Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week


A new week is fast approaching, but before we jump into that, let's see what happened on the IPKat last week...


The UK patent exams are now fast approaching. To assist candidates in their preparation for the exams, the PEB has released some FD4/P6 (Infringement and validity) model answers for the 2013 ("Water butts") and 2018 ("Gantry-gate") papers. The model answers can be viewed on the PEB website here. Rose Hughes provided some further helpful information for candidates here.



Recently the UKIPO saw a regal trade mark application, similarly to the 'Sussex Royal' trade mark, opposed by the Lord Chamberlain, on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen. The trade mark, which featured the words ‘THE ROYAL BUTLER’, was refused trade mark registration on the basis of sections 3(5) and 4(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA), which addresses specially protected emblems. Riana Harvey reported on the rejection of the trade mark.



One of the thorniest ongoing issues in IP law is its overlap with competition law. A recent interesting instance can be found in the decision delivered by Justice Bakhru of the Delhi High Court in the case of Monsanto v. Competition Commission of India. Kat friend Aditya Gupta reported on the case and its importance for competition law and IP law here.

Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste on Sunday, September 20, 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.