 |
| This Kat is searching for IP news |
What better way to relax and look forward to the week ahead than consuming the latest IP news and views?
Copyright
The Kluwer Copyright Blog summarised and commented on the CJEU's recent VG Kunst decision, concerning the nature and scope of the 'communication to the public' concept.
Patents
JUVE Patent covered the European Patent Office's revocation of a CRISPR patent owned by US biotechnology company Sigma-Aldrich for lack of inventive step.
FOSS Patents reported on the French connection of the Düsseldorf Regional Court's Daimler/Nokia CJEU referral on matters of competition law in relation to Standard Essential Patent licensing, with the French industrial giant Thales having now elected to intervene to argue in favour of asking additional questions.
Trade Marks
Afro-IP drew attention to a recent decision of the Gauteng Division of the High Court in South Africa, in which it was determined that a former licensee of PACIFIC trade marks for cigarettes was not liable for infringement by selling cigarettes branded as ATLANTIC.
Other
CREATe (University of Glasgow) published an overview of aspects of the European Commission's Proposal for a Digital Markets Act pertaining to so-called 'gatekeepers', in the context of competition law.
Spicy IP considered further elements of jewellery protection in Indian intellectual property law, including the practical implications of bringing a trade mark, design or copyright suit, and whether other routes such as Geographical Indications might serve to protect traditional designs.
Image: Wilson Afonso from Sydney, Australia, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Sunday, March 28, 2021
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[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)
![[UPCKat] UPC Court of Appeal confirms that opt-outs may be withdrawn for patents subject to pre-UPC national litigation](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpmrXJ0cC3SxOoivC5ULhM28pQmX9tykkfzReC-ZaHlNPANbFKM6qY-jGJUpJbI6VWkoJH2kL867Uqs-KAOosZHW-Voz25uAZwOw2RUO65FeTgLEbGFtTAq6tQ-9-uzLRW4oHj1EcMR2xqvSOVOXN2BSRYuMJvTGXub5Htcij5mAgo2HX2M90LXA/s72-c/cat%20opt%20out.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