Around the Blogs

This Kat seeks catnip on FRAND terms
This week's whistle-stop tour of the IP-blogosphere has a transatlantic character, with a Swiss patent litigation detour.


Last week brought widespread coverage of the the Supreme Courts of England and Wales's decision in the case of Unwired Planet vs. Huawei and Conversant vs. Huawei and ZTE (see Kat coverage here and here), including from Juve Patent, the Kluwer Patent BlogPatentlyo and FOSS Patents.

What is the effect of a partial waiver of a patent filed late on in proceedings? The FPC Review covered the Swiss Supreme Court's answer, dismissing the ‘Einschlagbarer Hüftgelenkprothesengrundkörper’ case as being devoid of purpose since (a) the patentee no longer had any interest in the patent as originally filed, and (b) the partially-waived patent could not be admitted at a late stage. 

IP Finance reported on the findings of two interesting studies - one in the US, the other in the UK - about women's increasing involvement in the patent system, and racial diversity in startups, respectively.

Trade Marks

As explained on the IP Watchdog, a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a trade mark infringement finding of the district court in Tiffany & Co. vs. Costco Wholesale Corp., with the reasoning turning on a number of factors including descriptive use and lack of bad faith by Costco in selling 'Tiffany'-set rings.

In another decision born in the USA, the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed a refusal to register 'born in the USA' as a trade mark for clothing, finding it to be merely descriptive, according to the TTABlog.


The Fashion Law provided an update in the ongoing litigation involving fast-fashion company Fashion Nova and established designer brand Versace, with a judge siding with the latter in refusing to compel Donatella Versace to give evidence personally in the trade dress element of the dispute.

Photo by Danielle Daniel from Pexels
Around the Blogs Around the Blogs Reviewed by Sophie Corke on Friday, September 04, 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.