Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

Spring has sprung in the northern hemisphere and, as always, it’s never too late to catch up with our Katnews!


Article 17 of the DSM Directive is valid - After about 3 years since the Republic of Poland lodged its action against the European Parliament and the Council requesting that the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) annul Article 17 of the DSM Directive, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU has just ruled that Article 17 is valid.  PermaKat Eleonora Rosati is quick to report and comment on the decision here and here.   

For the first time, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) has imposed a sanction in connection with a parasitic advertising activity.  We are pleased to host the report by Katfriends Anna Maria Stein and Lorenzo Maniaci on this decision. 

We are also pleased to have Katfriend and former Guest Kat Peter Ling comment on a criminal case based on copyright infringement in Switzerland, which involved online file hosting service Rapidshare. 

Over in Nigeria, it seems that the protection of well-known trade marks is not available yet.  In this regard, SpecialKat Chijioke Okorie reports on two recent judgments confirming this position on the ground that the legislature is yet to enact a law to implement the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention.  

Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by James Kwong on Friday, April 29, 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.