Autumn is here, and the IPKat found some stories that are more delectable than pumpkin spice lattes.
Patent
Not exactly famous for its IP prowess, the U.S. Supreme Court is stepping up its IP game this term. It is confirmed to hear a whopping six IP cases and considering many more. The first one up for oral argument is Peter v. NantKwest and the IPWatchdog has all the details.
The U.S. Federal Circuit has been rebuilding its obviousness doctrine for several years, and recently ruled that the prior art cited must show efficacy in order for an obviousness claim of a pharmaceutical patent to prevail. Patently-o has the full story.
Updated guidelines for examination are coming to the European Patent Office. Kluwer Patent Blog lists the top 10 changes to look out for.
Copyright
Senator Thom Tillis sent a letter to the U.S. Librarian of Congress and Register of Copyright back in August amid growing concerns that the U.S. Copyright Office has become antiquated and out of touch with the needs of modern users. IPWatchdog summarized the response Senator Tillis received last week.
Trademark
IPTango reported that the Peruvian Ministry of External Relations is appealing a ruling of the Court of First Instance of Thailand. In Thailand, Peru is the exclusive denomination of origin for pisco, but the court ruled that "Chilean Pisco" can also be used.
 |
| Can someone kindly explain denomination of origin to Butterscotch photo credit: www.itsdrinkoclock.com |
A home improvement and gardening retailer was sued for trademark infringement consisting of illegal parallel imports from North America to the EU of branded axes. Citing ample CJEU case law, the Czech Supreme Court held that mere ownership of an intellectual property right does not per se result in dominant position on the market. More on Kluwer Trademark Blog.
Constitutions and IP
Kluwer Patent Blog published an interesting think piece on constitutional matters and IP in Germany, the UK, and the EPO. The author desires some reorganization of the EPO and the establishment of an independent, effective judiciary.
Around the IP Blogs
Reviewed by Luna Lovegood
on
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Rating:
Reviewed by Luna Lovegood
on
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.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