Around the IP Blogs

Spot the Scaredy-Kat

This Kat was interested to see the variety of stories around the IP blogs this week, and hopes readers are too.


Should any readers be in need of new sound effects for non-commercial use, IP Draughts has annotated part of the BBC's licensing terms recently published to accompany the making available of 16,000 sound effects from its archives.

The IP Watchdog reports on the oral argument in Google v. Oracle in the US Supreme Court, with both sides arguing that a judgment in favour of the other in this computer code copyright case would harm innovation. 


A new article in the PatentlyO Law Journal argues that the patent-holder's right to exclude in the US has been impinged upon by federal courts misunderstanding and misapplying the landmark 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange.

FOSS Patents characterised the UK judgment in Unwired Planet v. Huawei/Conversant v. ZTE as having encouraged territorial overreach in patent litigation, leading to a spate of extreme measures such as anti-anti(ad nauseam)-suit injunctions.

Michael Geist assesses recent Canadian innovation policy, finding provincial policy skewed in favour of patents and away from alternative, more open models of incentivising innovation - but a flicker of light in the federal government's legislation to set aside patents where necessary for the distribution of vaccines or other pharmaceuticals. 

Trade Marks

To what extent might trade mark or copyright law protect a stylised ampersand? The Fashion Law considers these and other issues in reporting on a recent unjust enrichment suit filed against Banana Republic.

SpicyIP hosted a guest post suggesting that trade marks with a discriminatory meaning should be refused registration in India, in light of recent controversy around the 'Fair & Lovely' skin whitening cream.

Photo by Aleksandr Nadyojin from Pexels
Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by Sophie Corke on Friday, October 16, 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.