Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

The Christmas and New Year holidays have passed. Do you still miss the cozy and happy season? Coming back to the office, you may find yourself busy planning your workload for the coming months. If you missed the IPKat posts last week, it is now time to catch up! Enjoy the following summaries.

Start to work, no clue...

Katfriend Joost Duijim kindly provided an event report, summing up the AIPPI UK’s Event: Roundup of 2019 Patent Cases, which took place in London on 18th December 2019.


Hayleigh Bosher reported on the most recent hearing in the Sheeran v. Chokri case, where Chokri claimed that Sheeran’s hit ‘Shape of You’ infringed his work ‘Oh my!’. The hearing took place in the High Court England and Wales before Mr Justice Nugee on 9th December 2019.

Hayleigh reported in two parts on the judgment of the High Court in TuneIn. The case was described by the court as “a test case” about infringement of copyright in sound recordings accessed via an online platform that connects users to radio stations around the world. In the first post, Hayleigh discussed the decision of Mr Justice Birss on infringement. In the second post, Hayleigh discussed the terms of injunctive relief and the scope of the inquiry as to damages and costs.

Thomas Key looked into two registration refusals by the US Copyright Office Review Board. Both of them concerned the attempted registration of layouts used in digital platforms. Both were refused due to lack of creative authorship, thus serving as reminders of the modicum, yet still material, requirement of “some creative authorship”.

In this guest contribution Hanne Kirk (and her team at Gorrissen Federspiel, Denmark) discussed the decision of the District Court of Glostrup in the Ai Weiwei v Volkswagen case, where a photo incorporating an artwork of Ai Weiwei was used in Volkswagen’s marketing campaign. This Danish court ruled in favour of Ai Weiwei.

Trade Marks

Katfriend Markus Rouvinen shared his thoughts on the possible legal status of product listing ads (PLA’s) in light of the German Federal Court's decision in the Ortlieb case.

Hayleigh Bosher looked into the England and Wales High Court’s judgment in Aiwa Co. Ltd v Aiwa Corp. There, Mr Justice Mann held that, considering the facts of the case, the sale of second-hand goods was not a genuine use of the Aiwa trade mark.

Léon Dijkman examined the first IP ruling of the new decade by the Dutch Supreme Court in European Pallet Association EV v PHZ BV, which raises interesting questions regarding the interface between exhaustion, repairs and collective marks. The court additionally stated its intention to refer these questions to the CJEU after the parties to the dispute expressed their views on their wording.

IPKat Book of the Year Awards

The IPKat Book of the Year Awards 2019 were announced last week. A full list of nominations and winners can be found here.

Great for the readers! Following the announcement of the nominations and winners of the 2019 IPKat Book of the Year awards, Oxford University Press has kindly offered to provide IPKat readers with a discount on their titles that were included among the nominations and winners of the awards. More information can be found here.

Book Reviews

Thomas Key reviewed Kim Treuger Bar-Am’s book ‘Positive Freedom and the Law’. Under Kantian philosophy and Jewish thought, this book seeks to explore the alternative concept of freedom as a duty of respect toward the autonomy of others. The author posits the notion that modern communication has transformed readers and users into subsequent authors, calling for a re-examination of copyright law through the lens of freedom as a duty of respect.

Peter Ling reviewed the book ‘A Practitioner’s Guide to European Patent Law’, edited by Paul England (with the assistance of Sara Burghart, Judith Krens and François Pochart). In only 350-odd pages, and in a manner that can be easily digested by practitioners, Paul provides, in his own words, at least a “tentative” answer to the various aspects of the question: What is genuinely European in European Patent Law?

Nedim Malovic reviewed the book 'Law of Remedies - A European Perspective' (edited by Franz Hofmann and Franziska Kurz). This book analyses different mechanisms of enforcement, the debate on private versus public enforcement, as well as the perspective of criminal law. 

Never Too Late 247 [Week ending 5 Jan] EU General Court assesses whether ‘cinkciarz’ is descriptive for banking and exchanging money services (spoiler alert: no, its not) | The first Spotify Awards and the role played by streaming services in access to digital content | Meghan Markle and Prince Harry seek to register “Sussex Royal” as a UK trade mark | How much trademark protection does a full name enjoy? | A Kat’s 2019 Copyright Awards | Until When Can Patent Claims Be Limited in Civil Proceedings? Swiss Federal Patent Court Relaxes Strict Practice | It’s nearly New Year’s Eve: Why “Tipsy” is such an undesirable mark | English High Court dismisses Babybel appeal on the 3D red wax-coating UK trade mark | [Guest Post] Everybody was kung fu fighting: Trade mark vs image rights - who will be the last one standing? | A Question of Priorities: 2019 Boards of Appeal Year in Review | The Year of the Pepper: 2019 Enlarged Board of Appeal Year in Review | Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week | Tuesday Thingies | Paris Court of Appeal confirms that Koons’s ‘Naked’ sculpture infringes copyright in ‘Enfants’ photograph, rejecting freedom of the arts and parody defences

Never Too Late 246 [Week ending 22 Dec] Book Review: The Parody Exception in Copyright Law | Monday Miscellany | Hague Court of Appeal stays enforcement of patent injunction | Maradona successfully sues Dolce&Gabbana over unauthorised use of its name on a jersey | BREAKING: CJEU rules that the provision of ebooks is an act of communication to the public (so there is NO digital exhaustion under the InfoSoc Directive) | BREAKING: Court of Appeal frames Article 3(a) test as one of “claim requirement”, but still upholds Truvada SPC invalidity | Book Review: International Copyright | Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat | Around the IP Blogs | Is “fake” a four-letter word; ask the rhinoceros | EU General Court considers sign referring to cannabis contrary to public policy | EPO refuses “AI inventor” applications in short order - AI Inventor team intend to appeal

Never Too Late 245 [Week ending 15 Dec] Proving the existence of confidentiality agreements and the celestial teapot - T 2037/18 | [Guest Post] Federal Court in Australia Grants Injunction Restraining Unlawful Use of Scotch Whisky | Supreme People’s Court of China releases white paper on Chinese courts and the Internet judiciary | Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week | General Election 2019 - possible copyright infringement actually | The UK Government sheds light on the status of crypto assets and enforceability of smart contracts (Part I) | IPKat Book of the Year Awards 2019: Nominate your favourite IP Book of the Year! | WIPO Public Consultation on AI and IP | CJEU rules on genuine use of collective trade marks
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Kan He on Wednesday, January 15, 2020 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.