Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week


I am in love - in love with Sundays and catching up on some IP news...

Feeling the love...


The High Court decision in Illumina v MGI is the first to take an in depth look at the thorny issue of sufficiency since last year's Supreme Court decision in Regeneron v Kymab. Rose Hughes highlighted the case, including Mr Justice Birss’s tests for determining whether an insufficiency issue amounts either to undue burden or lack of enablement across the whole scope of a claim.



Interested in a good read? GuestKat Vera Vallone brought you an exciting review of Dutfield and Suthersanen on Global Intellectual Property Law.


Want to know more about lesser-known cases and ignored chapters in the history of prominent IP, all of which have shaped IP law as we know it today? Then “Forgotten Intellectual Property Lore” is for you. Anastasiia Kyrylenko provided a teaser of this book.  



It looks, swims and quacks like a quack, so does that make it a nostrum or patent medicine? Neil Wilkof looked at the descriptive language, including the terms “quack” and “nostrum”, that has been adopted in pandemics.


In a recent decision concerning the likelihood of confusion between the EU collective trade mark ‘HALLOUMI’ and the sign ‘BBQLOUMI’, the EU General Court held that there was no likelihood of confusion pursuant to Articles 8(1)(b) and 75. Nedim Malovic reported on the Court’s decision.


Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week Reviewed by Magdaleen Jooste on Sunday, February 14, 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.