Departing guest Kat Darren Meale provides for a buzzfeed-wise list of five worth-knowing things that blocking injunction enthusiasts should be aware of. They are: an update on BREIN v XS4ALL and Ziggo litigation in the Dutch Supreme Court; a Canadian decision ordering Google to remove links to infringing websites worldwide; Google voluntarily removing links to Bayfiles; the relation between Follow the money and IP enforcement; a luxury company seeking blocking injunctions under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for trade mark infringement.
Following the debate inspired by Prof. Hugh Hansen’s lecture on Copyright and Public Domain, former guest kat Alberto adopts a Liebniz-wise approach to portray current relations between copyright holders and the rest of the world [copyright not-holder and copyright haters]. We can call it war but we don’t actually need to mean it, Alberto concludes, as things are going much better than what we are usually told.
Software patent decision Alice v CLS Bank finds its way to the world of comics thank to imaginative kat-friend Julia Powlesand Wired.co.uk. Jeremy greatly appreciates the idea and looks forward to enjoying other illustrated tales on CJEU’s decisions.
Every six months the IPKat says goodbye to three guest Kats and welcomes three new ones. He also lists a number of IP blogs in which various member of the IPKat blogging team have a role.
In response to the call for translation launched here, talented Katfriend Johannes Großekettler provides the IPKat with an English version of the Hamm Court of Appeal decision on (im)possible exhaustion of IP rights in digital goods other than software. Eleonora seizes the chance, sinks her teeth into the second decision post-Usedsoft and tries to figure out what comes next.
If you were wondering what is going to happen in the next two years under the IPR enforcement sun in Europe and beyond, Eleonora addresses here the 10 points of the EU Commission’s action plan “to better protect and enforce intellectual property rights”. From internet enforcement to follow the money, passing through national court procedure improvement and making IP easier for SME. Who needs a magician, when you have the IPKat?
Jeremy reports on the new episode of the YouView TV’s trade mark saga [on which see earlier Katpost here], this time starring the General Court. Likelihood of confusion between the “YouView+” and “YouView” trade marks isn’t actually the point here, as the GC focuses on the possibility to submit facts and evidence after the expiry of the time-limits, as well as OHIM’s discretion in taking them into account under Article 76(2) of Community Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009.
After a sabbatical year, David is back on weblogging duty. His first post addresses EPO’s decision T 1060/13, which in turn puts in question EPO’s guidelines on interlocutory revision [the procedure that requires EPO first instance departments to review appeals filed against their decisions and take them back up if the appeal is well founded and overcomes the stated reasons for the decision]. A revision for EPO Guidelines on interlocutory revision is coming up, David says, so get ready to it.
There’s a blond actress in the last chapter of the famous videogame GTA. Her favourite pastime is escaping paparazzi, she enjoys using the F*** word and she can’t stand without asking whether she is indeed overweight. “Oh my god, that’s me!”, exclaimed Hollywood star Lindsay Lohan, who consequently brought proceedings against the videogame’s producers in the New York Supreme Court [“supreme” is referred to the quality of ruling, as it is a court of first instance], claiming infringement of her right of publicity. Take a look at guest Kat Marie-Andrée’s first post to know more about this ultra-sexy American tale.
An electrifying story about trade marks for battery adaptors and chargers comes from the UK IP Enterprise Court, Data Marketing and & Secretarial Ltd and Winning Deals Ltd v S & S Enterprises Ltd and Selective Marketplace Ltd [2014] EWHC 1499 (IPEC). Is the “Jumpstar” trade mark descriptive in connection with devices incorporating jumpstarts? Is it devoid of distinctive character? Can registration in bad faith be claimed when the plaintiff’s trade mark is used by someone else not involved in the proceedings? Jump to Jeremy’s note and start reading it if you want to know the answers.
Oldies are not always goldies. David reports on the EPO introducing a new scheme to improve legal certainty on pending patent applications with the aim to “issue all search reports and written opinions on patentability within six months of filing” and priorities patenting process, oppositions, limitations and revocations. All that is really welcome, says David, even more so if it was matched by concrete time limits for issuing actions and ensuring that the same elderly applications don't subsequently go dormant.
Starting from “Signs of the times: trends in technology IP licensing”, an article that appeared in the July-August issue of Intellectual Asset Magazine, Neil explores the impact of case law on patent value. Have US rulings from eBay to Alice pushed patent value down? And what about the situation in the EU? A highly valued piece for those who love patents -- and for those who do not.
