Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week

In this edition of Never Too Late, we take a look back at what the IPKat has covered over the last two weeks, as summer begins to draw to a close…

In Copyright infringement in the ‘iron pipes film’ case, GuestKat Frantzeska Papadopoulou discusses the latest copyright decision of the Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal, which considered whether the use of previously unpublished (from a copyright perspective) film sequences constitute copyright infringement, or whether copyright limitations (such as news reporting or parody), are otherwise applicable.

Makeup brand Charlotte Tilbury successfully proved copyright infringement of its packaging design and pattern embossed onto the makeup powder, as reported by InternKat Riana Harvey.

GuestKat Ieva Giedrimaite examines the copyright law cases that await the U.S. Supreme Court in the next term.

Africa Correspondent Chijioke Okorie reports on Raconteur Productions Limited v Dioni Visions

Entertainment Limited and 2 Others, heard before the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, concerning the possibility of copyright infringement of a ‘screenplay’, which is not specifically mentioned or defined in the Nigerian Copyright Act as a protected work.

Former GuestKat Mirko Brüß examines another case referred to the CJEU considering YouTube’s role as a hosting service provider, brought this time by Austria’s Oberster Gerichtshof.

Dublin-based Katfriend Colette Brady reported on Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Clonmel Healthcare Ltd, an important recent Irish case that reformulated the approach to be adopted by the Irish Courts in the application of the three stage Campus Oil test for the grant (or not) of a preliminary injunction (PI).

GuestKat Rose Hughes explores the fascinating and complicated issue of designating machine learning (ML) algorithms as the inventor on patent applications.

For many jurisdictions, the issue of repurposing a patented product is an issue of exhaustion. Not so in Australia, where, as reported by Katfriend Tyrone Berger, the relevant test is whether an implied license can be successfully asserted by the alleged infringer.

Katfriend Jolena Ang reports from Singapore on a trade mark opposition involving both word mark and device mark elements describing tigers.

GuestKat Peter Ling reports on a decision from the German Federal Court of Justice, where spare parts manufacturers were told that the shape of the mounting fixture, where a four-ring shaped logo may be placed, can amount to trade mark infringement.

A recent amendment to the US trade mark application procedure is examined by GuestKat Thomas Key, who notes the apparent increasing scrutiny faced by foreign applications for US trade mark registrations.

Never Too Late 230  [Week ending 11th August] The IPKat team: arrivals, farewells, and news | Nokia v. Daimler: (anti-)anti suit injunctions and the Brussels I regime in global FRAND litigation | Are FRAND-disputes too complex for PI proceedings? | When will the appeal fee be refunded?: G 1/18, the decision | Coloplast v Salts: Should UK infringement proceedings be stayed if the patent has been opposed? | Patent infringement in public procurement? Still awaiting an answer | Jury awards Joyful Noise $2.8M in copyright infringement damages for Katy Perry’s Dark Horse | Gigi Hadid Instagram copyright infringement case dismissed | US Senate Judiciary Committee approves small-claims copyright bill (CASE Act) and reports its to legislature without amendment | AG opinion regarding Aceto Balsamico leaves a sour taste for Modena | ‘Going down’ is a trade mark that causes a bad influence on morality, says the Beijng High Court in China | Latin America–a whole lot of trademark activity is going on | SportFuel is running on empty after losing appeal: US 7th Circuit Court affirms that Gatorade’s slogan, ‘Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company’ is fair use. | Book Review: Unified Patent Protection in Europe | Tragic news: Professor Shamnad Basheer has passed away | Remembering Shamnad Basheer | WIPO launched its first program on IP for indigenous women | IP Tribunal of SPC opens first circuit trial in July 2019

Never Too Late 229  [Week ending 4 August] Takeda v Roche: ‘Is it plausible? Is it true?’ | Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 1/18 | Beyond exclusion of pharmaceutical products from patentable subject matter as a solution to limited access to medicines in Africa | ‘Cartography and Copyright’ | Warhol v Goldsmith: fairness of use by iconic artwork adjudicated in New York. | English High Court raises eyebrows over request to disclose ISP customer data | The EU Regulation on fairness in the platform economy is a let down for intellectual property | Vallenato and Raicilla, take me south | Copyright Infringement Confirmed, but No Damages for ‘Cordoba’ Photographer | breaking news from the CJEU (in one day nonetheless!) | ‘BOSWELAN’: – No Special Treatment for Medicinal Product Trade Marks | CJEU dismisses Red Bull’s appeal concerning its colour combination marks | The trademark question that never stops giving: when is there a material difference between the registered form and the form of actual use? | Turning the AC off as no likelihood of confusion is found: AC Milan survives AC Marriott opposition | “Intellectual Property and the Visual” ISHTIP 2019 | CIPA seminar on the revised Rules of the Procedure of the Board of Appeal | Book Review: The Right of Communication to the Public in EU Copyright Law | Book Review: The Sir Hugh Laddie Lectures: The First Ten Years 

Never Too Late 228  [Week ending 21 July] Celebrity misadventures in trade mark land | Chanel’s ‘Double C’ trade mark loss in China – an unacceptable conclusion? | Freedom of expression transcends morality in US trademark registration | Red Bull sues rival F1 sponsor Rich Energy for trade mark infringement | The copyright question that no one wanted: the rights of immigrant minors in their drawings in connection with their detention along the U.S./Mexico border | India’s first dynamic injunction issued to block access to ‘rogue websites’; | Today’s the 10-year anniversary of the CJEU judgment that changed EU copyright | Has the Cat Got Your Copyright? The dilemma of animal-created works | Guest post: YouTube shifts the burden: requires manual copyright claimants to timestamp the allegedly infringing material; simplifies the rectification process | Rome Court finds videosharing platform directly liable for content uploaded by users | Illumina v TDL (Round 2): Mr Justice Arnold finds NIPT novel, inventive and sufficient | No benefit of hindsight: BA rejects ex tunc assessment of an intervention in opposition (T 0439/17) | EQEs – don’t speculate beyond the content of the paper (D 11/18) | Court of Appeal cancels RAND trial in ZyXEL v TQ Delta | Design litigation stats from the English courts make for good news for designers | Book Review: Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Creative Industries | Book Review: The Protection of Non- Traditional Trade Marks | Book review: Copyright and fan productivity in China | Book review (and discount

code!): Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union | Book review (and discount code!): Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union | South African IP researchers’ (AIPLITL) conference report – The IP and IT Law Innovation Interface | Event report – Second IP Researchers Europe Conference in Geneva | Why is there less innovation? Blame old geezers like me | Mr Justice Arnold to become Lord Justice Arnold: congratulations! | Join the UK IPO working group on IP enforcement