Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

This Kat is inspired by nature
If you've been too busy (or perhaps, like this Dublin Kat, spent a little too much time in the rare May sun) to keep abreast of the latest IPKat posts, read on for the latest digest.


GuestKat Léon Dijkman provided a commentary on a recent decision of the Hague District Court to order an ISP to disclose infringing users' email addresses under the Dutch implementation of Directive 2004/48/EC.


In an important week in patent news, Rose Hughes reported on the the Enlarged Board of Appeal finding, pursuant to referral G3/19, that plants and animal products produced by essentially biological processes are not patentable.

Fellow GuestKat Frantzeska Papadopolou gave an overview of the latest - and final - instalment in the Sisvel/Haier FRAND saga in Germany.

In a topical post on the interface between IP law and the coronavirus crisis, Katfriends friends Dr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon and Dr. Akanksha Wadehra Tandon offered their insight from the perspective of Indian patent law.

InternKat Magdaleen Jooste commented on the scope of the good faith requirement in South African patent applications, following the battle between Bayer and VillaCrop.

Trade Marks

KatFriend Marina Perraki provided an overview of the new Greek Trademark Law. This Kat appreciates both the legislative commentary and the pictures of feline friends, Tigrakis and Asproulis.


Former GuestKat Mathilde Pavis reviewed Jennifer Rothman's 'The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World', which details the development and basis of the publicity right in the United States.

Never Too Late 264 [Week ending May 10] [Guest post] Austria’s highest civil court applies CJEU Glawischnig-Piesczek ruling and orders Facebook to delete content country-wide | [GuestPost]. The Hague Patents Court conducts first virtual hearing in patent case | [Guestpost] Australian government fails to recoup clopidogrel costs from Sanofi | The Bad Spaniel Gets a Treat: VIP Products LLC v Jack Daniels Properties Inc | Does the duration of the storage matter? Live streaming providers as ‘online content sharing service providers’ under the DSM Directive | Italian Supreme Court applies CJEU Cofemel decision to makeup store layout | [Guest Post] 21 and illegal in all states? The German Pelham court confirms when sampling is illegal

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

Photo by Septimiu Lupea from Pexels
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Sophie Corke on Friday, May 22, 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.