 |
| This Kat is opining on IP law |
Trade Marks
The Trademark Lawyer and The Fashion Law reported here and here on British comedian Joe Lycett's name change to Hugo Boss, in order to protest what he sees as overly heavy-handed trade mark assertion by fashion company Hugo Boss against small businesses.
The Fashion Law also offered context and comment on the “Stopping Harmful Offers on Platforms by Screening Against Fakes in E-Commerce” – SHOP SAFE – Act 2020, recently introduced to the US House of Representatives. It aims to establish trade mark liability in certain circumstances for online marketplaces which do not crack down on the sale of counterfeit products on their platforms.
On the TTABlog, there was commentary on the standard applied by the USPTO when confronted with a sign in another language (in this case, whether MONFRÈRE FASHION is liable to be confused with MY BROTHER).
Patents
The FPC Review commented on how to interpret expressions stating a purpose in patent claim construction, according to the Swiss Federal Patent Court's comparison of the EPO and Swiss Supreme Court's approaches.
Juve Patent anticipated yesterday, Tuesday 10 March's hearing in Sisvel v. Haier at the German Federal Court of Justice, which could result in the standardisation of SEP/FRAND in Germany. It also commented in the same piece on parallel proceedings taking place in the UK.
In a similar vein, Tom Cotter of Comparative Patent Remedies published further comments on the USPTO, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's 'Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments'.
The Kluwer Patent Blog hosted commentary on a recent decision of China's SPC IP Tribunal on the conditions for infringement of a method-of-use telecommunications patent when the infringer did not actually perform any step of the patented method.
Copyright
On SpicyIP, Adarsh Ramunajan discussed recent orders of the Madras High Court and the Bombay High Court imposing interim injunctions against public event organisers' playing of copyright-protected music during Christmas and New Year parties.
Around the IP blogs
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
Rating:
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
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