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

If you were too busy to keep up with the IP news last week, here's the summary of what you missed:

Trade Marks and Counterfeits

Image from Pixabay.

Anna Maria Stein discussed the recent decision of the Italian Patent and Trademark Office to allow Elettra Lamborghini to register her name as a trade mark despite the opposition from well-known car manufacturer Automobili Lamborghini. This was because her name had become famous in the artistic industry and on social networks, having acquired notoriety completely independently of the famous automotive trade mark.

Eleonora Rosati evaluated the long-awaited decision of the Grand Board of the EUIPO concerning an application to register the figurative sign 'COVIDIOT'. The mark was found to be invalid for being contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality, and applies the CJEU's guidance from the FACK JU GÖHTE judgment in detail. 

Alessandro Cerri outlined the decision of the EUIPO Fifth Board of Appeal to consider, of its own accord, the registrability of an EUTM application for 'TV NOW' that was under opposition. The Board considered the absolute grounds for refusal and decided to remand the contested mark to the examiner to assess the distinctive character of the mark. 

Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot contextualised on the new French draft law aiming at optimising civil penalties for counterfeiting, which follows the stalled efforts to introduce new counterfeiting laws since 2021. The draft law, which has only one article, would introduce an optional fixed fine of €200 which, if paid, would extinguish the public prosecution. 


Rose Hughes commented on the recent Board of Appeal case (T 0209/22) concerning the validity of a patent related to the medical use of a combination of known drugs, in light of prior art that included a summary of the phase I clinical trial protocol. The Board of Appeal confirmed that the data required for a novelty destroying disclosure of a medical use is more than that required to render a claim for that use credible. 

Guest UPCKats, Agathe Michel-de Cazotte and Hiske Roos (Carpmaels), examined the need for sufficient certainty on validity and infringement, which was considered in another decision during the 10x Genomics v NanoString litigation. The Munich Local Division considered there to be insufficient certainty in these proceedings given the uncertainty following the claim amendment, as well as the need for an interpretation that deviates from the wording of the claim, so the injunction was rejected.

Copyright, Designs, and Literature

Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo reviewed the new work by Daniel J. Gervais, entitled Forever: A Legal Sci-Fi Story. It is the first book in a trilogy that seeks to understand the interactions between humans and advanced artificial intelligence, aiming to explore the legal and philosophical aspects of such coexistence.

Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot considered the decision of the Tribunal judiciaire of Rennes concerning the alleged infringement of copyright in a scientific paper by the reproduction of its outline and content in another publication. The Tribunal found that the outline was not original, and that the researcher's "extensive and specific knowledge in various scientific fields" should not be taken into account when assessing originality.

Marcel Pemsel analysed the recent General Court decision that explored the relevance of broken lines in registered Community designs when they are invoked as prior art in invalidity proceedings. The decision confirms that the overall impression created by a design application, including the broken lines, will become prior art and can prevent the novelty or individual character of a later design.

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 Monday, June 03, 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.