Around the IP blogs

An unconventional cat

Copyright

SpicyIP looked into the copyright protection of unpublished works under Indian law. Although the subsistence of copyright is dependent upon the fact of creation, the publication date will be relevant in determining the copyright term of a work.

SpicyIP also discussed the liability for copyright infringement of video-sharing social networks in light of a recent dispute between ShareChat and the Lahiri Recording Company. While the case is still ongoing, the blog analyses whether a platform, built on the user-generated content model, can avail itself of the “safe harbour” exception under the Indian IT Act.

In the JIPLP blog, Berdien van der Donk addressed dynamic injunctions under European law after C-18/18 case. The author looks into two categories of dynamic injunctions: those with a dynamic content and those with a dynamic infringer. Based on the successful experience of certain EU Member States, he recommends that similar infringements shall only be blocked after a right holder’s notification.

Trade marks

Patently-O looked into the protection of color marks under the US law as recently considered by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the In re: Forney Industries, Inc case. There, the court concluded that color marks used on packaging can be inherently distinctive and do not need to acquire a secondary meaning. The post analyses how this holding may be applied and whether a narrower reading of the decision is possible.

Patents

JuvePatent addressed a recent decision from the Higher Regional Court of Munich in Firecom against Broadcom/Avago. The dispute concerned a patent for optical receiver circuits and the Appeal Court confirmed the first instance decision, finding no infringement of patent.

Kluwer Patent Blog conducted a review of US cases involving treble damages, to answer the question of whether such damages necessarily involve knowledge of patent infringement, or whether the doctrine of willful blindness could be invoked to substitute such knowledge. While no case concerning willful blindness in patent infringement cases has yet reached Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court, certain companies apply the corporate policy of non-review of third parties’ patents in, so as to avoid the knowledge of patent infringement. Such policy is seen differently in US district courts. The author reviews cases, where such corporate policy has been addressed as to whether it can amount to willful blindness.