Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

This Kat is looking forward to the 
clocks changing

As ever, it's never too late to catch up on last week's IPKat posts.

Trade Marks

GuestKat Nedim Malovic summarised a recent decision of the EUIPO Fourth Board of Appeal in respect of the likelihood of confusion between certain football-themed figurative marks, including the danger that attacking someone else's registration may have deleterious consequences for your own.


Katfriend (and former GuestKat) Bertrand Sautier discussed the USPTO’s report “Public Views on AI and IP Policy”, which summarises submissions on a variety of IP policy issues raised following its 2019 conference and subsequent call for views. Primarily patent-focused on inventorship, the report also contains considerations on copyright protection and AI 'creators'.

This Kat commented on a judgment of the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) from earlier this year which upheld the decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to refuse to find the existence of a true fiduciary duty between a solicitor and an opposing party in circumstances where the firm acted for separate successive parties against that same opponent.

Never Too Late 286 [Week ending October 11] Keeping up with French patent litigation: Half-year case law review 2020 | Guest Post: New anti-evergreening patent law in Ukraine | CJEU says that the assessment of distinctiveness of signs that are to be applied to specific goods used to deliver a service should not also entail an assessment of norms and/or customs of the relevant sector | When you are a lawyer, what is confidential about a confidential settlement? | Glenn Gould: Inventor of “User Rights”? | IP student materials: what to think about when thinking about a trade mark opposition? | Book review: Terrell on the Law of Patents

Never Too Late 285 [Week ending October 4] UK patent exams: New essential information for candidates released | Champagne, Champeng, and oronyms: Pushing the boundaries of bad faith jurisprudence? | Book Review: Copyright's Arc | Book review ”Proceedings before the European Patent Office” by Müller and Mulder | [Guest post] The presumption of authorship vs the deposit of the work in a recent Russian Supreme Court decision | Beijing Treaty in Africa series #2 and 3: Angola and Benin (Implementing the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances in Africa) | [Guest post] The Casebook of Copyright: are the character traits of Sherlock Holmes protected by intellectual property? | China judicial adjudicative documents website with more than 100 million records 

Photo by Amir Ghoorchiani from Pexels
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Sophie Corke on Saturday, October 24, 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.