http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/never-too-late-if-you-missed-ipkat-last_15.html
If you were flat-out last week and didn’t have time to follow the IP news, here’s the summary of what you missed.
Intellectual Property Generally
| A Kat that has been flat out. Image from Pixabay. |
This Kat reviewed the new book, The Elgar Companion to Intellectual Property and the Sustainable Development Goals, edited by Bita Amani, Caroline B. Ncube and Matthew Rimmer. The volume brings together 25 excellent contributions to reflect on the role of intellectual property in the progress of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and achieving a better future for everyone.
Trade Marks and Image Rights
Marcel Pemsel analysed the recent decision that confirmed that Rihanna’s pictures constituted disclosure for the purposes of validity of Puma’s Registered Community Design for shoes. He points out that the General Court seems to have assumed implicitly that the entire earlier design must have been made available, and the Court then went on to make assumptions on the appearance of non-visible parts of the shoes and engaged in fact-finding about what the rear part of the left shoe looked like.
Eleonora Rosati discussed the recent decision of the Italian Supreme Court on infringement of a person’s own personality/image rights. The fashion house Salvatore Ferragamo had used the name ‘Audrey Hepburn’ in connection with the shoe models. The Court found that even though Ferragamo’s purpose was commercial, the aim of the communication was merely descriptive, and therefore would not cause undue prejudice.
Data Privacy
Katfriend Bibitayo Emmanuel Ojo (DataPro Limited) explored the relationship between data privacy rights of citizens and government’s duties around national security, in light of the recent Nigerian Federal High Court judgment in Incorporated Trustees of Laws and Rights Awareness Initiative v Nigerian Communications Commission. The Court adopted a literal interpretation of the legal framework, although this still left open issues because of its failure to address the broader principles of data protection and because of its ambiguity regarding the precise scope of “basic information” accessible by authorities.
Content reproduced from The IPKat as permitted under the Creative Commons Licence (UK).