PermaKat Eleonora Rosati discussed the recent CJEU judgment in case C-597/19 concerning the treatment of (i) seeding under the InfoSoc Directive and of (ii) ‘trolls’ under the Enforcement Directive, as well as the interplay between copyright enforcement and data protection law (GDPR). [see also an earlier IPKat post on the preliminary ruling behind this case here]. According to the CJEU, seeding (an uploading technology used in peer-to-peer file sharing) does constitute an act of communication/making available to the public. With regard to the second part of the reference, the CJEU answered that also those persons, who are holding certain IP rights, but are not themselves using those rights, may, in principle, benefit from the measures, procedures and remedies, provided under the Enforcement Directive.
Other
Katfriend Sandra Torillas Rodríguez prepared a guest post on the non-fungible tokens’ (NFTs) implications for IP. After providing readers with some background on NFT, Sandra discusses how copyright law can be applied to an NFT artwork, using Banksy’s art as a case study.
Never Too Late 319 [week ending June 5]: Commission unveils Article 17 Guidance: 3 highlights | [Guest post] Copyright Gunfight at the O.K. Corral: A Fistful of Dollars vs Rango before the Court of Rome | Reference to a hybridoma does not limit a product-by-process antibody claim (T 0032/17) | Book Review: The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property and Trade in the Pacific Rim
Never Too Late 318 [week ending 30 May]: BREAKING: Oral proceedings in G1/21 (ViCo) rescheduled due to procedural technicality | [Guest Post] Repeat filings after Monopoly: an exchange of views | [Guest post] De minimis uses and the German implementation of Art 17 DSM Directive | Book Review: The Routledge Handbook of EU Copyright Law
Never Too Late: if you missed The IPKat last week
Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
on
Sunday, June 27, 2021
Rating:
Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
on
Sunday, June 27, 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