 |
| This Kat thinks the IP blogosphere is purr-fect |
Welcome to another week of IP news and views!
Copyright
The effects of the Brompton Bicycle case (reported by the IPKat here) rippled out last week, with the Fashion Law considering its implications for the fashion industry.
CREATe (University of Glasgow) has published its parliamentary evidence on the question of whether PSB obligations around intellectual property right assignability and licensing from independent producers should also apply to streaming services.
Over on SpicyIP, Divij Joshi provided an overview of issues relating to intermediary liability in India, following proceedings brought by a newspaper against Telegram, a messaging app on which channels are allegedly circulating unauthorised copies.
Patents
JUVE Patent reported on the Supreme Court of the Netherlands' rejection of an appeal from Fresenius regarding a patent covering the chemotherapy drug pemetrexed.
FOSS Patents summarised a press release from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Dusseldorf Regional Court), reiterating its position on the availability of injunctive relief in Standard Essential Patent cases.
Across the pond, IP Watchdog discussed the potentially-undesirable effect of the preemption test since the landmark Alice case as to patent eligibility of inventions generated by Machine Learning algorithms.
Trade Marks
The Journal of IP Law and Practice's latest monthly editorial was authored by (GuestKat) Nedim Malovic on the topic of 'Royal branding and trade marks' in relation to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's latest IP adventures.
Written Description hosted an interesting overview of issues raised in the recent oral argument of USPTO v. Booking.com as to whether two generic elements, 'Booking' and '.com' could be combined to make a non-generic trade mark, with the court's decision expected shortly.
Image: Sketch of a cat (1813) by Jean Bernard (1775-1883)
Around the IP Blogs
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
Rating:
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Wednesday, June 24, 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