Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Were you away last week or just too busy to read all IPKat posts (especially if you are not that much into patents)? Do not despair because, as usual, fellow IPKat contributor Alberto is here to rescue you with his handy compilation of Katposts that were published last week. This is the 38th episode in Alberto's invaluable #NeverTooLate series, which this time he lovingly drafted amidst celebrations of his birthday. So thanks so much, Alberto!
US Congressman Cummings and Senator Sanders have just sent letters to 14 generic drug manufacturers, requesting information about escalating prices of generic drugs. Can the innovator-generic dynamic change the current IP scenario, wonders Annsley?
* The EU patent package: have the critics got it all wrong? Professors rage, Wouter responds
Eminent and highly-respected Wouter Pors (Bird & Bird The Hague) responds to the concerns and criticisms articulated in last week's petition that the IPKat reported in the post "The EU patent package: a dangerous precedent? A call for sanity", here.
Eminent and highly-respected Wouter Pors (Bird & Bird The Hague) responds to the concerns and criticisms articulated in last week's petition that the IPKat reported in the post "The EU patent package: a dangerous precedent? A call for sanity", here.
So far, Hollywood has followed its own form of screening rhythm. This might be about to change in ways that will affect our movie-theatre viewing behaviour in the years to come, writes Neil.
Class 46 blogger and Taylor Wessing associate Christian Tenkhoff provides an analysis of Case T-106/14 Universal Utility International GmbH & Co.KG v OHIM, in which the General Court of the European Union ('GC') tackled registrability of the word mark GREENWORLD.
How are Spanish newspapers doing after Google stopped offering “Google News” in Spain [see earlier katposts here and here]? Spanish friend Míchel Olmedo Cuevas explains.
Jeremy reviews Innovation & Intellectual Property: Collaborative Dynamics in Africa and Knowledge & innovation in Africa: scenarios for the future.
Jeremy pens an analysis of Case T‑250/13 Naazneen Investments Ltd v OHIM, Energy Brands, Inc. intervening, a GC’s decision addressing the issue of genuine use of a Community Trade Mark, credibility of proof of use, affidavit’s proof value, and water purity.
The management of the European Patent Office (‘EPO’) has finally commented publicly on the increasingly strained staff relations within the Office, and in particular on the decision of the Dutch Court in favour of SUEPO (here), the EPO's (internal) announcement that it would ignore this decision (here), and the subsequent events (here), on which see two of the many Katposts here and here. Who could take care of this, if not our beloved Merpel?
Laura Alonso (Moyng Monegier, Spain) pens an analysis of Case T-384/13 Intermark srl v OHIM, The Coca-Cola Company, a decision in which the GC addressed registrability of a sign including the word ‘COLA’ drafted in Coca‑Cola’s ‘classic white cursive script on a red background’.
Just over a fortnight ago, the long-awaited and much-discussed (here, here and here) International Women’s Leadership Forum took place in London under the Chatham House Rule. Catherine Pocock tells how it went.
Valentina reports on Advocate General Mengozzi’s Opinion in Case C-20/14 BGW Marketing - & Management- Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz, trade marks constituted of acronyms.
‘The best American camera man’ and the creative process are at stake in this great post by Neil.
Did the UK Minister for Intellectual Property’s visit to the EPO bring anything good -- or anything at all -- as regards the current Eponian issues, wonders Merpel?
Darren comments on a most regrettable uncertainty in the issuance of the European Qualifying Examination pre-exam results.
One of The X-Factor New Zealand judges accused a contestant of copying another famous singer’s style. Do image rights go that far, wonders Eleonora?
Valentina reports on CJEU’s decision in C-182/14 P MEGA Brands International v OHIM, the last episode of the Magnext case [on which see IPKat’s earlier post here].
******************
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 37 [week ending Sunday 15 March] - EPO v EPO’s staff | EPO’s Board of Appeal’s reform | Unitary Patent’s fees | Pinterest’s Community Trade Mark pinned down | Australian compulsory licences | Is COMFYBALLS trade mark offensive? | Oprah Winfrey and OWN YOUR POWER trade mark | EPO December Administrative Council Meeting | Blurred Lines | Again on Actavis v Boehringer | Is the EU Patent Package diminishing the EU’s powers? | EPO Administrative Council and Board of Appeal’s removal.
Never too late 36 [week ending Sunday 8 March] - EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) says Chairman can disobey | OHIM is too rich to be true | eLAW’s TM infringement checklist | Human right and IP | Again onWarner-Lambert v Actavis | Seiko and Seiki in Singapore | The politics of US patent law reform | Haribo v Lindt Goldbear wars | Patent trolls | Private copying | Wu-Tank and copyright | CJEU on private copying inCopydan | Breakdown in management-staff relations at EPO | New plant variety reference reached the CJEU | Cindy Crawford’s picture copyrightwise | CJEU on ebook’s VAT means something copyrightwise | A patent Kat investigate soft IP world | David Couture v Playdom.
Never too late 35 [week ending Sunday 1 March] – EPO v SUEPO | Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd | UK IPO on EPO | Scents and copyright | GIs under scrutiny | UPC test-drive | Is UK failing to protect innovation? | Dutch Minister and EPO immunity | CJEU and droit de suite in Case C-41/14 Christie's France | Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others | Pangyrus Ltd v OHIM, RSVP Design Ltd | China and smartphone patents | UK against groundless threats to sue for IP infringement | Polar bears | Patent needs strictness, complexity and fuzziness.
Never too late 34 [week ending Sunday 22 February] – Bill Gates goes to China | Ms Swift's issue with trade marks | TMs and jurisdiction for online infringement cases | UK's Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the EPO | Divani & Divani | UK first in global IP enforcement | SUEPO v EPO | Enterprise v Europcar[2015] EWHC 300 | Again on Cartier International AG and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others | Googling inventor clients | Code of ISPs' practice in Australia | Specialised IP Courts in China.
