Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week
The past week brought several notable CJEU decisions as well as an abundance of other interesting articles - if you missed it, you can catch up on all of the posts of the Kats in this edition of Never Too Late!
Copyright -
Several breaking news articles on recent CJEU rulings and Opinions were reported by Kat Eleonora Rosati, which included:
Hanne Kirk of Gorrissen Federspiel, Aarhus (Denmark) writes a GuestPost, examining a landmark decision from the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court concerning originality in copyright law in relation to products by Danish designer Anne Black.
In 'Voice-overs, peer-to-peer recruitment platforms and IP rights: a survey of 200+ performers', GuestKat Mathilde Pavis provides interesting insights into these platforms, and considers whether they bring value or benefit to artists, which would justify the way they undercut intellectual property rights.
Patents -
GuestKat Rose Hughes reports on the Advocate-General Opinion in SPC referrals C-650/17 and C-114/18 (which sought to determine the correct interpretation of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation).
Rose also reports on comments from the EPO President on the patentability of computer implemented simulations (G1/19).
With the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal coming into force, it is expected that this will lead to increased arguments as to whether appeals submissions are new or not. This is foreshadowed in the recent Board of Appeal decision, T0688/16, where an inappropriate use of discretion leads to ping-pong.
Communication to the public -
GuestKat Nedim Malovic examines a referral made by the Swedish Patents and Market Court of Appeal to the CJEU, asking whether the concept of “public” (which is not expressly defined in the legislation) under Articles 3 and 4 of the InfoSoc Directive has a uniform meaning, and if so, what that meaning is.
Book Reviews -
Book Review Editor Hayleigh Bosher provides an overview of ‘Regulating ISPs’ Responsibilities for Copyright Infringement: The Freedom to Operate in the US, EU and China’ by Jie Wang.
Trade Marks -
GuestKat Léon Dijkman discusses a decision of the EU General Court, which ruled that conceptual comparison of names was normally not possible, and held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the signs ‘Luciano Sandrome’ and ‘Don Luciano’.
GuestKat Peter Ling looks at recently revised Swiss legislation on protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI) and its effect on a trade mark application of ‘IGP’ for paint, which may have easily been registered prior to this change.
PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATE:
Never Too Late 233 [Week ending 8th September] YouTube takes copyright law into their own hands with new policy on music infringement | InterDigital starts Lenovo FRAND war, plus reader discount at SEP Strategy Conference | The patent debate surrounding PrEP, the game-changer in HIV prevention | What is the future of plausibility? AIPPI country survey results suggest plausibility requirement “undesirable” | Forthcoming ERA IP events with 25% IPKat discount | Book Review: Online Distribution of Content in the EU | The three Rs of legitimate expectation: Recognizability, recoverability and responsibility (T 0703/19) | The facepalm trade mark case in China | Around the IP Blogs | Commons Clause in open source licences: business necessity or betrayal of software freedom? | International jurisdiction in online EU trade mark infringement cases: CJEU rules that targeting may serve to establish jurisdiction | Can Africa’s trade agreements handle regional integration? | Has the EU lost its way on gene-editing?
Never Too Late 232 [Week ending 1st September] Board of EUIPO says re-filing of Monopoly’ as EUTM is invalid due to bad-faith | Can the ideal image of female beauty be considered a limit to a designer’s freedom? | Brussels court grants Louboutin inhibitory decision against Amazon | Planet Art v Photobox passing off: no compunction when refusing injunction | On economic analysis of IP law: an interview with professor Tom Cotter | Calls for holistic reforms to digital platforms from Australia’s competition regulator | Enterprise name vs. trade mark: throwing a straw against the wind? | What we can learn from Jane Austen and President Ulysses S. Grant about the business of book publishing: "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" | Invitation for applications for the Shamnad Basheer IP / Trade Fellowship at the Texas A&M University School of Law
Never Too Late 231 [Week ending 25th August] Copyright infringement in the 'iron pipe film' case |
Makeup brand Charlotte Tilbury successfully proved copyright infringement of its packaging | copyright cases on the U.S. Supreme Court docket this term | Raconteur Productions Limited v Dioni Visions Entertainment Limited and 2 Others: screenplay copyright in Nigeria | Another CJEU referral on Youtube's role as service provider | Irish Supreme Court in Merck v Clonmel puts "adequacy of damages" back in the balance when granting preliminary junctions | The first AI inventor - IPKat searches for the facts behind the hype | Repurposing patented products: Inking a new test for infringement in Australia? | When a tiger loses its teeth: applying the step-by-step approach on a word mark and a mark containing a device representation thereof | Four Rings to Rule Them All – German Federal Court of Justice Finds Trademark Infringement in Radiator Grille with Audi-Logo-Shaped Mounting Fixture | USPTO amends the rules: "Requirement of U.S. Licensed Attorney for Foreign Trademark Applicants and Registrants" now in effect
Copyright -
Several breaking news articles on recent CJEU rulings and Opinions were reported by Kat Eleonora Rosati, which included:
- The much awaited Opinion by Advocate-General Szpunar in the Tom Kabinet case, which advised the CJEU to rule that internet downloads of ebooks are covered by right of communication to the public, not distribution (so there would not be digital exhaustion under the InfoSoc Directive).
 |
| A recap of last week's posts, in one sweet package |
- The CJEU’s confirmation that the German press publishers’ right is unenforceable due to the German Government failing to notify the European Commission, following the VG Media referral.
