Here’s your regular recap of the IPKat stories published last week.
Copyright
GuestKat Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot analysed the thin line between homage and infringement, comparing two campaign photos published by popular fashion brands. For more details, click here.
Former GuestKat Mirko Brüß summarised a Higher Regional Court’s of Nürnberg ruling in which the key issue was whether an online marketplace could be held liable for damages and injunctive relief, when a third-party vendor uses a copyright-infringing image to advertise their product on that platform. The German court found the online marketplace liable under CJEU YouTube/Cyando standard. More information available here.
Trade marks
Marcel Pemsel assessed whether Jaguar Land Rover Limited and Puma Energy International SA signs should be considered conceptually similar or even identical. More details here.
Patents
Belgian Katfriends Philippe Campolini, Gwennaëlle Kusters, Louis Bidaine, Vince Van der Wangen, Clémence Jonckheere and Anya Murphy (all Stibbe) prepared a selection of Belgian court decisions rendered last year, to keep up with the latest developments in the Belgian patent litigation scene. The full selection can be found here.
 |
| Image: Riana Harvey |
Rose Hughes analysed the EPO BoA decision in case T 0558/20 relating to bone regeneration therapy which considered the correct approach to the assessment of second medical use claims. The full article is available here.
Miscellany
Chijioke Okorie analysed the role that copyright, data protection and contract law have in facilitating or restricting data access within the African continent. See here.
Aleksandra Czubek listed the upcoming IP-related events and news here.
Eleonora Rosati listed the IP-focused activities organised and delivered by the Katfriends at ERA in Trier (Germany) here.
Never too late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Aleksandra Czubek
on
Friday, September 01, 2023
Rating:
Reviewed by Aleksandra Czubek
on
Friday, September 01, 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