The IPKat BLOG – Page 20

In: The IPKat BLOG

Beyond the process: Securing robust IP protection for cell therapies

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/beyond-process-securing-ip-protection.html Cell therapy represents one of the most exciting fields of innovation, with the potential to provide long-term cures for previously incurable diseases. However, unlike traditional pharmaceuticals, these “living medicines” present unique IP challenges that can make or break a biotech’s future. Whilst conventional pharmaceuticals benefit from straightforward composition of... Continue reading
In: The IPKat BLOG

Birkenstock’s sandals are not sufficiently artistic to enjoy copyright protection

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/birkenstocks-sandals-are-not.html Birkenstock has tried to protect and enforce its iconic sandal design using almost all intellectual property rights available. Their trade marks for the sole pattern design were cancelled because they lacked distinctiveness (General Court, case T-365/20 and T-579/14). Registered Community Designs were declared invalid because of prior art (e.g.... Continue reading
In: The IPKat BLOG

Tuesday Wonders

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/tuesday-wonders.html The IPKat has, as always, hunted down several upcoming events and news. Here is what’s happening in the IP world… A Kat hunting down the latest IP news and events!
In: The IPKat BLOG

Design or art? French court rules that Birkin Bag is a copyright work

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/design-or-art-french-court-rules-that.html On 7 February last, the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris ruled that S.A.S. BLAO & CO (defendant) had infringed the copyright and trade mark of Société HERMES INTERNATIONAL and S.A.S. HERMES SELLIER (claimants) by producing and offering for sale its “Paisley Jane” model, as well as a non-fungible token (NFT)... Continue reading
In: The IPKat BLOG

C-575/23: statutory assignment of rights without prior consent is against EU law

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/c-57523-statutory-assignment-of-rights.html Earlier this week, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its first ruling concerning the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2019/790 (C-575/23). The request, originating from the Belgian Supreme Administrative Court [see The IPKat here on the national proceedings], focused on Arts. 18-23 of the Directive... Continue reading
In: The IPKat BLOG

[Guest post] “Quevedo Port” for olive oil does not infringe PDO “Porto/Port”, rules EU General Court

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/guest-post-quevedo-port-for-olive-oil.html The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriend Edoardo Cesarini (GR Legal) on the role of similarity between goods in deciding on an infringement of a geographical indication. Here’s what Edoardo writes: The EU General Court ruled in a recent case involving... Continue reading
In: The IPKat BLOG

[Guest post] Design and copyright law must not be confused: the CJEU referral in C-323/24

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/guest-post-design-and-copyright-law.html The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriend Henning Hartwig (Bardehle Pagenberg; Chair of the Committee for Design Law of the German Association for Intellectual Property Law) on the comments the GRUR Committee for Design Law submitted on the request made by... Continue reading
In: The IPKat BLOG

Wednesday Whimsies

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/wednesday-whimsies.html There’s never a dull moment in the world of intellectual property law, so the IPKat has an exciting time keeping readers up-to-date. This Kat is pleased to bring you this week’s news, events, and opportunities. UK Designs Reform A Kat that seems exhausted – and it’s only Wednesday!Photo by... Continue reading
In: The IPKat BLOG

Is ‘Sophienwald’ a geographical indication? Yes says the General Court, no the German Patent Court

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/is-sophienwald-geographical-indication.html The substantive trade mark law in the EU is largely harmonized. However, this does not mean that the same case brought before different trade mark offices will have the same outcome, as two recent decisions from the General Court (here) and the German Patent Court (here) show. Both decisions... Continue reading
In: The IPKat BLOG

To infinity and beyond! The sufficiency requirements for open-ended ranges (T 1977/22)

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/03/to-infinity-and-beyond-sufficiency.html The recent Board of Appeal decision in T 1977/22 related to the patentability of claims defining subject matter with open-ended parameter ranges. The question before the Board of Appeal was whether a claimed open range, and its numerically infinite scope, could ever be said to be sufficiently disclosed (Article 83 EPC). The... Continue reading