Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Need a reason to leave the bed?

Eleonora Rosati looked at the role of live streaming providers as ‘online content sharing service providers’ under the DSM Directive. This issue is especially relevant in light of the coronavirus situation, when DJs from all over the world are performing their DJ sets online through various online platforms. Eleonora believes that in this case such online platforms need a license to allow the DJ to stream third-party protected subject matter- and she guides us through the most relevant legal developments on the issue.

Eleonora also shared with the IPKat readers a recent ruling from the Italian Supreme Court, where the Cofemel ruling was applied. Not only did the Italian Supreme Court confirm the decisions of first and second instances, finding that the KIKO’s store layout is eligible for copyright protection under Italian law, it also gave some useful insights as to overlap of copyright with design and trade mark rights.

Kat Friend Aln Hui covered the much anticipated Pelham judgment, delivered at end of April by the German Federal Court of Justice. In it, the Court applied findings from the preliminary ruling in C-476/17 [covered by the IPKat here, here and here] and affirmed that recognizable sampling of a phonogram is not allowed under the German copyright law. Alan also kindly shared with the IPKat readers an English translation of this German judgment.

Former GuestKat Mirko Brüß shared with IPKat readers a recent Austrian decision on the scope of an intermediary injunction. Here, the highest Austrian civil court applied CJEU C-18/18 ruling in Glawischnig-Piesczek [addressed by the IPKat here] and ordered Facebook to delete content country-wide. The case involved ORF, a public Austrian broadcaster, and an Austrian politician, who used a picture of the ORF’s news anchor in his Facebook posts. Facebook, in its capacity of an intermediary, was ordered to delete this content, albeit that while the scope of this injunction was limited to the territory of Austria.


Kat Friend Rien Broekstra brought the news of the first virtual hearing in a patent case, held by the Hague Patents Court. With the new social distancing challenges, the Dutch legislator has temporary allowed video and phone hearings,where physical hearings are not possible. Rien shared the details of how the Hague Patents Court dealt with the video hearing in Sisvel against Oppo, OnePlus, BBK and Wiko.

Kat Friend Matt Swinn shed light on a complex case between the Commonwealth of Australia and the pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanofi. The Federal Court of Australia has recently denied the Commonwealth’s claim for compensation from Sanofi following wrongful exclusion of a generic drug, produced by Apotex, from the market.

Trade marks 

From the other side of the Atlantic, GuestKat Thomas Key shared a judgment from the 9th Circuit on the use of trade marks in expressive works. In this case, involving dog toys and Jack Daniels whiskey, the Court expanded the so-called Rogers test, so that it applies not only to expressive works that clearly belong to this category, such as (films, songs or video games, but also to dog toys.

Never Too Late 263 [Week ending May 3] The CJEU (again) on 3D trademarks: the Gömböc judgment | The non-systematic relevance of earlier IP rights: from Gömböc to Brompton Bicycle | Trade marks and mobile apps: the PlanetArt v Photobox saga draws to a close (in PlanetArt's favour) | SkyKicked: High Court confirms trade mark infringement | Is COVID-19 a Nietzschean moment for trademarks and brands? | US Supreme Court rules Official Georgia Codes Annotated is ineligible for copyright protection - Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. | [GuestPost] The Nadorcott Case - Shifting the plant variety paradigm from a proprietary to a liability rule | In memoriam: Dr. Michael Factor, blogmeister extraordinaire | Dr. Michael Factor: a further remembrance | Patent exceptions in times of Covid-19: an Italian perspective

Never Too Late 262 [Week ending April 26] FibroGen v. Akebia: Arnold LJ addresses insufficiency, equivalence, second medical use claims, and much more | An unimpressed LJ Floyd strikes out Regen Lab's UK appeal (Regen v Estar) | No European qualifying examination will be held in 2020 says EQE Supervisory Board | [Guest Post]: Insights on pharmaceuticals patents and Covid-19 from an Italian perspective | Is there any connection between unlawful competition founded on trademark infringement in South Africa and the press publishers’ rights debate? | “SUPERMAN” enjoys high degree of recognition, says EUIPO Opposition Division | In Memoriam Albert Uderzo – How Asterix's Father Shaped IP Law | Happy World IP Day from The IPKat!
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, May 17, 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.