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

If you've had a rough time staying on top of things this week, not to worry! Here's the summary of what you missed:

Trade Marks

Clearly, this Kat is on top of things!
Image from Pexels.
Eleonora Rosati outlined the recent Board of Appeal decision about Prada's application to register its "iconic" upside-down isosceles triangle pattern, which held that the pattern would not be inherently distinctive.

Nedim Malovic reported on the latest in the long line of cancellation actions directed at Bankys’s EU trade mark registrations representing his artworks - this time, the repeated application relating to one of his best known artworks, the 'Flower Thrower'. The Cancellation Division held that the application was made in bad faith.

Marcel Pemsel examined the recent decision from the EUIPO’s Opposition Division about the famous tomb raider Lara Croft, whose name was held to have a strong reputation, to the degree that consumers would establish a link with the mark ‘LoraCraft’.


Rose Hughes discussed how UPC may approach patent claim interpretation. The recent decision of the Munich Local Division in SES v Hanshow seemed to go in an odd direction by using the application as filed and prosecution history in the claim interpretation.

Rose Hughes also speculated on the potential referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal to consider how much the description should be taken into account for claim interpretation, given the confusing and contradictory case law on this important question.

Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week! Reviewed by Jocelyn Bosse on Saturday, January 13, 2024 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.