 |
| This Kat has had a revelation |
This Kat can hardly believe that it's already the last week of an eventful January. What better way to unwind towards the end of the month than by catching up on developments from around the IP blogs?
Copyright
CREATe (University of Glasgow) has launched the Copyright Evidence Portal and published its first annual roundup of empirical copyright evidence, indicating areas which have been shown most research attention.
With the deadline for national implementation of the DSM Directive looming - being less than five months away - the Kluwer Copyright Blog has published a pair of posts about national developments so far and the Commission's consultation (here and here), as well as a two-part post on Article 17's impact on freedom to conduct a business (here and here).
Over on SpicyIP came a forceful report on a recent decision of the Delhi High Court on whether underlying works incorporated in sound recordings are "utilised", described as "almost completely extinguish[ing] the rights of authors of underlying works."
Patents
JUVE Patent reports that the Munich Regional Court has made a referral to the CJEU to ask if a court can refuse to grant a preliminary injunction for infringement, where the patent in suit has not yet survived opposition or nullity proceedings.
Trade marks
The calculation of the five-year period to assess genuine use of an EU trade mark came under consideration by the CJEU in a case referred by the German Federal Court of Justice and covered by Kluwer Trademark Blog.
Other
For an IP-related angle on current affairs, one need look no further than Patently-O's overview of copyright, trade mark and patent litigation which new US VP Kamala Harris's husband, Doug Emhoff, has worked on.
Photo by Cong H from Pexels
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.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