Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week

Home alone (and asleep)

Trade Marks

Last week, GuestKat Peter Ling offered his farewell post on whether QR codes may be registered as a trade mark. Peter analysed a Swiss decision on the matter, where the Federal Administrative Court reached the conclusion that QR codes are devoid of distinctive character, as they cannot be memorized or distinguished by consumers. 

GuestKat Nedim Malovic commented on the cancellation by the Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal of a three-dimensional trade mark for the shape of Crocs shoes. The trade mark in question was found by the court as not having acquired distinctiveness through i use, and it was therefore cancelled.

Nedim also looked at a recent decision from the General Court of the EU, where the Court considered the likelihood of confusion between the “MARK” and “MARQ” signs. After having compared the respective goods and services and considering the visual similarity between the signs, the court concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the two signs. 

Collecting societies

PermaKat Neil Wilkof rubbed salt into the wound open in many jurisdictions: the lack of transparency in the distribution of royalties collected by collecting societies, this time in Israel. Neil summarized an article that appeared in f The Marker section of the Haaretz newspaper, which discusses how a local collecting society, Eshkolot, refuses its members access to documents and information concerning the allocation of royalties, claiming that such information is protected by trade secrets. 

Event Report 

KatFriends Alexander de Leeuw, Boukje van der Maazen, Jonathan Santman and Jasmijn de Groot prepared an event report from the IP Tech Summit, which was hosted by Microsoft early December 2020. This year’s event focused on intellectual property for open innovation and digital transformation, and covered such topics as artificial intelligence, the internet of things, open data and open innovation. Turn to the event report for a summary of the discussion, held by speakers from the EU Commission, private practice and industry associations. 

Never Too Late 296 [Week ending December 20]: Africa IP highlights 2020 #1: The copyright field | Africa IP highlights 2020 #2: The trademarks arena | [Guest post] Retromark Volume VIII: the last six months in trade marks | When a strong reputation does not guarantee distinctiveness | Acquired distinctiveness and sub-brands - Tefal ‘red dot’ mark is denied trade mark protection by UKIPO | Africa IP highlights 2020 #3: The patent and designs fields | Does the injunction gap violate implementers' fair trial rights under the ECHR? | [Guest post] Event report: Fashion Reinassance - A Unique Year in Review | Book review: Research Handbook on IP & Digital Technologies 

Never Too Late 295 [Week ending December 13]: Chappelle's Show on Netflix - the unforgiving tension between an artist and the creations he does not own | Artists speak out at the UK Economics of Music Streaming Inquiry | A performance review: is copyright doing its job in the music industry? | CJEU assesses the scope of ‘genuine use’ and considers that the resale of vehicles and replacement parts thereof amounts to ‘genuine use’ | “What, there was a mark on goods in the container?”: Loosening the trademark liability of a freight forwarder | Have you considered the effect of Brexit on the territorial scope of a trademark license? | PEB (seems to) confirm that candidates will not be disqualified for writing during the time allocated for screen breaks and upload time | [Event Report] SIPLR Conference - IP in the Digital Environment | IPKat Book of the Year Awards 2020 | [Guest Post] Study on Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the IPR Framework | Blockchain Standard for IP Offices: The WIPO Blockchain Projects
Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko on Sunday, January 10, 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.