tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3285540061220429259..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Will There Ever Be Clear Law About the Terminated Sublicence?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67707266134133683092015-02-04T15:57:38.750+00:002015-02-04T15:57:38.750+00:00I'm a bit late to the party, but wondered whet...I'm a bit late to the party, but wondered whether this post had been revisited since VLM Holdings v Ravensworth?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28732509724645982122012-11-02T14:47:13.282+00:002012-11-02T14:47:13.282+00:00IP Draughts has recently discussed these issues, a...IP Draughts has recently discussed these issues, and suggested some practical solutions, at http://ipdraughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/take-5-and-enjoy-your-sublicence-rights/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55499732382621297252012-11-02T13:51:42.728+00:002012-11-02T13:51:42.728+00:00I totally agree with you and was glad to read your...I totally agree with you and was glad to read your post. I was astonished at the outcome of the German cases but being (a) busy and (b) not an expert on German IP law thought I’d better just keep my head firmly below the parapet. I had always assumed (not that I ever actually thought about it, so far as I can recall) that “nemo dat quod non habet” applied to sub-licenses and that if the head licence terminated for any reason, that was fatal to the sub-licence. <br /><br />I will watch developments with interest.<br />Jane Clemetsonnoreply@blogger.com