It's time for the weekly recap! Repetita iuvant if you missed last week's IPKat posts!
 |
| "BusinessCat" by brownpau is marked with CC BY 2.0. |
The CJEU ruled in the Ferrari case that the burden of proving genuine use of a mark lies with the owner of that mark. But does this mean that the applicant for a revocation action seeking to have a mark revoked for non-use can simply file a revocation action without making any further effort? This question was recently answered in a judgment of the CJEU in Case C-183/21 (Globus v. Maxxus). Background, outcome and comment by our GuestKat Jan Jacobi in a related post.
PermaKat Neil Wilkof reflects on the long process of centralization and decentralization of the modern computing and the extent to which intellectual property will protect more than just software in the future. This prompts reflection on the future challenges and opportunities of the so-called "Web3," with the prominent role of the Internet in future technological, economic, and social impacts.
GuestKat Rose Hughes reported on the EPO's response to the war in Ukraine, which relates to Rule 134(5) EPC. The Office has issued a notice on the provisions allowing extensions of time in light of the conflict. The communication is accompanied by expressions of solidarity for Ukraine from patent offices and organisations across Europe, as well as donations of practical support.
In addition, Rose reported on the EPO's stakeholder consultation on a proposal to unify the "fragmented" system for registering supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) in line with a special report by the European Commission on the benefits of the SPC system.
Unilever Global IP Limited applied to register the UK trade mark "WONDER MUM", which was opposed by DC Comics, owner of the EUTM "WONDER WOMAN". The UKIPO rejected the opposition, whereupon DC appealed the decision to the High Court of England and Wales (EWHC). In a recent decision, the Court dismissed the appeal. GuestKat Riana Harvey reports and comments on the background of the dispute and the EWHC judgement.
For lovers of leather riding boots, AmeriKat Annsley Merelle Ward reported on the outcome of a design right infringement case in the UK between Fairfax & Favor and House of Bruar!
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Giorgio Luceri
on
Sunday, April 03, 2022
Rating:
Reviewed by Giorgio Luceri
on
Sunday, April 03, 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)
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