Copyright
IPLens blog looked at several recent decisions of the Court of Milan, to see how the CJEU Cofemel decision has impacted on the copyright protection of industrial designs [see also an IPKat post the Kiko case, where the Italian Supreme Court applied Cofemel to Kiko store layout]. As Kat readers may recall, in the Cofemel decision, the Court of Justice declined to impose any requirements, beyond being qualified as a “work”, for the existence of copyright protection. This position is not easily reconcilable with the Italian copyright law requirement of “creative character and artistic value” for work of industrial designs. IPlens discussed how the Court of Milan struggles to reconcile the two approaches.
SpicyIP featured a post on the copyright ownership in State Board Textbooks. The post looks into how different copyright policies in different states within India impede access to knowledge and calls for consistency among such copyright policies across State Boards.
Patents
Munich I Regional Court has created a third patent litigation division. Both Juve Patent and Foss Patents blogs commented on this move. The new division will begin its operations in August 2021. It should enable a reduction in the case load of the two other patent divisions, with the Munich Regional Court increasingly becoming a demonstrably preferred venue for patent litigation.
Trade Marks
The Fashion Law blog reported on the on-going trade mark feud between Kanye West’s Yeezy brand and the US-based retail corporation Walmart. The current battle is over a U.S. trade mark application for a stylized sun rays graphic filed by Yeezy and opposed by Walmart on the ground of an earlier registered trade mark.
Other
Non-fungible tokens (NTFs) are more and more discussed in connection with their IP implications. The IP Finance blog suggests that NFTs might be used by young promising athletes to finance their prospective careers. For example, electronic “playing cards” might be sold as an NFT, to later gain value as the athlete’s career unfolds.
Around the IP Blogs
Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
on
Sunday, July 11, 2021
Rating:
Reviewed by Anastasiia Kyrylenko
on
Sunday, July 11, 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