [Week ending 10 Mar] Organic production logo of the EU may not be placed on meat derived from animals that have been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites if not first being stunned. New decision of the Court of Justice of the EU C-497/17 | Your FRANDly Update: Ericsson v HTC, FRAND in India, jurisdictional issues (again), Unwired Planet v Huawei, ASUS v Interdigital and more | IP Law Summer School returns to beautiful Cambridge | Patent infringement and recovery of profits in Italy: doctrine of equivalence and requirement of negligence | Book review: Creating Economy – Enterprise, Intellectual Property and the Valuation of Goods | Apple's trade mark opposition goes pear shaped... | Gantry-gate: CIPA releases statement on FD4/P6 (Infringement and Validity) | Swedish trade mark court sees its true colours shining through | Can a CJEU ruling on the European system of central banks pave the way towards an even greater impact of CJEU IP rulings?
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Antonella Gentile on Sunday, May 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.