Never Too Late

The IPKat brings exciting new posts every week. If you missed the most recent posts, it is never too late to catch up! 

In ‘When is the “text-intended for grant” not intended for grant?‘ , Rose Hughes reports on the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EPO in T 1003/19. There, the BOA held that ‘the text intended to grant’ is not intended for grant when the document provided as the ‘text-intended for grant’ contains significant amendments that: 1) potentially render the claims non-compatible with the EPC; 2) were not submitted by the applicant; and 3) are never explicitly described to the applicant by the Examining Division. 

In ‘A casual case of contempt? Price v Filtcraft‘, Rose also reports on the Price v Filtcraft decision on what happens if the infringement continues after a court orders an injunction. The High Court of UK held that the defendant in the case continued to infringe the patent by distributing brochures containing a drawing that represents the elements of the patent claims. 

Lying on the sofa and Writing the NTL

Léon Dijkman reports on AG Tanchev’s opinion in the case C-371/18 Sky and others, in which the AG finds that lack of intention to use a trade mark can be indicative of bad faith. As well, insufficiently clear and precise registrations may be contrary to public policy

In ‘When the unicorn loves its name recognition, but Wall Street, less so‘, Neil Wilkof argues that a widely recognised trademark might provide a commercial benefit, at least when unicorns (a privately held start-up that shows rapid growth but no profits) are concerned. He cautions, however, that while strong name might influence private investors, they are not likely to affect financing by the public, such as an IPO. 

Fredy Sánchez Merino, in ‘That was a long break, now let’s go back south’ prepared a round-up of IP developments in Central and South America: (i) Argentina’s announcement of a PPH pilot program with China; (ii) a fashion firm in Cuba pointing to a potential trademark challenge against ZARA; (iii) the decision of the Colombian Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (SIC) on the registration of the trademark Nivea; and (iv) the same agency’s decision to grant the denomination of origin for the Providence Island Black Crab in class 29. 

In ‘A European perspective on paparazzi photographs of celebrities and lawsuits against celebrities over the posting of photographs of themselves‘, Eleonora Rosati offers her insight on the issue of when celebrities post photographs of themselves without authorisation of the paparazzi. She concludes that it may be questionable that copyright protection can be successfully invoked for photographs whose only merit appears to be that of being at the right place at the right time. 

Katharine Stephens, in ‘IP and AI – the debate continues, this time at WIPO‘, offers a report on the WIPO’s Conference ‘Conversation on IP and AI’.The discussion and presentations in this conference concerned the impact of AI on IP systems, IP policies, IP rights management and international cooperation on IP matters. 

Alexander de Leeuw reports the seminar ‘IP in the global automotive industry’, organised by Premier Cercle at Volvo cars. Day 1 of the seminar focused on the challenges and opportunities in the future of the automotive industry, such as self-driving cars, the internet of things (IoT), connectivity and data produced by vehicles. In Day 2 of the seminar, participants got up early for discussions about litigation trends, big data, SEPs and 5G, IP valuation, and trademarks and brands in the automotive industry. 

In ‘Richard Arnold to be sworn in as Lord Justice of Appeal on Thursday‘, Eleonora Rosati, on behalf of the IPKat team, congratulated Sir Richard on his appointment and looks forward to commenting on his future judgments as Lord Justice of Appeal. 

Hayleigh Bosher reviews Jacob Turner’s book, ‘Robot Rules, Regulating Artificial Intelligence’. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) presents novel issues for which current legal systems are only partially equipped. The book provides a roadmap for addressing these issues, including looking at what the rules should be, who should shape them and how the rules should be applied. 

Never Too Late 237 [Week ending 13th October] Fighting for your IP rights in Denmark – it’s expensive, but now maybe less so? | 2019 updates to the EPO Guidelines for Examination – the highlights |GSK fails in purple inhaler passing off claim against Sandoz and Vectura (…and breathe) | When it’s time to pay for copyright infringement: the new “fork in the road” under Colombian law | Book Review: Digital Copyright Law and Practice | Beijing Internet Court: whether a short video is original or not has nothing to do with its length | Book Review: The Law of Domain Names and Cybersquatting 

Never Too Late 236 [Week ending 6th October] Nintendo play ISP blocking to win | Kenya amends its Copyright Act to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty and address a myriad of other issues | Paris Court on digital exhaustion and videogames | US House Judiciary Committee votes to amend small-claims copyright bill (CASE Act) as Senate Judiciary issues favourable report on the bill | Have Associated Newspapers made a Royal error publishing Megan Markle’s private letter? | Can the Government Get Your Copyright? The Supreme Court of Canada Says “Yes”. | New decision of the Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal addresses interface between new safety regulation for packaging of pharmaceuticals and parallel imports | Enlarged Board of Appeal releases full reasoning in G2/19 | Industry takes stance on automatic patent injunctions as German Ministry of Justice considers reform of the patent law | Liverpool FC fails in attempt to register LIVERPOOL as trade mark | We all recognize the mark “Uber”, but is it a strong brand? | BREAKING: CJEU rules that an intermediary can be ordered to remove content identical and equivalent to that found illegal, also worldwide | Intellectual property in Outer Space: still in the twilight zone | International Copyright Law conference returns to London with an IPKat readers’ discount 

Never Too Late 235 [Week ending 29th September] Is article 3 (a) of the Regulation (EC) 469/2009 disappearing into the mist, or is clarity round the corner? | AIPPI Congress Report 1: The Art of IP – Museums & Architecture | AIPPI Congress Report 2: Trade Secrets – Views from In-House Counsel | AIPPI Congress Report 3: Brexit, IP in Fashion and Customs & Border Control | Monday Miscellany | Zervos v Picasso, or copyright v droit d’auteur | Guest Post: Copyright Troll-[ing] Canadian Courts? Canada’s First Reverse Class Action Copyright Case | Guest Post: UK IPO Annual IP crime and enforcement report for 2018-2019 | There is No Such Thing as a Free Launch – CJEU Does Not Follow AG on Compensation for Wrongful PI | New CJEU referral on right of communication to the public… this time on seeding and de minimis threshold | [Guest Post] IP Education Series #1 | AIPPI Congress Report 4: Copyright in AI generated works | AG Pitruzzella advises CJEU to rule that proprietor of trade mark revoked for non-use can seek compensation for infringing acts committed prior to revocation | Beijing IP Court: mountain is excellent, but not exclusively so | Does IP boost the European economy? EPO and EUIPO say so