If you missed out on The IPKat, then join this Kat for a recap of the interesting cases reported last week!
Jocelyn Bosse discussed the latest ruling of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) in David Austin Roses Ltd. v. GCM Ranch LLC on “English Roses”. The Court granted the claimant leave to amend the wilful plant patent infringement claim due to the curable deficiencies in the pleadings, and allowed trade mark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act to proceed.
Rose Hughes presented an analysis of an EPO Board of Appeal decision on the correct approach to third party intervention in opposition proceedings. Although the UPC informed the Board that parallel infringement proceedings were pending before the UPC and one of the opponents in the said parallel UPC infringement action filed a notice of intervention, the Board refused to postpone the case and heard it according to the original schedule.
Rose Hughes also discussed a decision of the UPC concerning whether UPC still had jurisdiction over infringement of a UK patent right. Although the UK withdrew from participation in the UPC post-Brexit, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the UK regarding infringement proceedings for patents granted by the EPO, which are valid in the contracting states to the EPC.
Rose Hughes, additionally, analysed the UPC’s decision in Plant-e v Bioo, dealing with the doctrine of equivalents in patent infringement cases for the first time. Drawing from various national jurisdictions, the Court provided a new four-part test for assessing equivalence. Despite the absence of literal infringement, the application of the arguably patentee-friendly test resulted in the finding of equivalent infringement.
This Kat looked into a decision of the Court of Justice of the EU regarding the use of misleading indications in EU trade marks. The Court found that the term ‘coffee’ has a serious risk of deception, when used in connection with goods and services including or related to tea, cocoa, and artificial coffee.
Katfriend Oliver Fairhurst (Lewis Silkin) commented on the recent Thatchers Cider v Aldi decision of the Court of Appeal of England & Wales. The Court found that Aldi had taken unfair advantage of Thatchers’ well-known trade mark. Our Katfriend evaluated the judgment from three perspectives: unfair advantage, impact of comparative advertising, and unfair competition in the UK.
Anastasiia Kyrylenko evaluated a recent request for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the EU concerning private copying. The German Federal Court of Justice, in its request, asks whether publishers could receive funds from collective management organisations which are financed through compensation for private copying exception and public lending rights.
Extension of Deadline!
We are extending the deadline to vote for the IPKat Book of the Year Awards 2024 until 10 February 2025. If you have not done so yet, do not forget to vote for your favourite IP books here!Patents
![]() |
A Kat considering becoming a judge Image by Riana Harvey |
Rose Hughes presented an analysis of an EPO Board of Appeal decision on the correct approach to third party intervention in opposition proceedings. Although the UPC informed the Board that parallel infringement proceedings were pending before the UPC and one of the opponents in the said parallel UPC infringement action filed a notice of intervention, the Board refused to postpone the case and heard it according to the original schedule.
Rose Hughes also discussed a decision of the UPC concerning whether UPC still had jurisdiction over infringement of a UK patent right. Although the UK withdrew from participation in the UPC post-Brexit, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the UK regarding infringement proceedings for patents granted by the EPO, which are valid in the contracting states to the EPC.
Rose Hughes, additionally, analysed the UPC’s decision in Plant-e v Bioo, dealing with the doctrine of equivalents in patent infringement cases for the first time. Drawing from various national jurisdictions, the Court provided a new four-part test for assessing equivalence. Despite the absence of literal infringement, the application of the arguably patentee-friendly test resulted in the finding of equivalent infringement.
Trade Marks and Geographical Indications
Katfriend Jessica Mathew (Surrey Law School) discussed the recent decisions on the famous “Dubai Chocolate”. The District Court of Cologne decided that “Dubai Chocolate” misled consumers about the product’s geographical origin, while the District Court of Frankfurt adopted an opposing view and considered the term generic for pistachio-knafeh-style confectionery bars.This Kat looked into a decision of the Court of Justice of the EU regarding the use of misleading indications in EU trade marks. The Court found that the term ‘coffee’ has a serious risk of deception, when used in connection with goods and services including or related to tea, cocoa, and artificial coffee.
Katfriend Oliver Fairhurst (Lewis Silkin) commented on the recent Thatchers Cider v Aldi decision of the Court of Appeal of England & Wales. The Court found that Aldi had taken unfair advantage of Thatchers’ well-known trade mark. Our Katfriend evaluated the judgment from three perspectives: unfair advantage, impact of comparative advertising, and unfair competition in the UK.
Copyright
Alessandro Cerri explored a recent decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court of the High Court of England & Wales on copyright infringement in a TV format. The Court ruled that the combination of features that formed the relevant TV show did not qualify as a dramatic work under UK copyright law.Anastasiia Kyrylenko evaluated a recent request for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the EU concerning private copying. The German Federal Court of Justice, in its request, asks whether publishers could receive funds from collective management organisations which are financed through compensation for private copying exception and public lending rights.
Designs
Marcel Pemsel reported that a Belgian court has made a preliminary ruling request to the Court of Justice of the EU regarding design infringement. The national court, in essence, asks what the right time is for making the infringement assessment: the time of filing the application or the time of the infringement?IP News, Events, and Opportunities
Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo notified IPKat readers of several news, events, and opportunities. The US Copyright Office cited The IPKat in its recently released Report on AI Part 2; EUIPO, Europol, and the EMA launched the #EUvsFakeMedicines campaign. Upcoming events in the IP world include INTA 2025 Annual Meeting between 17 and 21 May 2025 in San Diego (CA, USA); and oriGIn 2025 Biennial Meeting from 8 to 10 October 2025 in Morelia (Mexico). Some exciting opportunities are two calls for paper for the following conferences: Fourth Max Planck Law Conference for Early Career Scholars 2025 and 2024 SERCI Annual Congress. For further details, do not forget to check out our latest Sunday Surprises post.
Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!
Reviewed by Söğüt Atilla
on
Monday, February 03, 2025
Rating:

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