May has just began and with it a new month of posts are incoming, but here’s what you missed from the IPKat last week!
Designs
 |
| Image by Alice Castro via Pexels |
Marcel Pemsel commented on the question how to prove disclosure on earlier designs, by considering that the most common way to establish disclosure is online evidence. Nonetheless, it was deemed to be challenging to establish this aspect. This is considered in relation to the German Patent Court’s approach and the one used by the General Court.
Eleonora Rosati reported the words of Katfriend Henning Hartwig, who considered the EU Commission’s proposal to codify visual disclaimers in EU design law.
Trade marks
Eleonora Rosati considered the question whether EU law governs joint ownership of IP rights, including the exercise thereof by each and individual joint owner. The analysis revolved around the case Legea C-686/21.
Marcel Pemsel considered the recent judgement in case T-491/22 in relation to an EU trade mark application made by angaming company.
Geographical Indications
Anastasiia Kyrylenko commented on the negotiations taking place between the European Union and India in relation to the conclusion of a Free Trade Agreement, an Investment Protection Agreement and an Agreement on Geographical Indications. In the post, the focus is dedicated to the analysis of the GI protection agreement.
Copyright
Chijioke Okorie reported on the results of the Creative Vibrancy Index for Africa, which ranks African cities based on their support for arts, culture and creative industries.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Chiara Gallo
on
Wednesday, May 03, 2023
Rating:
Reviewed by Chiara Gallo
on
Wednesday, May 03, 2023
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.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