Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week
Were you having a hard time at work that prevented you from reading The IPKat last week? Were you just away and too busy to have fun other than IP fun?
Don't worry, because our friend and colleague Alberto Bellan is here to rescue you with the 67th edition of his invaluable Never Too Late feature.
Here's what happened on this very blog last week:
After a quiet summer, Merpel gets the feeling that the impending meeting of the EPO Administrative Council* (AC) on 14-15 October is causing a flurry of activity, which is giving rise to several rumours in relation to the Boards of Appeal.
Jani reports of DC Comics v Mark Towle 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP, a decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that dealt with copyright protection in the Batmobile.
Merpel has been taking another peep at the weird and wonderful topsy-turvy world of Eponia, in which the European Patent Office (EPO) has apparently seized the opportunity to offer some warm and tender paternalistic advice to those individuals (though it prefers the word "colleagues") who for some inconceivable reason might be troubled to bring legal cases against it.
Can Gucci be an infringer this time? Apparently an American jeweller thinks so. Katfriend Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot (Lumière University Lyon 2) tells all.
Jeremy tells of NOCN (Formerly National Open College Network) v Open College Network Credit4Learning [2015] EWHC 2667 (IPEC), a 25 September 2015 decision of Judge Hacon in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales (the celebrated IPEC). It's about two "OCN" trade marks and the opportunity to settle cases before starting them.
Is selling a product that contains hyperlinks to infringing content a copyright infringement? Are those who stream unlawful content infringers? Those two questions will be answered soon by our beloved Court of Justice of the European Unione ("CJEU"), says Eleonora reporting on this brand-new reference.
Up until very recently, the mooted new home for the European Patent Office (EPO) Boards of Appeal was Berlin, unwilling as its members might be to move at the whim of the EPO President. But, as Merpel reported last week, a new proposal is being negotiated behind closed doors: why not move the Boards to Vienna? Or, as Merpel argues: why moving at all?
This is about Richard Perry v F H Brundle & Others, a saga that has entertained many a casual reader but saddened many a serious IP litigator. It has been in this blog before and may be here again. At any rate, it has been rumbling on again of late. Jeremy reports.
Valentina Torelli tells all about the CJEU's decision in case C-362/14 Maximilian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, which the CJEU rendered last week. It's about the safe harbours and personal data trips overseas.
Like the economics of trade marks, the economics of domain names rests primarily on the information and signalling aspects of brands, writes Nicola.
Around Christmas time in 2012, Neil published a post about the Global Seed Vault in Norway, whose avowed purpose was to preserve a semblance of biodiversity should there be a major world-wide calamity to our food stocks. Then, and now, the issue of enhancing biodiversity remains a highly contentious one, he says.
Roederer v J Garcia Carrion S.A. & Others [2015] EWHC 2760 (Ch), a 6 October 2015 decision of Mrs Justice Rose, sitting in the Chancery Division of the High Court, England and Wales, has attracted a lot of attention on account of its subject matter: the sparkling white wines. Katfriend and occasional guest contributor Aaron Wood tells all.
Jeremy further reflects on Roederer v J Garcia Carrion S.A. & Others [2015] EWHC 2760 (Ch), this time focusing on the issue of the validity of two reportedly infringing trade marks.
From Katfriend and occasional contributor Emma Perot comes a fascinating look beneath the crust of a pie-based dispute over the use of the word "Square". It hasn't got to court and almost certainly won't. But it does raise issues, writes Jeremy.
******************
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never Too Late 66 [week ending on Sunday 4 October] – Punitive damages and Enforcement Directive | IFRRO v European Copyright Society | A Decade of JIPLIP, the event | The Global Innovation Index 2015 | South Africa new copyright law | The IPKat and his friends | IP Publishers' and Editors' Lunch 2015 | EPO queue and SMEs | 3D Printing and IP damages | Paywalls and Robin Hoods | The Basmati saga | Greek Court on linking | Glenn Gould and the case for moral rights in sound recordings.
Never too late 65 [week ending on Sunday 27 September] – Scotch whisky battle in far-off China | CJEU loves KitKat | EPO in Case T 0327/13 | UPC opening in London | Happy birthday copyright case | Goldbear saga | Tatoos and copyright | IP in 2015 – Where we are vs. Where I thought we’d be | PETA litigates over macaque selfie | JIPLIP event
Never too late 64 [week ending on Sunday 20 September] – Adwords in Canada | EU Draft consultation on ISPs | "The UPC: A Panel Debate" | Prince and Mean Music Companies v That lovely baby dancing Prince Lenz v Universal Music | CJEU in KitKat | Paul Burrell v Max Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) | Economics of Collecting Societies | Who is an 'intermediary' for the sake of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive? | IP: When innovation is the answer to a spiritual funk
Never Too Late 63 [week ending on Sunday 13 September] - Fair compensation in reprography and private copying: the ECS’ version | Substitute sellers | Teva UK Ltd & Another v Leo Pharma | Evidence-based IP policy | KitKat case | UK IPO’s priorities | UK IPO’s website vs complete copyright legislation | Patent Attorney Qualifications | Mylan and Actavis v Warner-Lambert | Copyright and censorship | Suicide at the EPO | Private copy levies in Austria | Court fees in the UK.
