If you missed some of the IPKat news last week, don't worry, we have you covered!
 |
| Fudge!? Can I eat it? |
PATENTS
Looking for a beautiful example of
legal fudge? Look no further – the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s (EBA) decision in
G3/19 is such. Rose Hughes reported on G3/19, which brings to an end the
see-sawing the EPO has experienced in recent years over the issue of the
patentability of plants and animals produced by essentially biological
processes.
TRADE MARKS
A decision by the EUIPO's Cancellation
Division, regarding bad faith in an invalidation action involving Chinese
character marks, merits particular attention. Kat friend, Matej Michalec, reported
on this decision.
COPYRIGHT
In breaking news, the US Copyright
Office released its much-awaited Report on Section 512 of the US Copyright Act,
which was enacted in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and
introduced the so called 'safe harbor' system into US law. Eleonora Rosati
reported that the US Copyright Office finds the current safe harbor system
'unbalanced' and 'out of sync with Congress' original intent'
Last month the Milan court ruled
against Antonio Marras over unauthorized use of howling wolf photograph. The
court sided with the claimant, having established that his photograph – which
has been also registered with the US Copyright Office - would qualify for
protection under the ‘ordinary’ copyright regime. Eleonora Rosati reported on
the case.
OTHER IP TOPICS: GOODWILL, GDPR
Want to understand goodwill? Neil Wilkof looked at what a cat, dog, rat and rabbit can teach us about goodwill.
Can a person be prohibited from
sharing a picture of her grandson online? Léon Dijkman answered this question
in light of a recent case in the Gelderland district court in the Netherlands,
which ordered a person to remove a picture of her underage grandchild from her
Facebook and Pinterest accounts, at the request of the child's mother (the
defendant's daughter).
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste
on
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Rating:
Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste
on
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html