Around the IP Blogs

When tourism was still a thing


The SpicyIP Blog featured an analysis of a recent decision, where the Delhi High Court interpreted Section 107 of the Indian Patent Act in to mean that export of a product from India amounts to use of the product in India. SpicyIP examined two possible ramifications of this decision for transit and local working requirements.

Trade Marks

Marques Class 99 Blog prepared a detailed guide to the amended Chinese Copyright Law, passed in November 2020. The amendments include implementation of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances and raising the amount of statutory damages for copyright infringement.


Last week, the US Trade Representative (USTR) Office presented the 2020 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy. The Fashion Law Blog discussed how Amazon has been included on the list for the second year in a row and presented comments from Amazon representatives.

The EU Digital Services Act package has been in the headlines of professional blogs since the two draft texts were revealed by the Commission last December. The EDRi, Lexology, and EU Law Analysis reviewed both the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, drawing attention to their potential drawbacks.

Chile is getting ready to join the Madrid Protocol concerning the International Registration of Marks. IPTango, the IPKat’s cousin blog, shared with its readers the latest developments on the matter.

The Verge reported on a recent settlement between the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the photo storage app, Ever. Ever was accused of using its customers’ photos to train its facial recognition technology, without prior consent from the users.
Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko on Sunday, January 24, 2021 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.