Last week this blog carried the first in what is intended as a regular series of blogposts that list and conveniently summarise the feature posts of the previous week, the idea being that readers who are either away or too busy to keep up with Katposts, and who find themselves faced with a build-up of information in their in-boxes, can decide in retrospect which ones are worth their while to hunt out. Former guest Kat Alberto has kindly agreed to prepare these posts. Are they are a good idea or not? Readers have clearly voted with their mice, since last week's round-up received more clicks than almost any feature listed below, with the exception of Birgit's post on the Apple store retail lay-out episode (listed below). Anywhere, here are the posts that you might have missed last week:
Canadian trade mark trademark trade-mark law will get Nice and nicer, Birgit reports, with the forthcoming adoption in that vast country of our most beloved international classification.
Darren showcases a guest post by Glyn Truscott on a Jamaican patent case in the Jamaican Privy Council(Pfizer Limited v Medimpex Jamaica Limited and Others). The case relates to Pfizer's Amlopidine besylate, a drug for the treatment of high blood pressure. Among other things, the Privy Council delves into the fascinating concepts of local novelty. How couldn't that be loved?
The second Canadian tale of the week concerns a cross-border trade mark fight between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints Inc. (yes, "Inc"). The first renounced polygamy some 120 years ago, the second still believes that one partner per life need not be enough. Concurrent wives and concurrent use of trade marks in Lucas' first guest-post -- who could ask for more?
These are challenging times for colour trade mark case law -- and therefore busy times for our colour TM specialist Birgit. After the Court of Justice of the European Union ('CJEU') decision in the 'Oberbank/Santander/DSVG' [on which see here], here's another colour trade mark case, brought to the German Bundesgerichtshof by the Cologne Court of Appeal. We have dictionary publisher Langenscheidt on one side and language software house Rosetta Stone on the other. Both want to use yellow. One wants to use it alone. What will the Bundesgerichtshof say?
Eleonora reports about her brainchild poll "Do you think that EU copyright should have a specific exception for user-generated content (UGC)?"'s results. The IPKat readership's idea on how to strike a balance between copyright and users' freedom is evolving, and not in precisely same direction of the EU Commission and its Vice-President Neelie Kroes -- which is not necessarily bad.
David pens a note on last week's High Court of Justice, England and Wales, decision in Wilko Retail Ltd v Buyology Ltd. Following a trade mark dispute about Buyology selling infringing goods bearing Wilko's trade marks, the parties settled under an agreement that did not provide guidelines about Buyology's disclosure of its commercial partners involved in the infringement. Wilko wanted to know those names, regardless the settlement. Can it do so?
The EU Commission is establishing "a list of economists, researchers and experts specialised in the economics of IP" for a workshop on “commercial scale” and “commercial purpose” in the context of IP infringements that will take place next 19 September. Jeremy reflects upon self-referential meetings on IP enforcement and urges those who can add interdisciplinary value to pitch in.
A post on one of the most surprising trade mark decisions of recent years comes from Birgit, who writes on the CJEU's ruling in Case C-421/13, Apple Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt. The Court considered if and, if so, how trade marks can protect "representation, by a design alone, without indicating the size or the proportions, of the layout of a retail store" -- in a few words, a flagship store. This CJEU decision will likely influence the whole field of commercial environments' protection in Europe.
It's again the CJEU, again on a reference from Germany, and again on trade marks. In Netto Marken-Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt the Court addresses the issue of how a service of bringing together services to allow consumers to compare and purchase them can be considered 'a service' in the meaning of the TM Directive. The decision could touch fields other that the retail one, and Jeremy wonders whether trade mark offices should get more in touch with the real world.
Following the blogpost “Have U.S. courts made patents less valuable?" and the lively discussion on it among Kat readers here, Neil provides for more food for thought on the matter of patent value by summarizing and commenting Intellectual Asset Management Editor Joff Wild's response to his earlier Katpost.
Marie-Andrée recounts the melting tale of the Winston family, where Harry built up a worldwide famous jewellery company in 1932 which now tries to prevent his son Bruce from registering his own name and surname as a trade mark for jewellery with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Being surrounded by precious stones does not lead to happiness -- even though it might help.
Over the past month, every undertaking's dream was to have a bit of promotional space in the Brazil 2014 World Cup, which terminated yesterday. A few of them did it officially, becoming FIFA's partners, while others bypassed it with ambush marketing practices. This seems to be the case of Blue Man, a Brazilian swim suit manufacturer, on which katfriend David Serras Pereira pens this guest post.
