The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Wednesday, 30 September 2015

Can the State automatically acquire ownership of your copyright? In South Africa this may become the case

Nedim Malovic
Have you ever come across a copyright law that provides that the State automatically acquires ownership of copyright in a certain work upon death of the relevant owner?

This appears to be what South African (SA) Government may have in mind (unless all this is just a result of bad inaccurate law drafting) with one of its proposed amendments to this country’s copyright law.

This blog is delighted to host the following analysis by IP enthusiast and Katfriend Nedim Malovic (Stockholm University), who explains what this proposal is all about.

Here’s what Nedim writes:

“The South African (SA) department of Trade and Industry is proposing a fairly controversial amendment to its current copyright legislation, possibly enabling the transfer of copyright ownership to Government following the death of the relevant owner.

Under the current wording of section 3(2) of the SA Copyright Act 1978, the author of a literary, artistic and musical works enjoys copyright protection for a term of life plus 50 years. Copyright ownership may also be assigned under section 22(1) of the SA Copyright Act 1987, which provides that “copyright is transmissible as movable property by testamentary disposition [to the owner’s heirs]”. This allows such heirs to continue benefiting from copyright protection for a full 50 years term after the death of the author.

At the end of last month the Copyright Amendment Bill 2015 was published for comment by the Department of Trade and Industry in the SA Government Gazette. The predominant feature of this draft bill [for other features, see
here] is probably the proposal to amend the current wording of section 21 (which concerns ownership) in the SA Copyright Act 1978. This amendment is contained in section 25 of the 2015 Bill and proposes to add the following new subsection after subsection 2 of section 21:

“Ownership of any copyright whose owner cannot be located, is unknown, or is deceased shall vest in the state: Provided that if the owner of such copyright is located at anytime, ownership of such copyright shall be conferred back to such owner.” (emphasis added)

Transfer of (pizza) ownership in progress
In summary, the proposed amendment – as currently drafted – would transfer copyright ownership in works to the SA Government not just when dealing with orphan works, but also in the event that the copyright owner is deceased.

This is reinforced by section 26 in the proposed Copyright Amendment Bill which contains an amendment to current section 22(1) of the SA Copyright Act 1987:

By the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection: “(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, copyright shall be transmissible as movable property by assignment, testamentary disposition or operation of law [.]: Provided that, copyright owned by, vesting on, or under the custody of the state may not be assigned.”

If the proposal of the SA Department of Trade and Industry was adopted, this would result in the Government acquiring ownership of the copyright in a certain work upon the death of the relevant owner for the remainder of the term of protection (including the right to any relevant royalties), in lieu of the owner’s estate.

Nothing left for successors in title,
not even royalties
Besides the practicalities of how such regime would actually work, there might be issues of compliance with – among other things – international law. Although the Berne Convention (Berne) does not deal with issues of ownership and exploitation of rights (with the exception of cinematographic works), Article 2(6) Berne (to which South Africa is bound) provides that “The works ... shall enjoy protection in all countries of the Union. This protection shall operate for the benefit of the author and his successors in title.” (emphasis added)

It would appear that the proposed law would remove the "successors in title” from the chain of copyright ownership. If so, then it could be argued that SA copyright law, as amended, might be in breach of the minimum standards set by Berne.

While some laws envisage a role of the State in the enforcement of copyright, an example being moral rights in those jurisdiction that conform to the droit d’auteur model and provide perpetual protection, it is likely that the proposed SA amendment consisting of transferring copyright ownership automatically upon death could be – to say the least - an unprecedented move.  

A possible underlying intention (motive) behind the proposed amendment might be that the SA government would seek to generate revenue for itself. In any case, as is apparent from section 26 of the Bill, the SA Government would be prevented from assigning any copyright obtained upon death of the relevant owner.

Overall the underlying rationale for all this appears difficult to appreciate fully. We shall thus see whether the Copyright Amendment Bill will actually be passed in its current form.”

Thanks for your explanation, Nedim. Are readers aware of any initiatives elsewhere similar to the SA Government one?

