While the spring equinox is highly anticipated, there are still a few winter days ahead of us. Meanwhile, check the latest posts from the IPKat in this Never Too Late edition.
 |
| A Kat taking care of a flower blooming in adversity |
GuestKat Sophie Corke reported on the recent complaint against China before the World Trade Organisation (WTO) prompted by telecommunication patents. Overall, the EU alleges that China effectively enables domestic companies to infringe European-held patents and unfairly restricts patentees from enforcing their rights in other jurisdictions via anti-suit injunctions.
Although IP lawyers may avoid tax law matters, some just can't be avoided. GuestKat Gabriele Girardello wrote an article about the Patent Box (or in a more appropriate terminology, Innovation Box) and how the recent amendments to the Italian legislation impacted on other areas such as know-how and trade secrets.
The thorny issue of the registration of a 3D trade mark never ceases challenging the trade mark system. This time, EOS was stung as a recent judgment of the CJEU confirmed the rejection of the registration of the 3D trade mark for the EOS egg-shaped lip balm. The decision was summarised by GuestKat Anastasiia Kyrylenko.
Since the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) reached its decision in G 1/21 on the legality of mandatory video conferencing (ViCo) oral proceeding at the end of 2021, that decision has been used by the EPO's Boards of Appeal without major difficulties. GuestKat Rose Hughes commented on the potential application of this precedent in a post-pandemic scenario.
KatFriend Rui Cao provided his view on a recent Shanghai Court decision that put boundaries on the application of the doctrine of exhaustion, as a distributor was found to have infringed on the other’s trade mark right via repackaging the branded products without authorization.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Alexandre Miura
on
Tuesday, March 08, 2022
Rating:
Reviewed by Alexandre Miura
on
Tuesday, March 08, 2022
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