Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

Below, you’ll find a weekly summary of what happened on the IPKat recently, while competent authorities were busy handing down interesting decisions in IP-related cases.


Trade marks 

Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot reviewed a recent decision of the EUIPO’s First Board of Appeal concerning an opposition to the registration as an EU word mark of “miababy”, grounded on its alleged confusing similarity with the earlier trade mark "ia BABY interapothek”.

Katfriend Louise Rooms commented on a recent decision of the EUIPO’s Examination Division concerning position marks, where the Office refused a trade mark application for a specific product configuration consisting of a metallic golden sole.

Marcel Pemsel undertook the challenging task of analysing the contradictions arising in protecting olfactory trademarks, following a recent decision of the German Patent Court (case 29 W (pat) 515/21).


Rose Hughes analysed the recent EPO’s Board of Appeal decision in T 0273/22 (Chimeric antibodies/REGENERON). 

Event summary 

Katfriend Silvia Baumgart reported on the event: “AI & Creativity: Protecting Creators in the Age of AI Panel” which took place on Friday, 3 November 2023 in London.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Aleksandra Czubek on Thursday, November 23, 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.