This week we celebrate the 43rd weekly listing of the previous week's Katposts, once again cunningly contrived and collated by our friend and ally Alberto Bellan. For the benefit of newcomers to this weblog, of which there have been many in recent weeks, we should explain that the function of these weekly posts is to give readers a chance to tell at a glance what items they may have missed and, if any of those items takes their fancy, a chance to click through to them via hyperlinks from their titles.
Jeremy lets his Kat readership know all about C5's annual Pharmaceutical Patent Term Extensions Forum, a two-day event subtitled "Maximising pharmaceutical patent lifecycles to foster innovation and growth". This event takes place at The Hotel Excelsior, Munich, from 22 to 23 June."I would like one of those new unitary patents. I hear they will be only a fraction of the cost of the old ones". So starts a hypothetical but not-so-unreal conversation between a client and his patent attorney, subtly crafted by Darren in dialogue form.The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a provisional full version of its 2014 Report, which covers the work of the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, and provides yummy information for IP aficionados. Eleonora looks it over.Birgit reports on a recent German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) decision on the legality of a trade mark parody that 'in its overall impression' was based on an earlier well-known trade mark.* Politico leaks draft Digital Single Market strategy tackling geo-blocking, civil enforcement and role of ISPsEleonora reflects on the draft EU Digital Single Market (DSM) Strategy and its supporting Evidence, which Politico leaked a few days ago.Some weeks ago, the IPKat posted “The EU patent package: a dangerous precedent? A call for sanity”, here, a motion supported by more than 50 academics and practitioners. Wouter Pors (Bird & Bird, The Hague), not entirely agreeing with the motion, posted his reply here. The drafters of the motion have now prepared a detailed reply to Wouter's comments, which is handily summarised in this post.Wondering what might be the fate of the European Commission's proposals for trade mark reform? The EU Council and the European Parliament are, at least in theory, supportive, according to the media release that Jeremy mentions in this post.Andy Johnstone (who also contributes to the CopyrightAid.co.uk forums) responds to the Katpost "The CJEU 'new public' criterion? National judges should not apply it, says Prof Jan Rosen" (here), which Eleonora published last week.The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is to be re-branded as the "European Union Intellectual Property Office" [for real, see Katpost here!]. Any suggestions, asks Jeremy?Valentina explains two parallel judgments of the General Court, dealing with lack of distinctive character and secondary meaning under EU trade mark law.What happened in last week's among trade unions, EPO President, and Administrative Council Chairman? Find out in this Jeremy's post.Starting from a Boldrin/Levine's piece against patent, Neil reflects upon the actual effects of the first-mover advantage, on which those authors heavily rely.Last September this blog reported [here and here] on the decision of the CJEU in TU Darmstadt v Ulmer, C-117/13, a reference from the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice) seeking clarification as to the interpretation of relevant exceptions in the InfoSoc Directive that allow, among others, publicly accessible libraries to digitise works in their collections and make them available for users to view at dedicated terminals. Following the CJEU's judgment, the Bundesgerichtshof has now issued its decision in this case, reports Eleonora.******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 42 [week ending on Sunday 19 April] – WIPO Roving Seminars in Israel | Foster v Svenson, or "of taking pictures of your neighbours" | Trade marks and social networks | Jan Rosen on CJEU's public criterion to assess whether linking amounts communication to the public | EU Commission's misinformation about UPC | Dior v (Sirous) Dior | Lyricists and copyright | Banking secrecy v IP rights in AG's opinion for Coty Germany, C-580/13 | Le Monde on the EPO | Bundesgerichtshof's addresses short musical sequences in rap songs.
Never too late 41 [week ending on Sunday 12 April] – Nagoya Protocol for dummies | The IPKat and his friends | Actial Farmaceutica Lda v Claudio de Simone | Article 5(5) of the EU's Trade Mark Directive 2008/95 | Article 16(3) of our beloved TRIPS | Italy v Spain in copyright enforcement online.Never too late 40 [week ending on Sunday 5 April] – OHIM and national res judicata in Case T 378/13 Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM |Scrabble v Scramble is not a game in JW Spear & Sons Ltd & Others v Zynga Inc | Nagoya UK and EU implementing regulations | Again on making available and communication in CJEU's decision C More | Brown epilators in Albania | More food for thought regarding EPO's G2/12 Tomatoes II and G3/12 Broccoli II | ASOS v ASSOS: the Court of Appeal, England and Wales' version | New reference to the CJEU on e-lending and digital exhaustion comes from the lovely Hague | CIPA recruiting for IP volunteers | UPC mock trial | Ukrainian not so posh to Porche | Lincoln Continental's back |Links to leaks in a new reference to the CJEU | IP Hall of Fame purrs.Never too late 39 [week ending Sunday 29 March] – Merpel writes to the EPO AC | CJEU and hyperlinks | New gTLD regime | AG on TM reputation and genuine use in Case C‑125/14 Iron & Smith Kft v Unilever NV | AMBA speaks | Digital exhaustion | CJEU on linking to live shows in Case C-279/13 C More Entertainment| EPO Enlarged Board on amendments’ clarity in G 3/14 | EPO on patentability in cases G 2/12 (Tomatoes II) and G 2/13 (Broccoli II) | EPO responds to staff union | TVCatchup back to the CJEU | Translations and prior art | District Court of Hague on patented red radishes | GC on polo trade marks in Case T 581/13 Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM - Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB) | Trade mark trolls in Cuba.