Here’s what you missed from the IPKat last week.
Anna Maria Stein commented on a recent Italian Supreme Court’s decision concerning the jurisdiction of the Italian courts when determining whether harm has occurred within the jurisdiction in connection with requests for declaration of non-infringement of International Registered Designs (IRDs).
Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot reported on a recent Paris Court of Appeal decision on copyright infringement of an influencer’s photographs, discussing the artistic choices that the influencer made when realising her photographs and whether those would meet the originality threshold.
Anastasiia Kyrylenko commented on a recent Paris First Instance Court decision regarding the “Piment D’Espelette” (Espelette pepper) PDO and whether there was infringement when the PDO was used in a domain name.
Rose Hughes reported on the EPO Board of Appeal’s decision in T 423/22 regarding witness credibility and ViCo, where they held that ViCo was a perfectly sufficient format for witness testimony, even when the entire outcome of a case rested on witness evidence.
Henry Yang followed up on his previous reporting on the Interdigital v Lenovo FRAND judgment of the High Court of England and Wales, and analysed in detail the first part (of three) of the judgement regarding comparable licenses and determination of a FRAND rate.
Marcel Pemsel analysed the CJEU’s ruling in C-654/21, which clarifies the scope of counterclaims on the basis of invalidity or revocation in response to an infringement action concerning an EU trade mark.
Former Guest Kat Peter Ling discussed the “Einstein problem” of overlapping shapes, and how these shapes can be protected by intellectual property law.
Designs
Anna Maria Stein commented on a recent Italian Supreme Court’s decision concerning the jurisdiction of the Italian courts when determining whether harm has occurred within the jurisdiction in connection with requests for declaration of non-infringement of International Registered Designs (IRDs).
Copyright
Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot reported on a recent Paris Court of Appeal decision on copyright infringement of an influencer’s photographs, discussing the artistic choices that the influencer made when realising her photographs and whether those would meet the originality threshold.
Geographical indications
Anastasiia Kyrylenko commented on a recent Paris First Instance Court decision regarding the “Piment D’Espelette” (Espelette pepper) PDO and whether there was infringement when the PDO was used in a domain name.
Patents
Rose Hughes reported on the EPO Board of Appeal’s decision in T 423/22 regarding witness credibility and ViCo, where they held that ViCo was a perfectly sufficient format for witness testimony, even when the entire outcome of a case rested on witness evidence.
Henry Yang followed up on his previous reporting on the Interdigital v Lenovo FRAND judgment of the High Court of England and Wales, and analysed in detail the first part (of three) of the judgement regarding comparable licenses and determination of a FRAND rate.
Trade marks
Marcel Pemsel analysed the CJEU’s ruling in C-654/21, which clarifies the scope of counterclaims on the basis of invalidity or revocation in response to an infringement action concerning an EU trade mark.
Other
Former Guest Kat Peter Ling discussed the “Einstein problem” of overlapping shapes, and how these shapes can be protected by intellectual property law.
Never too late: in case you missed the IPKat last week
Reviewed by Benjamin Goh
on
Wednesday, June 28, 2023
Rating:
Reviewed by Benjamin Goh
on
Wednesday, June 28, 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