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

Here’s the latest weekly summary of the different topics analysed by the Kats in last week’s posts.

Image by Riana Harvey

Marcel Pemsel discussed in his post the challenging question linked to trade mark scope of protection and to the influence of the reputation assigned to Puma and to Rolex, considering, respectively, the decision of the General Court and the judgment issued by the German Patent Court.

Anna Maria Stein analysed the registrability of slogans. Particularly, she considered Decision no.37697 of the Italian Supreme Court in relation to the slogan “LA TUA PELLE MERITA DI ESSERE TRATTATA BENE” (“Your skin deserves to be treated well”).


Rose Hughes, the PatKat, considered the outcome of the recent decision of the EPO Board of Appeal (T 1473/19) in light of the question: Do missing commas add matter? Indeed, she highlighted how the discrepancy between the meaning of a claim and its description can be caused by the loss of commas  aimed at the delineation of a crucial sub-clause in the claim.

Book Reviews

Anastasiia Kyrylenko reviewed the book written by Pratyush Nath Upreti and published by Edward Elgar Publishing, entitled “Intellectual Property Objectives in International Investment Agreements”. The review analysed the core topics of each Chapter, including the question linked to how intellectual property rights need to be treated in disputes that involve investor-state settlements.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Chiara Gallo on Thursday, January 19, 2023 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.