One Katnews leads to another, especially if IP-related. Let’s see what happening in the IP blogosphere this week:-
Online trade
channels have become a substantial aspect of many brand owners’ business. As part II of its ongoing series relating to
online sale controls and enforcement strategies, The Fashion Law discussed
the importance for brand owners to lay down the necessary legal foundation for
tackling (anticipated) defences raised by unauthorised sellers (e.g. the first
sale doctrine) and then engaging in a data-driven, precision enforcement
process tailored to drive real commercial metrics.
Moving on to
collective trade marks, IPTango shared an insight
from their Argentina community on the law and regulations governing them in
that country.
Patents
For those
interested in dispute resolution in the US, Patently-O introduced a three-part
series (here,
here
and here)
on mandamus practice in the US federal courts of appeal generally and the
Federal Circuit’s peculiar use of mandamus in patent cases specifically.
Copyright
Avid gamers may
be aware of the controversy between the developers and their ex-employer
surrounding the newly released “Aeon Must Die?”, including the ownership of IP thus
created. While we are yet to see how the
dispute unfolds, the IP Helpdesk takes this as an opportunity to remind
readers to be cautious on the issue of IP ownership in an employer and employee
relationship.
Others
On the Kluwer
Copyright Blog, Jeremy Blum and Jake Palmer provided a useful summary
of the UK current regime on exhaustion of IP rights and three alternative
regimes in view of the consultation recently conducted by the UK government. The findings of this consultation are
expected to affect the future of the post-Brexit UK IP exhaustion regime.
In terms of
presentation and appearance, the IP Draughts share
a number of techniques to make a contract more user-friendly.
Reviewed by James Kwong
on
Sunday, October 31, 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