If you were too distracted by looking for aurora borealis/australis last week (or just enjoying everyone else's photographs of the phenomenon), here's the summary of what you missed.
Trade Marks and GIs
 |
| A Kat enjoying the night sky. Image from Pixabay. |
Anna Maria Stein analysed the recent EUIPO decision to refuse to register a position trade mark for footwear. It found that a band with a knot and ribbons with metal pendants affixed to the template of the upper part of shoes is very common in the footwear sector, such that the sign lacks distinctive character.
This Kat also outlined the recent decision from the Italian Supreme Court, which referred questions to the CJEU on whether wines that received national GI protection before 2007 (in this case, the Salaparuta PDO from Sicily) are subject to the principle of non-deceptiveness vis-à-vis well-known trade marks.
Copyright
Eleonora Rosati shared her comments from the 5th EUIPO Intellectual Property Case Law Conference last month (reported here), entitled "Should the EU unify copyright laws?" The contribution will be published as an editorial in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice.
Designs
Marcel Pemsel summarised the General Court's decision (Case T‑654/22) on determining the informed user and how the informed user perceives the design of a specific product, which are important steps in the assessment of whether two designs produce the same overall impression. The informed user will not just look at the designs as they are but consider their use, and this may bring design elements to the informed user’s attention.
Patents
Guest UPCKats Agathe Michel-de Cazotte and Hiske Roos and members from the team at Carpmaels provided a roundup of how the UPC is treating confidentiality and third party access to court documents. This has raised many interesting questions, especially after the UPC Court of Appeal's decision in Ocado on the protection of confidential information from access by third parties.
Reviewed by Jocelyn Bosse
on
Monday, May 13, 2024
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