Never Too Late: If you missed the IPKat last week!

Here’s the latest weekly summary of the different topics analysed by the Kats in last week’s posts.

Marcel Pemsel discussed in his post the challenging question linked to trade mark scope of protection and to the influence of the reputation assigned to Puma and to Rolex, considering, respectively, the decision of the General Court and the judgment issued by the German Patent Court.

Anna Maria Stein analysed the registrability of slogans. Particularly, she considered Decision no.37697 of the Italian Supreme Court in relation to the slogan “LA TUA PELLE MERITA DI ESSERE TRATTATA BENE” (“Your skin deserves to be treated well”).

Rose Hughes, the PatKat, considered the outcome of the recent decision of the EPO Board of Appeal (T 1473/19) in light of the question: Do missing commas add matter? Indeed, she highlighted how the discrepancy between the meaning of a claim and its description can be caused by the loss of commas  aimed at the delineation of a crucial sub-clause in the claim.

Anastasiia Kyrylenko reviewed the book written by Pratyush Nath Upreti and published by Edward Elgar Publishing, entitled “Intellectual Property Objectives in International Investment Agreements”. The review analysed the core topics of each Chapter, including the question linked to how intellectual property rights need to be treated in disputes that involve investor-state settlements.