Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

This Kat is feeling pensive
With a cold snap incoming and a change in the air, why not look back on last week's IPKat?

Copyright

Following on from the Digital Culture Media and Sport Committee's UK Economics of Music Streaming Inquiry, Hayleigh Bosher reported on the UK Government's responses to the Committee's Recommendations.

Trade marks

GuestKat Nedim Malovic considered the implications of trade mark classification through the lens of the background to a dispute over Veuve Clicquot's orange: is it a figurative mark or protection of a colour per se?

Kat friends Karen Lai and Joshua Kwan discussed a recent case from Singapore concerning the appropriateness of partial revocation and whether R&D activities can amount to genuine use of a trade mark in the course of trade.

Other

Asia Correspondent Tian Lu briefed readers on China's release of a 15-year plan to develop intellectual property rights, titled ‘The Outline of Building a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation’ (2021–2035).

Reviewing Laura A. Ford's 'The Intellectual Property of Nations: Sociological and Historical Perspectives on a Modern Legal Institution', Book Review Editor Hayleigh Bosher described the work as "unique in its offering of a combination of sociological and legal perspectives on the emergence of intellectual property".

Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our Policies section. If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.
Print | Share by email
By on

Comments

Post a Comment

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

← Previous Post Next Post →