 |
| Cat distancing |
The Unitary Patent system keeps coming back to the pages of the IP blogs. Last week, the Preparatory Committee of the UPC published a press release, stating that ‘the unitary patent system [is] to be functional in near future’. Kluwer Patent Blog summed up the latest developments (and hurdles) on the road to a functional UPC.
Our cousin blog, IPTango, brought the news from Brazil: the Brazilian IP Office (INPI) has added two new types of applications to the priority examination procedure, those resulting from public funding and technology applications already available on the market.
Juve Patent discussed a patent infringement case over a German patent for a process for producing identity cards. The case opposed a US company, owner of the patent, and the official producer of the German ID cards and passports.
Copyright
SpicyIP featured a guest post on royalty aspects of movies which, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, are released through streaming services instead of movies theaters. Against the background of the Indian Copyright Act, Tanvi Sehgal discusses how the closure of cinemas affects the distribution of royalties between authors and producers.
The Fashion Law (TFL) blog looked into the IP-related aspects behind an initiative by Amazon, which consists of developing an AI algorithm capable of creating garment designs. Relying on the USPTO’s arguments in the DABUS case [addressed by The IPKat here], TFL discussed who could be considered as the creator of such designs.
The IPlens blog discussed yet another decision from the Florence Court on the unauthorized commercial use of the David by Michelangelo [earlier cases were reported by The IPKat here and here]. The case at stake saw the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage acting against fashion brand Brioni, which had used a replica of the David sculpture in its advertisement campaign.
Other
Afro-IP blog shared a guest post on the value of the intellectual property in times of Covid-19. Examples such as the recent confusion between Zoom and Zoom Technologies on the stock market, outlined the Afro-IP blog, remind of the importance of a careful due diligence review.
Around the IP Blogs
Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
on
Sunday, September 20, 2020
Rating:
Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
on
Sunday, September 20, 2020
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.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