Around the IP blogs

Curious about the latest developments in the IP world? Take a look at our overview of the IP blogosphere. 

An unconventional cat


SpicyIP looked into the copyright protection of unpublished works under Indian law. Although the subsistence of copyright is dependent upon the fact of creation, the publication date will be relevant in determining the copyright term of a work.

SpicyIP also discussed the liability for copyright infringement of video-sharing social networks in light of a recent dispute between ShareChat and the Lahiri Recording Company. While the case is still ongoing, the blog analyses whether a platform, built on the user-generated content model, can avail itself of the “safe harbour” exception under the Indian IT Act.

In the JIPLP blog, Berdien van der Donk addressed dynamic injunctions under European law after C-18/18 case. The author looks into two categories of dynamic injunctions: those with a dynamic content and those with a dynamic infringer. Based on the successful experience of certain EU Member States, he recommends that similar infringements shall only be blocked after a right holder’s notification.

Trade marks

Patently-O looked into the protection of color marks under the US law as recently considered by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the In re: Forney Industries, Inc case. There, the court concluded that color marks used on packaging can be inherently distinctive and do not need to acquire a secondary meaning. The post analyses how this holding may be applied and whether a narrower reading of the decision is possible.


JuvePatent addressed a recent decision from the Higher Regional Court of Munich in Firecom against Broadcom/Avago. The dispute concerned a patent for optical receiver circuits and the Appeal Court confirmed the first instance decision, finding no infringement of patent.

Kluwer Patent Blog conducted a review of US cases involving treble damages, to answer the question of whether such damages necessarily involve knowledge of patent infringement, or whether the doctrine of willful blindness could be invoked to substitute such knowledge. While no case concerning willful blindness in patent infringement cases has yet reached Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court, certain companies apply the corporate policy of non-review of third parties’ patents in, so as to avoid the knowledge of patent infringement. Such policy is seen differently in US district courts. The author reviews cases, where such corporate policy has been addressed as to whether it can amount to willful blindness.
Around the IP blogs Around the IP blogs Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko on Sunday, April 19, 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.