- The CJEU ruling on Cofemel, which held that the only requirement for copyright protection of designs is their originality.
Hanne Kirk of Gorrissen Federspiel, Aarhus (Denmark) writes a GuestPost, examining a landmark decision from the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court concerning originality in copyright law in relation to products by Danish designer Anne Black.
In 'Voice-overs, peer-to-peer recruitment platforms and IP rights: a survey of 200+ performers', GuestKat Mathilde Pavis provides interesting insights into these platforms, and considers whether they bring value or benefit to artists, which would justify the way they undercut intellectual property rights.
Patents -
GuestKat Rose Hughes reports on the Advocate-General Opinion in SPC referrals C-650/17 and C-114/18 (which sought to determine the correct interpretation of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation).
Rose also reports on comments from the EPO President on the patentability of computer implemented simulations (G1/19).
With the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal coming into force, it is expected that this will lead to increased arguments as to whether appeals submissions are new or not. This is foreshadowed in the recent Board of Appeal decision, T0688/16, where an inappropriate use of discretion leads to ping-pong.
Communication to the public -
GuestKat Nedim Malovic examines a referral made by the Swedish Patents and Market Court of Appeal to the CJEU, asking whether the concept of “public” (which is not expressly defined in the legislation) under Articles 3 and 4 of the InfoSoc Directive has a uniform meaning, and if so, what that meaning is.
Book Reviews -
Book Review Editor Hayleigh Bosher provides an overview of ‘Regulating ISPs’ Responsibilities for Copyright Infringement: The Freedom to Operate in the US, EU and China’ by Jie Wang.
Trade Marks -
GuestKat Léon Dijkman discusses a decision of the EU General Court, which ruled that conceptual comparison of names was normally not possible, and held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the signs ‘Luciano Sandrome’ and ‘Don Luciano’.
GuestKat Peter Ling looks at recently revised Swiss legislation on protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI) and its effect on a trade mark application of ‘IGP’ for paint, which may have easily been registered prior to this change.
PREVIOUSLY ON NEVER TOO LATE:
Never Too Late 233 [Week ending 8th September] YouTube takes copyright law into their own hands with new policy on music infringement | InterDigital starts Lenovo FRAND war, plus reader discount at SEP Strategy Conference | The patent debate surrounding PrEP, the game-changer in HIV prevention | What is the future of plausibility? AIPPI country survey results suggest plausibility requirement “undesirable” | Forthcoming ERA IP events with 25% IPKat discount | Book Review: Online Distribution of Content in the EU | The three Rs of legitimate expectation: Recognizability, recoverability and responsibility (T 0703/19) | The facepalm trade mark case in China | Around the IP Blogs | Commons Clause in open source licences: business necessity or betrayal of software freedom? | International jurisdiction in online EU trade mark infringement cases: CJEU rules that targeting may serve to establish jurisdiction | Can Africa’s trade agreements handle regional integration? | Has the EU lost its way on gene-editing?
Never Too Late 232 [Week ending 1st September] Board of EUIPO says re-filing of Monopoly’ as EUTM is invalid due to bad-faith | Can the ideal image of female beauty be considered a limit to a designer’s freedom? | Brussels court grants Louboutin inhibitory decision against Amazon | Planet Art v Photobox passing off: no compunction when refusing injunction | On economic analysis of IP law: an interview with professor Tom Cotter | Calls for holistic reforms to digital platforms from Australia’s competition regulator | Enterprise name vs. trade mark: throwing a straw against the wind? | What we can learn from Jane Austen and President Ulysses S. Grant about the business of book publishing: "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" | Invitation for applications for the Shamnad Basheer IP / Trade Fellowship at the Texas A&M University School of Law
Never Too Late 231 [Week ending 25th August] Copyright infringement in the 'iron pipe film' case |
Makeup brand Charlotte Tilbury successfully proved copyright infringement of its packaging | copyright cases on the U.S. Supreme Court docket this term | Raconteur Productions Limited v Dioni Visions Entertainment Limited and 2 Others: screenplay copyright in Nigeria | Another CJEU referral on Youtube's role as service provider | Irish Supreme Court in Merck v Clonmel puts "adequacy of damages" back in the balance when granting preliminary junctions | The first AI inventor - IPKat searches for the facts behind the hype | Repurposing patented products: Inking a new test for infringement in Australia? | When a tiger loses its teeth: applying the step-by-step approach on a word mark and a mark containing a device representation thereof | Four Rings to Rule Them All – German Federal Court of Justice Finds Trademark Infringement in Radiator Grille with Audi-Logo-Shaped Mounting Fixture | USPTO amends the rules: "Requirement of U.S. Licensed Attorney for Foreign Trademark Applicants and Registrants" now in effect
