 |
| This Kat is pondering green vs white asparagus |
Copyright
The news which lit up the IP blogosphere last week was indisputably the US Supreme Court's ruling in Google v Oracle, which determined that the incorporation of program code into the Android operating system was fair use by Google. It was covered by FOSS Patents, Spicy IP (here and here), PatentlyO, Written Description and IP Watchdog, among others - and is proving divisive.
CREATe (University of Glasgow) recently published a Working Paper entitled 'Copyright History in Review', which traces the expansion of the copyright history discipline towards a greater range of media and subject matter.
The Kluwer Copyright Blog reflected on the disturbing development of attempted police weaponisation of automated copyright filters in France with the aim of preventing the dissemination of recorded interactions with officers, especially when individuals are exercising their right to protest.
Patents
The valuation and licensing of Standard Essential Patents in a British context came under scrutiny on the Kluwer Patent Blog with a comparison of the various available valuation approaches recognised in Unwired Planet v Huawei.
In a development to warm the cockles of English teachers everywhere's hearts, JUVE Patent reported on the EPO's nullification of a Boeing patent for ambiguity due to inconsistent comma placement (as also covered by the IPKat here).
FOSS Patents covered the recent settlement of a long-running, multi-jurisdictional license dispute between Nokia and Lenovo, with the agreement of a portfolio license - even in the absence of it having been proved that Nokia in fact holds essential Advanced Video Coding patents.
Trade marks
The JIPLP presented an overview of filings made with the US Patent and Trademark Office related to the present pandemic, with many applications including terms such as "COVID-19" or "coronavirus".
According to the TTABlog, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO recently affirmed a first-instance refusal to register the proposed mark "MALIBU SUPPER CLUB" for reasons of geographical descriptiveness, despite the applicant's argument that "Malibu" denotes luxury and relaxation more generally.
Characterising it as something of a poltergeist of a ruling, the Kluwer Trademark Blog reported on a finding by the Swedish Patent and Market Court that there was no likelihood of confusion between two trade marks, both incorporating the element "ghost", based on mere visual differences.
Photo by Susanne Jutzeler from Pexels
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Saturday, April 17, 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