 |
| This Kat is laser-focused |
Copyright
The YouTube/Cyando ruling of the CJEU featured last week, with PermaKat Eleonora Rosati analysing the Court's reasoning in relation to a number of questions asked by the referring court, including whether platforms like YouTube and cyberlocker Uploaded directly perform copyright-restricted acts under Article 3 of the InfoSoc Directive, under which conditions the hosting safe harbour under Article 14(1) of the Ecommerce Directive is available, and what the requirements for injunctions under Article 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive are.
Patents
GuestKat Rose Hughes reported on a claim faced by Carpmaels & Ransford, one of the UK's leading patent attorney firms, brought by their client, chemical company BASF, over a missed EPO appeals deadline.
When is an Instagram Live not a live? This question, as well as others including the application of the Formstein defence, was considered by Katfriend Henry Yang in relation to the recent case of Facebook v Voxer.
Other
Kat readers with an interest in maximising the value of intellectual property portfolios may be interested in Katfriend Donal O'Connell's review of Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer, which he highly recommends.
Informa Connect is running a number of IP courses and conferences over the coming months, for which readers can secure a special 15% discount. For more details of the events and how to book, see here.
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Sunday, July 04, 2021
Rating:
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Sunday, July 04, 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