Around the IP Blogs

The IPKat is back with your weekly roundup of the goings-on around the IP blogosphere:- 

This Kat likes looking back in time with friends.

Trade Marks

Patently-O reported on a pending US trade mark case involving the mark CLEAR that Dolce Vita uses on their shoes.  The USPTO refused this application on the ground that it is deceptively descriptive because shoes bearing the mark CLEAR would be expected to be transparent.  Dolce Vita has now appealed to the Federal Circuit.   

It is always difficult to obtain registration for geographical names.  Kluwer Trademark Blog recently considered the EU trade mark application for “Andorra” for classes 16, 34, 36, 41 and 44 filed by the Government of Andorra.  The application has been refused at two levels, i.e. the EUIPO and the General Court of Justice of the EU, due to lack of distinctiveness.    


In 2021, the German Parliament enacted an amendment to § 139 of the German Patent Act that permits courts to stay injunctions for a period of time while the defendant designs around or sells off infringing products.  Comparative Patent Remedies noted and drew readers’ attention to several articles in the German journal GRUR (Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht) discussing this issue. 

Over in Australia, there are two Full Court judgments whereby much needed clarity has been provided on how to identify pharmaceutical products that can support a valid patent term extension in Australia.  Kluwer Patent Blog provided a helpful summary.  


Class 46 by Marques reported that Poivre de Penja, a peppercorn from Cameroon, became the first protected geographical indication from the OAPI region to be registered. 

Around the IP Blogs Around the IP Blogs Reviewed by James Kwong on Sunday, April 03, 2022 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.