The Global Innovation Index 2015

WIPO, along with researchers at Cornell and INSEAD, recently published the Global Innovation Index. The index ranks countries by their innovativeness and usually grabs a few headlines, particularly in countries who've fared well. Even the Economist, using this Kat's favourite policy phrase, "punching above its weight" covered the index in an almost gushing manner (i.e. they didn't insult patents.)

"Namibie Etosha Leopard 01edit" by Patrick Giraud (edited to fix white balance) - Own work. Licensed under CC BY 2.5 via Commons -
"Namibie Etosha Leopard" 
by Patrick Giraud 
The report, which looks like it was a lot of work (over 450 pages and 79 variables), is a comprehensive indexing exercise. The UK ranks second, having risen from tenth in 2011; Switzerland again is number one.

The 2015 theme was Innovation for Development, which picks up on broader implications of innovation, and IP.  The report highlights an innovation divide between developing and developed countries.  Education, business sophistication and institutional support are singled as important factors benefitting developed countries. 

The BRIC countries are performing well and China is now number 29. Using patent analysis, China, Jordan, Kenya and Vietnam, Malaysia, India and others are outperforming similar economies. Africa is starting to move up the index. Burkina Faso, Malawi and Senegal, among others, are noted as improving. This should provide good fodder for debate at the upcoming African Ministerial Conference 2015 in Dakar in November.

The Index
"The model includes 79 indicators, which fall within the following three categories: 1. quantitative/objective/hard data (55 indicators), 2. composite indicators/index data (19 indicators), and 3. survey/qualitative/subjective/ soft data (5 indicators)."

These indicators are grouped into seven main areas.  These measurements are then adjusted to account for the differences in country size (typically GPD and population.)
1.     Institutions - measures things like political stability and the business environment, generally considered conducive to growth and innovation.
2.     Human capital and research - (hello academia) important for the generation of knowledge; academic research doesn't necessarily translate into innovation, hence a policy focus on tech transfer and knowledge exchange.
3.     Infrastructure - general measurement of things like ICT and other resources which enable manufacturing, health, logistics etc.
4.     Market sophistication - includes credit markets, financing and capital, facilitates the financial backing of markets for innovation.
5.     Business sophistication - a mix of the skills of business people and knowledge absorption, the intangible infrastructure which facilitates the spread of knowledge.
6.     Knowledge and technology output - where IP comes in, measurements of patents, publications, spending on computers, exports etc provide an idea of of innovative activity.
7.     Creative outputs - more IP with trade marks and measurements of the outputs of the creative industries.
By (From a painting by W. Luker, Jun.) ("The Book of the Cat" by Frances Simpson) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
 W. Luker, Jun.
There are some highly innovative measurements in the index itself.  For example, the number of monthly Wikipedia edits gives an idea of a country's online engagement and general level of education. "Tertiary inbound mobility" measures the number of university students from abroad, which suggests an attractive education system. The UK ranks eighth on this measure, just above Switzerland and significantly above the United States (49th).

You get some interesting results.  Barbados, for example, is the top country for patent families filed in at least three countries. A number of Eastern European countries are in the top ten for females with advanced degrees in employment. Germany ranks top for logistics.

Readers keen to find their own insights may enjoy the website's cool interactive tool

Comments on the index
Innovation, like a lot of IP-related concepts, is notoriously difficult to measure. The strength of this index is that it provides a stable, well established means to assess the performance of countries. While there is room for measurement flaws, it is important to focus on the relative indexing of countries over time. This allows for evaluation of innovation policies, comparative analysis and tracking of trends.

"Manekineko1003". Licensed under Public Domain via Commons -
"Manekineko" by Fg2
That said, the use of patent and trade mark data is often problematic.  IPKat readers will know that registrations are less a measurement of innovation, and more a measurement of business strategy (and perhaps an even better measurement of firms' legal budgets.) There are also challenges associated with using so many variables. Capturing a system as complex as innovation is difficult, and many of the indicators measure similar concepts, which could skew results.  

Another consideration is that the index introduces the political equivalent of a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for innovation. Great if you're on top or moving up. But in countries not doing so well, governments may be reconsidering policy.  

