Anyway, here is Alberto's summary:
After UsedSoft [on which see Eleonora’s post here], another copyright-exhaustion-and-software reference is on its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Jeremy reports.Valentina writes about the General Court’s decision in Cases T-218/13 and T-271/13, involving the ‘ORO’ Italian and Community trade marks and addressing signs having different meanings depending on which EU language you refer to.Jeremy presents the next Premier Cercle conference, entitled "Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court 2015: The Last Miles". It takes place on Thursday 16 July in the fabulous land of Eponia.Is a technical drawing worthy of protection under the Bahamian Copyright Act? This question, posed in relation to the law of the Bahamas, was answered by the Privy Council in Gold Rock Limited v Nylund Hylton  UKPC 17, about which guest blogger Kevin Winters tells all.Two more references, respectively from Germany and the Netherlands, are heading the CJEU’s desks. The first one regards TV screens in rehabilitation institution’s rooms and communication to the public. The second [already reported by the IPKat here and here] could save us all from CJEU’s earlier ambiguity in terms of liking-and-copyright.FoMO is "a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent”. What has this to do with investing in companies that own trade secrets? Neil explains.Valentina reports on another GC decision, this time in Case T-254/13 Stayer Ibérica, SA v OHIM, ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’, addressing when goods are complementary or in competition for the purposes of their similarity.
Back in March, Merpel penned on the proposal by the President of the European Patent Office for plans to reform the administration of the Boards of Appeal [proposals here and here; Merpel's comments here]. Readers may recall that there is currently running a consultation on these proposals, and that both AMBA (the Association of Members of the Boards of Appeal) and the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal have commented on them already. Now it is the turn of EPLAW (the European Patent Lawyers Association) and the CCBE (the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe) turn to have their say -- and for Merpel to have her say on those associations’ having their say.******************PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATENever too late 48 [week ending on Sunday 31 May] - The meaning of EPO appeal system | 3D Printing and the law | Epo and external investigation firms | Umbrella designs | US Supreme Court in Commil USA, LLC v Cisco Systems | European Inventor Award | FIFA and brand integrity | Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Wine in Black GmbH v OHIM | IP and busking | Swiss-style claims.Never too late 47 [week ending on Sunday 24 May] - Nicolas Sarkozy and the IP | Another reference on TM licences to the CJEU | UPC test-drive | Swatch v Swatchball | New Lisbon Treaty on appellations of origin and geographical indications | UP renewal fees | Synthon v Teva | GC on Yoshida | UPC Court fees event | EPO staff under fire | The trade-secret option | Damages |AstraZeneca AB & Another v KRKA dd Novo Mesto & Another | F1 back on stage.Never too late 46 [week ending on Sunday 17 May] – Whyte & MacKay Ltd v Origin Wine UK Ltd and Dolce Co Invest Inc | "Three aspects of information: Current issues in trade secrets, client confidentiality and privilege" -- a new event | CJEU upon distribution right inDimensione Direct Sales srl and Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA| UK Supreme Court on Mere reputation and passing-off | 14 million kat-thanks | Actual confusion at INTA | Italy's twist on UP Package | Moral authorship over promotional spot in Italy.Never too late 45 [week ending on Sunday 10 May] – INTA 2015 and the Kat | IP and Competition Law | Sky v Skype | CJEU v Spain| Digital Single Market Strategy | IPCom v HTC | European Qualifying Examination appealed | UPC fees | CJEU and 3-D marks | EPO Oral Proceedings.