Here, courtesy of our gallant and ever-dependable Katfriend Alberto Bellan, is the 29th consecutive "Never Too Late" post, in which the contents of last week's substantive Katposts are carefully summarised so that our readers who were too busy or absent last week can skim through them and see which ones they missed. Click the title and you can read it in full. Anyway, here they are:
* A film about Martin Luther King without King's actual words: is it really a copyright problem?
Selma is a film about Martin Luther King that does not feature any actual extracts from his historic speeches. Is that copyright’s fault, wonders Eleonora?
* Copyright judgments in 2015: what’s in the pipeline from the CJEU (and will we be able to understand them?)2015 will be another busy copyright year for the Court of Justice of the European Union, and this post by Tom lists all the decisions we are waiting for, and why.
Jeremy presents the third edition of The Modern Law of Patents, which Katfriends Ashley Roughton, Phillip Johnson, and Trevor Cook have manufactured with love and just published with LexisNexis.
Suleman takes a look at the development of the Chinese patent system and how China has made the transition from being a ‘pirate’ nation to a ‘protector’ of patent rights, acquiring a functional modern patent system in three decades. What can we learn any lessons from China’s story?
…and it is not Charlie Hebdo, explains Eleonora.
Prospective licensees of the UK IPO logo are required to complete and submit a form and comply with some conditions of use provided by the UK Trade Mark Act. The regime entails some interesting peculiarities though, explains Jeremy.
To what extent can context change the likelihood of confusion? Does a survey ever help? How do you consider the position where a proportion of the customer base comes from overseas? These questions, among other things, find a response in High Court for England and Wales, Chancery Division's ruling of Mr Justice Arnold in Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK and Another  EWHC 17 (Ch), which Katfriend Aaron Wood (Swindell & Pearson Ltd) kindly reports.
* BREAKING: CJEU says that owner of an online database not protected by copyright or sui generis right may restrict its use by contractThe CJEU has just issued its 46-paragraph decision in Case C-30/14 Ryanair, a reference for a preliminary ruling from The Netherlands seeking clarification as regards the Database Directive. As Eleonora explains, the CJEU considered whether it is ok to contractually limit the use of online databases which are not protected on the basis of the Directive.
As he explained in an earlier post [here], Darren is truly convinced that the UPC Agreement will lead UPC Members to conform their national law of patent infringement to that specified in the UPCA (Articles 25 to 30). But not all think alike, as this Kat dialogue between Darren and Donal Kelly, senior associate at FR Kelly, well-illustrates.
The General Court delivered its judgement in Case T-197/13 Monaco v OHIM. The result must have disappointed the brand-sensitive denizens of the Principality [whose devotion to the exclusive use of the Monaco-based geographical location "Monte Carlo" has been ridiculed in this weblog here and here], observes Jeremy.
* Major Italian newspaper infringes artists' copyright on account that it would have taken too long to clear the rightsAs Eleonora reports, the Italian most important newspaper Corriere della Sera released a collection of cartoons by professional and amateur artists to raise funds in favour of Charlie Hebdo. In the name of freedom of press, the Corriere also introduced into the Italian system a brand-new Exception For-Charity, which applies whenever one promises to destine revenues of the infringement to a good cause and is in a hurry to ride on the crest of a recent tragedy.
As a general rule, the granting of a one-off patent is usually not a market-moving event. But companies like Apple are an exception, as last week’s grant of a patent in the digital camera system area made shares in GoPro slipped more than 13%. It is often said on Wall Street that “one buys on the rumour and sells on the fact”, but the sale of the GoPro shares was as much about rumour and speculation as fact, observes Neil.
This is the third post in series of six on biotech inventions [the earlier posts can be found here and here] kindly provided by Suleman. Among other things, this piece provide a thoughtful in-sight view over biotech-inventions’ subject matter and criteria that lead those inventions to meet the inventive step requirement.
The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market issued a recent statement saying that whoever tries to apply for a “Je suis Charlie” trade mark [on which see earlier Katposts here and here; Class 46 here and the MARQUES LinkedIn Discussion Group here] might experience some problems. You’d better not mess with the Alicante guys, bro.
******************************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 28 [week ending Sunday 11 January] -- German Minister for Agriculture against GIs | Europe’s 2015 resolutions re innovation | All the must-read IP blogs | UK and EU Parliaments v the EPO | The bizzarre EPO BoA’s Business Distribution Scheme | UPC location in London | New spare-part reference to the CJEU | Sir Robin Jacob and other Europe Judges for judicial independence (at EPO) |Reform of EPO Boards of Appeal | Data brokers and IP | The Research Handbook on Cross-Border Enforcement Of Intellectual Property, a review | China’s patent targets for 2020 | Reproduction of Charie Hebdo cartoons without permission | Bioderma trade mark litigation | Biotech ethics.Never too late 27 [week ending Sunday 4 January] -- The Irish PTO on well-known TMs’ extended protection in Stone Electrical Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc | The Irish PTO on revocation for non-use in HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises LLC v Dunnes Stores Ireland Company | Criminal penalty for infringement in Sweden | Congratulations to Trevor Graham Baylis | Australia copyright reforms and copyright enforcement on-line | The new guest Kats | New USPTO guidance on Patent Matter Eligibility | Confusion between TM with little distinctiveness | 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pom Wonderful LLC v Hubbard et al | Biotech inventions: controversies, case law, uncertainties and financing.Never too late 26 [week ending Sunday 28 December] -- Arnold J on Ice cream van design in Whitby Specialist Vehicles v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles | Adios to positive right of TM in Spain | Costs of Vestergaard Fransen v Bestnet Europe | Irish PTO on slogan TMs | Merpel summarises what’s going on with EPO | CoA for England and Wales on patent infringement by numbers in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA& Another | Database rights and much more in Medical Innovations Ltd v Eakins and others | What if China turns inwards on technology? | European Copyright Society on full harmonisation of copyright | Book review of Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights.Never too late 25 [week ending Sunday 21 December] --Setting aside default judgements at the IPO | 2015, the year of blocking injunctions? | The future of private copy levies in the EU | Kat-tips for IP conferences | Appeals at EPO: beware of what you ask | EPO BoA’s independence | CJEU in International Stem Cell Corporation | IPKat’s 2014 Copyright Awards | Waze and innovation drawbacks | Battistelli and Kongstad interviewed | Porcelains that copy advertising | Jay-z’s “Oh” sample gets its decision, yo.