Exclusive analysis
However, the report misses a crucial analysis. Policy makers pay attention, because this Kat has figured out how to improve your innovation.  The answer is, as is often the case, chocolate.

Using an extensive analysis of globally developed databases and matching techniques,  your Katonomist has established an important link between chocolate and innovation. Here are the facts:

Flickr: Clever Cupcakes 
·      70% of the top 20 most innovative countries in the world are also in the top 20 countries with the highest per capita chocolate consumption.
·      63% of the top top eight emerging markets with the highest per capita chocolate consumption are also listed in WIPO's top ten middle-income countries with the highest quality of innovation

Based on this analysis, it should come as no surprise that Switzerland is the most innovative country in the world. The inhabitants of Switzerland consume nearly 12 kilos of chocolate per capita, which is a two-kilo lead over Ireland, in the number two chocolate position. It turns out the secret ingredient of innovation is creamy and sweet, with a hint of bitter. 

Overall thoughts
The WIPO index is a useful analytical tool.  The analysis accompanying the index is in-depth and presents a comprehensive look at innovation worldwide.  Indices and measurements can never fully capture the complexity of innovation, but the index is a very useful thermometer. 

However, as fellow Kat Neil wrote recently, there are debates on the appropriateness of the steadily increasing intertwining, sometimes conflation, of innovation and IP.  This Kat thinks we should continue to explore this relationship, but maintain a healthy sense of skepticism.  She also thinks that more economists should be trained in the legal and policy aspects of IP, and vice-versa.

In the meantime, consider chocolate.

A decade of JIPLP: an IP event -- and a chance to celebrate

OUP could not be pushed
this far ...
It's no secret that the association between the IPKat weblog and the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP) has been a long and fruitful one, no doubt thanks to the genial tolerance of its publishers Oxford University Press (OUP). A curious contrast between  cats and OUP is that, while cats reputedly have nine lives, each is relatively short. OUP by comparison has only one life, but a very, very long one, being founded in 1586 ["How old would OUP be today in Cat Years?" asks Merpel].  Be that as it may, IPKat blogmeister Jeremy was JIPLP's founder editor back in 2005 and has steered it through the first decade of its existence with the admirable help of fellow Kats Eleonora Rosati, Darren Smyth, Birgit Clark and Neil Wilkof on the Editorial Board; several guest Kats have written for the journal, including Stefano Barazza and Alberto Bellan.  It will therefore come as no surprise that the Kats will be there aplenty on 26 November, when JIPLP celebrates its 10th anniversary with a full day's conferencing, discussion, dispute and debate.

The conference will take place on Thursday 26 November 2015 in the London offices of international law firm and loyal JIPLP supporter Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. , whose logo -- rarely spotted without the firm's name -- appears on the left.  The final programme for this event will be confirmed within the very near future. Meanwhile, we can confirm that it will include the following papers from editorial board members and/or contributors:
“Let It Be or We Can Work It Out?”: Fair use, quotation and the Beatles case" (Sir Richard Arnold, Patents Court, England and Wales)

* "Marks and names, labels and litigants" (Anna Carboni, Redd, solicitors and a former Appointed Person to hear trade mark appeals

* "Dealing with commercial change: from Scandecor to Starbucks" (Neil Wilkof, Bressler & Co., Ramat Gan, Israel)

* "Competition law and IP: a new era of encroachment?" Christopher Stothers, Arnold & Porter, London)

* "A decade of random copyright (reform) in Europe" (Eleonora Rosati, University of Southampton and e-LAWnora)

* "Patents in perspective" (Stefano Barazza, University of South Wales) 
* "Policing and enforcing IP" (Marius Schneider, Ipvocate)

* "Second medical use claims: why are they so difficult to understand?" (Darren Smyth, EIP)

* "The Big IP Picture: is there one?" (Jeremy Phillips)
The event will commence at 9.30 am (following registration, which opens at 9.00 am) and will conclude at 5.00 pm, being followed by a reception.

