Whilst Asia has been rather dormant in the IP field this past week due to the Chinese New Year holidays, there have been a number of developments on the European side:-
 |
| The Dragon Kat |
Designs
The UK IPO is carrying out a Call for Views on that
country’s design system. This is an
invaluable opportunity for practitioners, academics, and IP owners to
contribute their opinions. The deadline for
responses is 25 March 2022. A summary of
the Call for Views can be found in SpecialKat Hayleigh Bosher’s post here.
Patents
For those who have been following the Neurim
v Mylan saga, the High Court of England and Wales gave Neurim a new chance
at obtaining injunctive relief against Mylan several months ago by agreeing
that Neurim could have an expediated preliminary issue trial. GuestKat Frantzeska Papadopoulou reported on the Court’s most recent ruling on the
preliminary issues of the case.
Enforcement
Apart from carrying out a Call for Views on the
current design system, the UK IPO also published a new Intellectual Property Counter-Infringement
Strategy. It sets out how the UK
Government will address IP crime and infringement over the next five
years. SpecialKat Hayleigh provided a
helpful summary here.
On a related note, GuestKat Jan Jacobi reported on the European Commission’s announcement that
it would establish an EU Toolbox against counterfeiting as part of the EU
Strategy to tackle Organised Crime 2021 – 2025.
GuestKat Jan also analyzed a recent case before a Polish Court whereby a
referral was made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on the
right of information under the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48/EC). In
particular, the key issue is whether that right can be invoked when the
claimant has not yet proven that it can rely on a valid IP right.
Other
Content and service aggregation in the software
and application industry may raise concerns relating to the balance of interests
between the makers of databases and the aggregators. Katfriend Hans Eriksson commented on a recent Swedish decision (Parkster AB.
/ Parkamo GmbH), which applied the guidelines set out in the recent CJEU
ruling in C-762/19 CV-Online Latvia.
Reviewed by James Kwong
on
Monday, February 07, 2022
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn ![[Guest post] Can AI be considered a PHOSITA? Policy debates in the US and the EU](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggxDO6mW5r4n3-06Af5ckmIaMIhzgPJBoDP8AUsSYXY2zajUQt1ObGVn_GhCgidbG_YDVnybQuJ5XoAjjBG9Ws2xJWDQHNPMrLkn526SWIG371X_Kjt1E8tJmn8Ae_20Phyphenhyphen09JeuUOhhTR3aZE9lMRQlqHGQGcAWGxlo91rrKcLk0AfUjWCvw6RQ/s72-c/Two-cats-eating.jpg)
![[Guest post] Can a trademarked mascot drink, smoke, and spray graffiti under the banner of artistic expression?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbyaylrzV0_WRCvj7gUUBCmaRpZYmu5l_yll7jWk32LFKedtZU9fXBnkBocu6wOPN1hNdAcmsMEbripjNMCtI5Lr3VCYfbl9_PJqCuO2Rq4biGkULEo_x_t06S-N5vBIFdAAjcR0L4Q1knvR2ZFxU_F7ZtqRmDrWbWhA7dfSvRjdYwbSx_6oSPvQ/s72-w121-c-h200/Screenshot%202024-04-17%20at%2012.32.14.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