Never too late: in case you missed the IPKat last week

This Kat hopes you have had a wonderful week. Here’s what you missed from the IPKat last week:


Chiara Gallo reported on the happenings at this year’s edition of the Sanremo Music Festival, and discussed how Italian copyright and criminal law protect street art.

Geographical indications

Anastasiia Kyrylenko analysed a Paris Appeal Court decision about “evocation” in EU geographical indications law, and whether it has been defined too widely.


Chijioke Okorie commented on a ruling of the South African Constitutional Court, which discussed the common law doctrine of unclean hands and how it may apply in the context of patent infringement.

Rose Hughes summarised the upcoming European Patent Office guidelines for examination, with the main updates being the new sequence listing standard, the Unified Patent Court, and new provisions regarding missing and erroneous parts.

Rose Hughes also commented on a recent EPO Board of Appeal decision, which held that subtle differences between a patent application as filed and the claimed subject matter can be fatal to a granted European patent.

Unfair competition

Marcel Pemsel discussed a recent judgement of the German Supreme Court on when a principal, such as Amazon, would be liable for the unlawful acts of its agents, in this case, affiliates.
Never too late: in case you missed the IPKat last week Never too late: in case you missed the IPKat last week Reviewed by Benjamin Goh on Wednesday, February 22, 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.