Apart from being a celebration of a decade of thoroughly enjoyable and thankfully successful intellectual property law publishing, this conference marks the hand-over of its editorial functions.  Founder editor Jeremy is stepping down and is passing the reins to three new editors: Eleonora Rosati (currently Deputy Editor), Stefano Barazza and Marius Schneider.  This is the last time you will have the (mis)fortune of seeing Jeremy in action since it's his final public participation in any intellectual property event before he retires. 

Registration for this event, which is free to attend, can be achieved by the simple expedient of clicking through to the Eventbrite registration system here

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

IFRRO calls European Copyright Society's Opinion in Reprobel "unsubstantiated"

A few weeks ago this blog reported on the latest Opinion of the European Copyright Society (ECS), this time regarding a case currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): HP Belgium v Reprobel, C-572/13.

This is a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeal, seeking clarification as regards an evergreen topic in EU copyright, ie the fair compensation requirement in the reprography and private copying exceptions within Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29 (the InfoSoc Directive), respectively.

This case raises a number of issues, including whether a law (like the Belgian one) that allocates a portion of the fair compensation for reproductions pursuant to Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the InfoSoc Directive directly to publishers is compatible with EU law.

Advocate General (AG) Cruz Villalon issued his Opinion [not yet available in English] last June, holding the view - among other things and relying upon the earlier CJEU decision in Amazon - that such law would not be compliant with the InfoSoc Directive. This would be because this piece of EU legislation does not allow Member States to allocate a portion of the fair compensation to the publishers if there is no obligation for the publishers to ensure that they pass on this part, directly or indirectly, to the authors.

In its analysis the ECS endorsed the AG Opinion on this point, and submitted that the CJEU should (re-)affirm the author principle, ie initial ownership of copyright for authors. 

Who did you just
call 'unsubstantiated'?!
IFRRO, the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisation, has just released a document which is critical of the ECS Opinion. More specifically, IFRRO holds the view that:

"[T]he opinion expressed by the European Copyright Society regarding the publishers’ share is unsubstantiated. It conflicts with the international legal framework (including the Berne Convention, and especially the three-step-test laid down therein), and breaches longstanding legal and contractual arrangements between authors and publishers. Moreover, it is contrary to arrangements and traditions established and practised since the first establishment of collective rights management in the TI sector – the Reproduction Rights Organisations (RROs) – more than 40 years ago, regardless of the system under which they operate. The fundamental basis of collective rights management in the TI sector is that both authors and publishers are entitled to receive a portion of the remuneration / compensation. This is also consistent with the IFRRO Statutes, which require that RRO members represent both authors and publishers, and that these grant both categories of rightholders adequate representation on their governing bodies. In this vein, numerous IFRRO submissions to the European Commission on draft legislation, which led to the adoption of the EU Information Society Directive 2001/29 in 2001, uncontestedly, referred to ‘rightholder’ as a generic term for authors and publishers, who should both be entitled to a part of the remuneration / compensation when copies are made from an already published work."

Let's now wait and see with whom the CJEU agrees!

Compensation or punishment: A lot of questions about Article 13 Enforcement Directive

"Punitive damages" is one of those topics that sharply divide the community of European lawyers. Some cannot fail to see the economic logic that when the rate of detection of IP infringement is below 100%, adequate deterrence of infringement requires that compensation exceed actual damages (and/or profits) of the infringer. Others insist that the function of private law is not to punish (and not to deter?), but only to compensate (for actual damages). In recital (26) to the Enforcement Directive, the European legislator tread very carefully, stating that

"where it would be difficult to determine the amount of the actual prejudice suffered, the amount of the damages might be derived from elements such as the royalties or fees which would have been due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question. The aim is not to introduce an obligation to provide for punitive damages but to allow for compensation based on an objective criterion while taking account of the expenses incurred by the rightholder, such as the costs of identification and research."

