 |
| This Kat isn't quite sure how she got here |
Trade marks
GuestKat Nedim Malovic considered the meaning of bad faith pursuant to Article 59(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation, following the EU General Court's decision in Riviera-Airport v EUIPO.
Also in the EU vein, InternKat Anastasiia Kyrylenko reported on the Opinion issued by Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe in Case C-123/20, which relates to the protectability of ‘partial designs’ as an unregistered Community design right.
Asia Correspondent Tian Lu summarised a recent judgment of the Beijing High People's Court on whether a sign which was the subject of an application to China's Trade Mark Office which means "Eat Clan People" carries an association with cannibalism producing an adverse effect, given the adverse effect clause of China's Trade Mark Law.
Other
Kat friend Francisco Martínez identified the main points of the recently-enacted El Salvadorean Bitcoin Law, which makes the cryptocurrency legal tender in the Central American nation with the twin aims of promoting financial inclusion and economic growth.
Former GuestKat Rosie Burbidge returned with a glowing review of 'Harnessing Public Research for Innovation in the 21st Century An International Assessment of Knowledge Transfer Policies', edited by Anthony Arundel (UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University and University of Tasmania), Suma Athreye (Essex Business School, Southend Campus), and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (World Intellectual Property Organization), recommending it to those working on public research-related topics.
Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Saturday, August 14, 2021
Rating:
Reviewed by Sophie Corke
on
Saturday, August 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