 |
| Waiting for the spring |
Copyright
The Cyberleagle Blog analysed the implications of Brexit for the UK’s intermediary liability system. After an early commitment to maintain the system, introduced through Arts. 12-15 of the Electronic Commerce Directive, the UK is now considering introducing additional obligations for intermediaries, which would no longer be aligned with the “no general obligation to monitor” clause of Art. 15.
The Kluwer Copyright Blog discussed a recent ruling by the French Supreme Court, where the Court applied Art. 2(7) of the Berne Convention to a case on possible protection of a work of applied art by copyright. Basing itself on the reciprocity requirement under the Berne Convention, the French court relied on US copyright law (from where the work of applied art, for which the protection was claimed, had originated) to define whether the plaintiff’s Tulip chairs are protected by copyright in France. Relying on this article (which the blog described as “rarely used”), he Court ruled that because US copyright law does not protect works of applied art in this case, the so-called Knoll “Tulip” chair, the work would also not be protected in France
Trade marks
TheFashionLaw blog addressed an interesting question of copyright ownership in fashion campaigns, which, due to the pandemic, are increasingly being shot through FaceTime, often by the models themselves, under the direction of a photographer who guides the shooting remotely. The blog looks at this recent trend of “models-as-authors” against the background of existing US caselaw on joint authorship
Patents
The Juve Patent Blog informed on heated discussion around the German Patent Law reform. This reform, in its current wording, will affect the provisions on injunctive relief, which is seen by major industrial companies as leading to a a weakening of automatic injunctions [see an earlier discussion on automatic injunction by The IPKat, here]. This comes in parallel to a reference, sent by the Munich Regional Court to the CJEU, concerning the possibility of granting preliminary injunctions against those patents ,which have not been tested in an opposition or nullity proceeding. The FossPatent discussed this reference here.
Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our
Policies section.
If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.
Comments
Post a Comment
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