The CJEU will have the opportunity to be criticized for whatever views it expresses on this contentious topic in a number of pending referrals. They all concern (not all of them exclusively) the interpretation of Art. 13 Enforcement Directive, which reads:

1. Member States shall ensure that the competent judicial authorities, on application of the injured party, order the infringer who knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in an infringing activity, to pay the rightholder damages appropriate to the actual prejudice suffered by him/her as a result of the infringement.
When the judicial authorities set the damages:
(a) they shall take into account all appropriate aspects, such as the negative economic consequences, including lost profits, which the injured party has suffered, any unfair profits made by the infringer and, in appropriate cases, elements other than economic factors, such as the moral prejudice caused to the rightholder by the infringement;
(b) as an alternative to (a), they may, in appropriate cases, set the damages as a lump sum on the basis of elements such as at least the amount of royalties or fees which would have been due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question.
2. Where the infringer did not knowingly, or with reasonable grounds know, engage in infringing activity, Member States may lay down that the judicial authorities may order the recovery of profits or the payment of damages, which may be pre-established.

Cape daisy of unknown variety
In C-509/10 - Geistbeck, the CJEU stated - without giving any reasons - that "In so far as Article 94 of Regulation No 2100/94 [Plant Variety Rights Regulation] is intended to make good the loss suffered by the holder of a plant variety [...] that loss amounts to at least the fee that a third party would have had to pay for a [...]‑Licence", or in other words the usual royalty rate. "At least" implies there can be more, but under which circumstances?

Case C-481/14, Jørn Hansson
In this case, which also arose under the Plant Variety Rights Regulation but has implications for the infringement of all intellectual property rights, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf refers no less than eight questions on the interpretation of Art. 94 Plant Variety Regulation and Art. 13 Enforcement Directive to the CJEU. In its first question, the referring court raises the question whether in addition to the usual royalty rate, an "infringer supplement" may be added "on a flat-rate basis in every case" of non-consensual use of  plant variety right. The German doctrine is, like the court, rather sceptical that this is legally permissible. The rest of the questions concern the individual circumstances that may or must be taken into account when setting a "reasonable compensation", which permit - without blatantly introducing double or treble damages - increasing the compensation above actual damages. The court namely wonders whether when setting the applicable royalty rate, it may be taken into account that the infringer, unlike a licensee, does not bear the risk to pay for the use of an IP right that turns out to be invalid.

Unauthorized use of visual work, hopefully not morally prejudicial
Case C-99/15, Liffers
In this reference from Spain, the refering court wonders whether Art. 13 (1) Enforcement Directive precludes that an author demanding compensation for pecuniary loss based on the amount of royalties or fees that would be due if the infringer had requested authorisation may also claim damages for the moral prejudice suffered. The plaintiff Mr Liffers holds the rights in an audiovisual work portraying the lives of several Cubans living in Havana. Defendant used excerpts of the work in a documentary broadcast on Spanish television without Liffers' consent. To add insult, or shall I say moral prejudice, to pecuniary injury, the documentary was about child prostitution in Cuba, a subject Mr Liffers did not want to be associated with (although I would hope the documentary was rather critical of the practice).

Case C-367/15, Stowarzyszenie Oławska Telewizja Kablowa
Stowarzyszenie Oławska Telewizja Kablowa is a (the?) Polish collective rights society administering broadcasting rights in Poland. Defendant has been distributing television programmes containing  copyright-protected audiovisual works via cable TV in a region of Poland without the collecting society's consent. In the resulting litigation, the collecting society argued that Article 79 Polish Copyright Act entitled a copyright holder whose rights have been infringed to a compensation that is equivalent to two or three times that which the infringer would have had to have paid for a licence in the first place. Defendant challenges the legality of the relevant provisions in the Polish Copyright Act, and claims that Polish law does not comply with the Enforcement Directive. The Polish Supreme Court would like to know from the CJEU whether Art. 13(1) Enforcement Directive, namely in view of recital (26) of the Directive, allows for a lump-sum payment several times the "usual" license fee. The outcome of this case will have direct consequences for Germany, where the BGH's GEMA case law permits doubling of the usual license fee when an authorized collecting society demands the double fee (but not for others).

