 |
| This Kat has much to think about |
Copyright
GuestKat Thomas Key identified some potential grounds which the US Supreme Court may consider its forthcoming decision in the pirating case of Allen v. Cooper, which relates to sovereign immunity in copyright.
Tian Lu, the IPKat's Asia Correspondent, reported on the announcement of the 2019 'Top Ten Highlights of China Copyright'.
GuestKat Alex Woolgar discussed a new algorithm developed by Snafu Records, which claims that it will enable identification of new music which is going to be popular - potentially replacing A&R scouts in the industry. However, its reliance on identifying similarities with existing popular music could prove to be problematic from a copyright perspective.
Clarence Lakpini was in attendance at the launch of GuestKat Chijioke Okorie's new book on 'Multi-Sided Music Platforms and the Law', summarising a number of issues and talking points which arose at the event here.
Trade Marks
The IPKat commented on two trade mark judgments, with GuestKat Riana Harvey reporting on the High Court of England & Wales's decision in Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Ltd and this very Kat offering some thoughts on distinctiveness in the EU General Court's Delta Sport v EUIPO decision.
Patents
Annsley Merelle Ward reported on Mr Justice Birss's refusal to order disclosure in Conversant v Huawei & ZTE, a mobile telecommunications FRAND case which will go to trial at the end of April.
Other
Doug Calhoun brought interesting insights from New Zealand, where only its second-ever plant variety right infringement judgment - in 45 years of its PVR Act being in operation - has recently been issued.
Prof Martin Kretschmer from CREATe at the University of Glasgow contributed an overview of a forthcoming conference which will present new empirical research on IP litigation and mapping platform regulation in the UK.
TechieKat Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo published details of the forthcoming II International Congress on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property, including the availability of a special discount for IPKat readers.
Never Too Late 253 [Week ending February 16] Is the Broad Institute planning a last-ditch attempt to save their CRISPR patent? | easyJet experiences significant turbulence over Colombia | Can you fix it? The tension between the right to repair and intellectual property rights - Farming | Book review: Multi-sided music platforms and the law, copyright, law and policy in Africa | INTA to relocate the 2020 Annual Meeting from Singapore to a venue in the United States | "Making federal buildings beautiful again": Will there be a White House executive order on acceptable design of federal buildings?
Never Too Late 252 [Week ending February 9] GuestPost: Natural persons have a monopoly on inventiveness - fact or legal fiction? | Furry thoughts on Sky v. Skykick – Part 2: trade marks registered with no intention to use | AG Campos in Brompton Bicycle advises CJEU to rule that 'exclusively' functional shapes do not deserve copyright protection | Google does not communicate to the public by hotlinking | Reader discount on CUP IPKat Book of the year titles | Book review: Licensing and access to content in the European Union | A few forthcoming IP events with a special 25% discount for IPKat’s readers | Gantry-Gate: Have your say in the Mercer Review | Supporting Europe's innovative SMEs: an interview with the European Intellectual Property Helpdesk | When cybersquatting renders a contract unenforceable on public policy considerations | IP Education Series #5 : Brunel Law School IP Pro Bono Service | The IPKat team: arrivals, farewells, and news
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Monday, February 24, 2020
Rating:
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Monday, February 24, 2020
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.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