Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

The past week brought several notable CJEU decisions as well as an abundance of other interesting articles - if you missed it, you can catch up on all of the posts of the Kats in this edition of Never Too Late!

Copyright -

Several breaking news articles on recent CJEU rulings and Opinions were reported by Kat Eleonora Rosati, which included:
Following the long string of copyright infringement cases brought against musicians, SpecialKat Hayleigh Bosher looks at the most recent claim brought against Drake, who has been accused of sampling without a licence.

Hanne Kirk of Gorrissen Federspiel, Aarhus (Denmark) writes a GuestPost, examining a landmark decision from the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court concerning originality in copyright law in relation to products by Danish designer Anne Black.

In 'Voice-overs, peer-to-peer recruitment platforms and IP rights: a survey of 200+ performers', GuestKat Mathilde Pavis provides interesting insights into these platforms, and considers whether they bring value or benefit to artists, which would justify the way they undercut intellectual property rights.

Patents -

GuestKat Rose Hughes reports on the Advocate-General Opinion in SPC referrals C-650/17 and C-114/18 (which sought to determine the correct interpretation of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation).

Rose also reports on comments from the EPO President on the patentability of computer implemented simulations (G1/19).

With the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal coming into force, it is expected that this will lead to increased arguments as to whether appeals submissions are new or not. This is foreshadowed in the recent Board of Appeal decision, T0688/16, where an inappropriate use of discretion leads to ping-pong.

Communication to the public -

GuestKat Nedim Malovic examines a referral made by the Swedish Patents and Market Court of Appeal to the CJEU, asking whether the concept of “public”  (which is not expressly defined in the legislation) under Articles 3 and 4 of the InfoSoc Directive has a uniform meaning, and if so, what that meaning is.

Book Reviews -

Book Review Editor Hayleigh Bosher provides an overview of ‘Regulating ISPs’ Responsibilities for Copyright Infringement: The Freedom to Operate in the US, EU and China’ by Jie Wang.

Trade Marks -

GuestKat Léon Dijkman discusses a decision of the EU General Court, which ruled that conceptual comparison of names was normally not possible, and held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the signs ‘Luciano Sandrome’ and ‘Don Luciano’.

GuestKat Peter Ling looks at recently revised Swiss legislation on protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI) and its effect on a trade mark application of ‘IGP’ for paintwhich may have easily been registered prior to this change.


Never Too Late 233 [Week ending 8th September] YouTube takes copyright law into their own hands with new policy on music infringement | InterDigital starts Lenovo FRAND war, plus reader discount at SEP Strategy Conference | The patent debate surrounding PrEP, the game-changer in HIV prevention | What is the future of plausibility? AIPPI country survey results suggest plausibility requirement “undesirable” | Forthcoming ERA IP events with 25% IPKat discount | Book Review: Online Distribution of Content in the EU | The three Rs of legitimate expectation: Recognizability, recoverability and responsibility (T 0703/19) | The facepalm trade mark case in China | Around the IP Blogs | Commons Clause in open source licences: business necessity or betrayal of software freedom? | International jurisdiction in online EU trade mark infringement cases: CJEU rules that targeting may serve to establish jurisdiction | Can Africa’s trade agreements handle regional integration? | Has the EU lost its way on gene-editing?

Never Too Late 232 [Week ending 1st September] Board of EUIPO says re-filing of Monopoly’ as EUTM is invalid due to bad-faith | Can the ideal image of female beauty be considered a limit to a designer’s freedom? | Brussels court grants Louboutin inhibitory decision against Amazon | Planet Art v Photobox passing off: no compunction when refusing injunction | On economic analysis of IP law: an interview with professor Tom Cotter | Calls for holistic reforms to digital platforms from Australia’s competition regulator | Enterprise name vs. trade mark: throwing a straw against the wind? | What we can learn from Jane Austen and President Ulysses S. Grant about the business of book publishing: "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" | Invitation for applications for the Shamnad Basheer IP / Trade Fellowship at the Texas A&University School of Law 

Never Too Late 231 [Week ending 25th August] Copyright infringement in the 'iron pipe film' case |
Makeup brand Charlotte Tilbury successfully proved copyright infringement of its packaging | copyright cases on the U.S. Supreme Court docket this term | Raconteur Productions Limited v Dioni Visions Entertainment Limited and 2 Others: screenplay copyright in Nigeria | Another CJEU referral on Youtube's role as service provider | Irish Supreme Court in Merck v Clonmel puts "adequacy of damages" back in the balance when granting preliminary junctions | The first AI inventor - IPKat searches for the facts behind the hype | Repurposing patented products: Inking a new test for infringement in Australia? | When a tiger loses its teeth: applying the step-by-step approach on a word mark and a mark containing a device representation thereof | Four Rings to Rule Them All – German Federal Court of Justice Finds Trademark Infringement in Radiator Grille with Audi-Logo-Shaped Mounting Fixture | USPTO amends the rules: "Requirement of U.S. Licensed Attorney for Foreign Trademark Applicants and Registrants" now in effect
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Riana Harvey on Tuesday, September 17, 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.