Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

The IPKat was most productive this last week. Be sure to check our overview so as not to miss anything!

A cat in iron catches no mice 


Are tattoos protected by copyright? The US District Court for the Southern District of New York seems to answer in the negative. Eleonora Rosati provides with a detailed analysis of the Court’s recent decision concerning the reproduction of NBA players’ tattoos in their videogame avatars.

GuestKat Thomas Key reported on a recent decision by the US Supreme Court in Allen v. Cooper. To which extent may state authorities (in this case, the State of North Carolina) act as copyright pirates? And what be the repercussions of this decision on public libraries in times of coronavirus? Thomas provides his thoughts.

The IPKat featured a guest contribution by Felipe Romero Moreno on the national transpositions of Art. 17 CDSM Directive. The author considers whether “upload filters” from the controversial Art. 17 are compatible with human rights, the GDPR and E-Commerce Directive. An extended version of the analysis is also available here

The jury’s decision in Katy Perry “Dark Horse” has been overturned by the federal judge, who ruled that the signer is not liable for $2.8M in damages. GuestKat Hayleigh Bosher not only reported on this development, but discusses how it relates to other recent decision over Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven”.

Trade mark 

SpecialKat Tian Lu reported on the status of several coronavirus-related trade mark applications that have been filed in China. The Chinese Trademark Office has refused registration for applications containing terms related to the fight against virus, resting on Art. 10.1.8 of the Trade Mark Law, which prevents registration of trade marks ‘detrimental to socialist ethics or customs, or [have] other unwholesome influences’.


GuestKat Rose Hughes has looked into a recent decision from the EPO Boards of Appeal in T 1621/16. The decision clarifies the criteria for assessing whether a selection from multiple “convergent lists” is supported.

Book reviews 

GuestKat Thomas Key has reviewed the Research Handbook on Art and Law. With 25 chapters and 10 parts, the book addresses the intersections between art and law, including discussions on the legal issues posed by street art, overlaps between copyright and patents on fine arts techniques, and the succession of copyright after the death of the author.


Neil Wilkof pondered on how our (mis)perception of lemmings was shaped by the Oscar-winning documentary by Walt Disney Productions , “White Wilderness”. Are we right in using calling impulsive, herd-like conduct “lemming-like behavior”? And how might this affect the branding of Disney+?

Kat Friend Paul McClelland shared with the IPKat audience his reflections on the role of expert testimony in a cybersquatting case in Singapore. The case in question, 3 Corporate Services Pte Ltd v Grabtaxi Holdings Pte Ltd [2020], was recently commented on its merits in the IPKat.

GuestKat Frantzeska Papadopolou informed the IPKat audience that the CPVO has decided to extend deadlines due to COVID-19, following similar decisions from the EPO and the EUIPO. Time limits that fall within the period between 17 March – 3 May, are extended until 4 May for parties to proceedings before the Office and the Board of Appeal.

Never Too Late 257 [Week ending March 22]: BREAKING: German constitutional court upholds complaint against UPC Agreement and implementing act | Willem Hoyng: today's decision sets back UPC at least five years | In the wake of the COVID-19 virus, Israeli Government authorizes use of three patents for maintenance of essential supplies and services | Can a co-existence agreement tip the scales in favor of a finding of bad faith in an opposition action? | CJEU rules on counteraction by conceptual differences in trade mark law, but leaves much to be resolved | Swedish Supreme Court favours copyright protection over freedom of information and of the press | Fair dealing and online learning in the time of coronavirus in South Africa | Remembering Clayton Christensen: how has “disruptive innovation” fared? | BREAKING: EPO and EUIPO extend deadlines in response to COVID-19 pandemic | Free IP study/revision materials (also) in the time of Coronavirus: a collection

Never Too Late 256 [Week ending March 15]: Study on the implications of a 25-year reversion/termination right in Canada | Has Skidmore v Led Zeppelin changed US music copyright infringement rules for better or worse? | [Guest post] One Database to Rule Them All? The Musical Works Database under the Music Modernization Act | House of Lords EU subcommittee: Is the UK Government's rejection of the UPC "cutting off its nose to spite its face"? | Crown use defence successful in telecom patent infringement case | Proportionality and FRAND in France - Paris appeal court upholds anti-anti-suit injunction but first instance court refuses PI in IPCom v. Lenovo | The broader teachings of the CJEU 'Fack Ju Göhte' decision: trade marks, freedom of expression, and ... other IP rights | CJEU upholds Burlington Arcade's grounds of appeal against Burlington trade mark applications | [Guest post] Fashion Law London: The Spring/Summer Collection | Event report Conference Report: CIPIL 2020
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko on Tuesday, March 31, 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.