Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Have you missed the IPKat’s latest posts? Then this recap is for you!

Four’s a Crowd? 


The DSM Directive still dominates the IPKat pages [see earlier contributions here, here, here, here and here], and now in its transposition phase. Kat Friend Lisa Moser brought us the news about the first application of Art. 15 of the new DSM Directive in France. Since the DSM Directive has been implemented in France, Google has unilaterally decided to no longer display press publishers’ content, unless such display is authorized free of charge. The French associations of national and regional press publishers have filed a complaint against Google to the French Competition Authority (FCA). While we are awaiting for the decision on the merits, Lisa Moser analyzes the interim decision, adopted by the FCA.

Eleonora Rosati analysed the Advocate’s General opinion in the C-264/19 case, currently pending before the Court of Justice. The referral from the German Federal Court of Justice concerns the interpretation of Art. 8(2)(a) of the Enforcement Directive and whether the term ‘address’ shall include email and IP address. The Advocate General has answered in the negative and Eleonora looks how this Opinion generally fits within the EU regime of online platforms and intermediaries.


Kat Friend Marie Barani shared a recent decision from the Dutch Court of the Hague over the alleged infringement of a European patent, declared essential to the 4G/LTE 3GPP standard. In this case, Sisvel, the company administering the patent, sued Sun Cupid Technology for the infringement of the Dutch designation of this standard essential patent.

Trade marks 

The Retromark Volume VII featured a guest contribution by Darren Meale with an overview of notable trade mark cases over the past six months. Daren brings us the 10 most important trade mark cases from the Court of Justice and national European courts, including the Skykick and EasyGroup cases [also reviewed by the IPKat here and here]. Be sure to also tonconsult the previous volumes of Retromark, all listed in the end of Volume VII for you convenience.

Other topics 

GuestKat Rose Hughes brought us the news about the extension of deadlines at the EPO due to COVID-19. Deadlines falling after 15 March 2020 will now be extended until 4 May 2020. Oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal have also been cancelled until 15 May 2020. Kat Friend Shawn Poon reported on the new modified approach to breach of confidence claims, adopted by the Singapore Court of Appeal. Especially, the Court has y enabled a prima facie case to be satisfied “where confidential information has been accessed or acquired without a plaintiff’s knowledge or consent”. If a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the defendant to “prove that its conscience was unaffected.”

Kat Friends Darren Meale and Rosie Burbridge launched a series of Retromark: Live! podcasts and informed the IPKat readers about the first three episodes. The IP world in the time of Coronavirus is experiencing a fall in trade mark filings, suspension of deadlines in the Offices, and a switch to virtual court hearings. On the bright side, the list of amusing corona-related applications is a delight!

The IP Education Series is out with its final Volume 7. Kat Friends Hannah Yates and Joe Sekhon shared with the IPKat readers their experiences with online resources on intellectual property. Hannah Yates (UK IPO) presented the free online resources made available by the UK IPO, including the IP Support tool. Joe Sekhon (Portsmouth University) explained how he is using social media, including Facebook and Instagram, to deliver IP education to young entrepreneurs. 

Never Too Late 260 [Week ending April 12]: WIPO: China becomes top filer of international patents in 2019 | General Court allows registration of CORNEREYE ... and an argument based on Brexit (briefly) appears | PDOs/PGIs from France and Italy are amending their product specifications to cope with the lockdown | [Guest Post] Red Stripes for Ex-President | “A girl has no name”: Does the decision in MCSN v COSON and 2 Others have any impact on copyright collective administration in Nigeria? | Book review: Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources, Customary Law and Intellectual Property | Book review: Art Law and the Business of Art | EUIPO Boards of Appeal adopt set of unified Rules of Procedure

Never Too Late 259 [Week ending April 5]: BREAKING: CJEU rules that hiring out of motor vehicles equipped with radio receivers does not constitute a communication to the public | Significant Revisions to the Swiss Copyright Act | Book review: The unrealized promise of the next great copyright act | [Guest post] Covid-19 Treatments: The Issue of Orphan Drug Status and Patents | What is all due care in stressful situations? (T 0600/18) | Book Review; the CIPA Guide to the Patents Act by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, Ninth Edition | [Guest Post] Appeals to the Appointed Person in the UK – the unappealing truth | Gleissner fails again in aptly-named UK trade mark invalidity action | What happened to the "long tail" theory of commerce on the Internet? | UK IP courts go virtual, as COVID-19 shutters courtrooms across the globe

Image credit: Tetiana Nikolaieva
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 Sunday, April 26, 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.