While we are changing from the "All I want for Christmas is you" to the "Happy New Year" playlist, check what has been going on around the IP blogs before 2021 is over.
Patents
 |
| A Kat experiencing a Christmas hangover |
Lexology covered the most recent patent prosecution highway (PPH) project signed between the Brazilian and the Portuguese Patent and Trade Mark Office as well as recent updates on the Unified Patent Court.
Trade mark
The Fashion Law published an article regarding the uncertain scenario of trade mark exhaustion in the UK considering this country's departure from the EU.
The TTABlog summarised a recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that found no risk of confusion between the marks “Sky News” (for news reporting services) and “Sky Cinemas” (for… cinemas).
The Kluwer Trademark Blog posted an article questioning the understanding of reputation for trade marks based on the standards of reputation or renown of personal names and reputation of corporate names.
Miscellaneous
The Technollama blog published an article about the growing discussion of what an NFT is from a copyright perspective and whether they are actually being used to free works up.
IPDraughts prepared a compilation of posts involving relevant points to consider when drafting a licence agreement - from recitals to law and jurisdiction.
IPWatchDog listed the most iconic toys and games protected by patents and trade marks for this Christmas.
Lexology also published an article covering virtual IP disputes involving domain names as well as other IP rights infringement.
Reviewed by Alexandre Miura
on
Monday, December 27, 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