Never too Late: If you missed the IPKat the past weeks!

This Kat analysed the recent decision issued by the Court of Appeal of Aix-En-Provence concerning unauthorised sculptures of Tintin and the Moon rocket. The Court confirmed that simple homage to pre-existing work doesn’t qualify as parody under French law.

Trade mark

Eleonora Rosati wondered to what extent someone’s face could be registered as a trade mark, illustrating her point with recent decisions issued by the EUIPO Examination Division.

Tian Lu examined the decision in T-358/21 issued by the EU General Court on 14^thDecember 2022 regarding genuine use of a trade mark. This case stressed the importance of the “as a whole” approach. 

Giorgio Luceri gave some thoughtful comments on the ICELAND case. Indeed, the Grand Board of the EUIPO ruled that both contested EUTMs were registered in breach of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR.

Annsley Merelle Ward drew our attention to the release by the CJEU of its latest decision in the Christian Louboutin’s online marketplace trade mark battle. This time the CJEU was asked to consider whether, and under what conditions, the operator of an online marketplace may be found directly liable under Article 9(2) EUTMR for the display of advertisements and the delivery of infringing goods that are offered for sale and placed on the market upon the initiative and under the control of third party sellers that avail themselves of that operator’s services  (see Eleonora’s previous Katpost here summarizing the referrals). 

Marcel Pemsel commented on a judgment of the General Court dealing with the difficulty of protecting tactile marks. In Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical sanitary insert part) the General Court had the opportunity to review the rejection of an application for a position tactile mark.

Nedim Malovic analysed a judgment of the General Court related to a 3D trade mark (T‑553/21). The General Court questioned whether the use of a shape of a smiley, registered as an EU trade mark, altered the distinctive character of that mark.

Patents

Rose Hugues provided the annual IPKat EPO Boards of Appeal roundup.

Henry P Yang wondered if the Court of Appeal has signalled the end of English judicial influence of Arrow declarations through its decision in Teva v Novartis.

Neil Wilkof questioned the impact of bringing manufacturing “back home” on innovation.

Other

Anastasiia Kyrylenko summarised her recently defended thesis, titled “Deconstructing EU IP norm-export to the Eastern European Neighbourhood”.  She focused in her post on how European Union’s trade agreements shape intellectual property legislation in third countries.