It’s starting to feel like Spring now. Here’s what you missed from the IPKat last week:
Hayleigh Bosher reviewed the third edition of International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond, by Sam Ricketson and Jane Ginsburg.
Anna Maria Stein discussed a recent US Copyright Office decision regarding a graphic novel that includes images created by a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. The USCO held that any activity, even if original, carried out by the AI cannot be qualified as authorship under copyright, since it was not “human”.
Katfriend Henning Hartwig reported on how there has been a “dramatic reduction” in trade mark and design cases adjudicated at the CJEU since 2019, and how this has impacted the decisions of the General Court.
Marcel Pemsel commented on the CJEU’s decision in Papierfabriek Doetinchem (C-684/21), which clarified the technical function exclusion in Art. 8(1) Design Regulation.
Anastasiia Kyrylenko reported on the key discussions and debates that occurred at the ECTA Alicante Round Table on Geographical Indications on 2 March this year.
Rose Hughes analysed the EPO’s recent decision (T 0169/20) which attempts to address the role of the description of a patent in interpreting the language of the claims of a patent.
Marcel Pemsel commented on the recent English High Court decision Interdigital v Lenovo, regarding FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing rates for patents.
Book reviews
Hayleigh Bosher reviewed the third edition of International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond, by Sam Ricketson and Jane Ginsburg.
Copyright
 |
| Image by Riana Harvey |
Anna Maria Stein discussed a recent US Copyright Office decision regarding a graphic novel that includes images created by a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. The USCO held that any activity, even if original, carried out by the AI cannot be qualified as authorship under copyright, since it was not “human”.
Designs
Katfriend Henning Hartwig reported on how there has been a “dramatic reduction” in trade mark and design cases adjudicated at the CJEU since 2019, and how this has impacted the decisions of the General Court.
Marcel Pemsel commented on the CJEU’s decision in Papierfabriek Doetinchem (C-684/21), which clarified the technical function exclusion in Art. 8(1) Design Regulation.
Geographical indications
Anastasiia Kyrylenko reported on the key discussions and debates that occurred at the ECTA Alicante Round Table on Geographical Indications on 2 March this year.
Patents
Rose Hughes analysed the EPO’s recent decision (T 0169/20) which attempts to address the role of the description of a patent in interpreting the language of the claims of a patent.
Marcel Pemsel commented on the recent English High Court decision Interdigital v Lenovo, regarding FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing rates for patents.
Never too late: in case you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Benjamin Goh
on
Friday, March 17, 2023
Rating:
Reviewed by Benjamin Goh
on
Friday, March 17, 2023
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
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