 |
| This Kat is springing into action |
Another week, another roundup of IP-related news and views.
Patents
FOSS Patents presented a criticism of alleged structural shortcomings in the current German patent injunction reform process, including the bill's potential differential impact on different industries.
Keeping with the German theme, JUVE Patent reported on the settlement of a long-running dispute over technology used for bottle deposit return machines, ubiquitous across Germany.
Hopping across to Texas, IP blogs lit up with commentary on a $2.18bn judgment awarded by a jury in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas in a dispute between VLSI Technology and Intel, with coverage collated over on Comparative Patent Remedies.
The Kluwer Patent Blog hosted a two-part summary and critical analysis of the EU SEPs Expert Group report, considering its proposals in relation to licensing and transparency (available here and here).
Trade marks
Fans of both streetwear and intellectual property law may be interested in The Fashion Law's recent report on the well-known brand Supreme's opposition to a US trade mark application made by an entity seeking to register Emerpus, i.e. Supreme backwards, stylised in a similar way and also for use on apparel.
Other
Can jewellery be protected under intellectual property law? Spicy IP addressed this question in an Indian context, with Part 1 of the analysis of the interplay between copyright and design law available here.
The Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice's blog published an overview of intellectual property protection in the Kenyan tea industry, from patents and plant variety protection to copyright and trade marks.
Photo by Inge Wallumrød from Pexels
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Sunday, March 14, 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