 |
| This Kat has constitutionality concerns |
Copyright
In a guest post, KatFriend Hanne Kirk (Gorrissen Federspiel) considered the application of the CJEU's Cofemel decision by Denmark's Supreme Court and whether a certain style of black rubber boots with red laces would merit copyright protection.
Chijioke Okorie, the IPKat's Africa Correspondent, reported on the decision of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to refer the Copyright Amendment Bill (CAB) and Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill (PPAB) back to the National Assembly on constitutionality grounds.
Patents
The adequacy of damages question arose once more this week, with GuestKat Léon Dijkman summarising the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Neurim Pharmaceuticals v. Mylan, upholding Marcus Smith J.'s decision to deny an interim injunction against a generic company which launched at risk.
Fellow GuestKat Rose Hughes reported on the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in Regeneron v Kymab, which found Regeneron's patents to be invalid for insufficiency, overturning the Court of Appeal decision and confirming the UK's strong sufficiency requirement.
Trade Marks
PermaKat Neil J. Wilkof recounted a recent visit to Caffè Nero (which, rather prosaically, simply means 'black coffee' in Italian) to illustrate how even misplaced consumer perception may benefit a brand, especially where a mark may have multiple meanings in different languages.
In a big week for the IP protection of boots, KatFriend Federica Pezza (HoganLovells) discussed a recent cancellation decision of the EUIPO in relation to a 3D trade mark for the moon boot style of shoes.
The Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal’s application of the CJEU's answers to the preliminary questions referred in the Textilis case came under scrutiny. KatFriend Hans Eriksson discussed the issues arising in relation to the application of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation 2017/1001 (EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR)) to a pillow design dispute.
Other
PermaKat Eleonora Rosati gave an overview of the approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to website blocking under the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) freedom of expression right in Vladimir Kharitonov v Russia.
Finally, readers will be pleased to learn that Informa's popular 'Standards and Patents' event will be returning for a 2020 edition in a digital format between 1-3 September this year, with an IPKat reader discount available.
Never Too Late 270 [Week ending June 21] Italian Supreme Court rules that technical regulation (drafted by an IP lawyer) may be *in principle* protected by copyright | US Copyright Office Review Board allows registration of Abercrombie & Fitch’s Store Front Sculpture | French Constitutional Court (partly) quashes Avia law on notice-and-take down for illegal speech | General Court annuls EUIPO Board of Appeal decision on invalidity of Louis Vuitton chequerboard pattern
Never Too Late 269 [Week ending June 14] Conversations with FRANDs: top courts in UK, DE and NL to decide key issues relating to SEP's | BREAKING: CJEU rules that a functional shape may be protected by copyright in so far as it is original | [Guest post] Digital Culture Consumer Tracking Study – Week 6 of 6 | “Doh” may be a female deer and “re” a drop of golden sun, but "me" harmony be the basis for copyright infringement? | The IPKat and Merpel stand against racism | ERA’s Summer Course in European IP Law now taking place online (and still coming with a 25% IPKat discount) | [Guest Book Review] Resolving business disputes - how to get better outcomes from commercial disputes | The inexorable rise of streaming and the sunset of the cinema: celebration or sorrow?
Image: Takashi Hososhima - Flickr: Hey, what are you up to? CC BY-SA 2.0
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Wednesday, July 01, 2020
Rating:
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Wednesday, July 01, 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