Monday, 28 September 2015

Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week

Not just Eiffel 65,
but also Never Too Late 65
If last week Jeremy took the opportunity to link our dear friend Alberto Bellan's invariably helpful Never Too Late feature to Beatles song When I'm Sixty-Four, this week the 65th edition of Never Too Late cannot but be linked to a great Italian group that is immediately associated with this number, ie Eiffel 65 [authors of unforgettable and thoughtful tunes like Blue (Da Ba Dee) and Voglia di Dance All Night, just to mention a couple].

As you Move Your Body, this is what happened last week on this very blog:

Former guest Kat, bonny Scottish lassie Kate Manning tells about a Scotch whisky battle in far-off China to preserve the palates of discerning dilettantes in distant Myanmar.

Thomas Farkas offers this highly positive interpretation of the words of the CJEU, arguing that the Nestlé application should now be allowed to succeed. He might be right. Really.

And another one who might be right is Roland Mallinson, who endorses Thomas on this Kit-Kat story and goes even further.

A patent attorney on the other side of the English Channel makes an observation on a recent decision of a European Patent Office Board of Appeal in Case T 0327/13 of 17.7.2015 Exchangeable continuous casting nozzle.

Annsley was at the Aldgate inauguration.

U.S. District Judge George H. King in the Central District of California has just established that Warner-Chappell do not hold any valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics, Merpel recounts.

After Mark breaking post, here's our own Neil's insightful piece on that happy-ending story.

The word "end" in the Haribo v Lindt golden chocolate bear litigation (see IPKat posts herehereand here) has just been put by German Supreme Court. See what BGH decided in this post by Mark.

Copyright in tattoos is a subject that this weblog has touched on before [hereherehere and here, among other places], but this lovely post offers a completely fresh angle to it.  The story is told by film director Otto Bathurst, aided and abetted by Jenifer Swallow (Mind Candy).

A couple of weeks ago, our dear blogmeister Jeremy addressed the British Group of the Union of European Practitioners in Intellectual Property in the convivial setting of The Royal Overseas League on this topic. Harking back to a time before fax, email, and before any of our intellectual property laws in the UK existed in their present form, when neither OHIM nor the EPO existed and WIPO was but a babe, he reminisced thus. Darren reports on what Jeremy said.  

One of those stories that lead people to hate animals. Animal rights organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has taken legal action in the United States on the monkey’s behalf (apparently named Naruto), claiming that the animal owns the copyright in the successful photographs and should therefore reap the benefits financially. Lucy Harrold (Keystone Law) takes up this tale.

The Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP), which this blogger currently edits, is holding a special event to commemorate the passage of a decade since its launch, while Premier Cercle is organsing its IP Summit. There's a nice offer too, says Jeremy.



* Never too late 64 [week ending on Sunday 20 September] – Adwords in Canada | EU Draft consultation on ISPs | "The UPC: A Panel Debate" | Prince and Mean Music Companies v That lovely baby dancing Prince  Lenz v Universal Music | CJEU in KitKat | Paul Burrell v Max Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) | Economics of Collecting Societies | Who is an 'intermediary' for the sake of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive? | IP: When innovation is the answer to a spiritual funk

Never Too Late 63 [week ending on Sunday 13 September] - Fair compensation in reprography and private copying: the ECS’ version | Substitute sellers | Teva UK Ltd & Another v Leo Pharma | Evidence-based IP policy | KitKat case | UK IPO’s priorities | UK IPO’s website vs complete copyright legislation | Patent Attorney Qualifications | Mylan and Actavis v Warner-Lambert | Copyright and censorship | Suicide at the EPO | Private copy levies in Austria | Court fees in the UK.

Never too late 62 [week ending on Sunday 6 September] - Copyright and industrial design in Japan | Greek political slogans and trade marks | Moral rights in legal works | Economist v patents | CJEU in Iron & Smith Kft v Unilever NV | Copyright over criminals' works | IPEC in Minder Music & Another v Sharples | Apple’s European slide-to-unlock patent declared invalid in Germany.

Never too late 61 [week ending on Sunday 30 August] - Alpinestars Research Srl v OHIM, Kean Tung Cho and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu | PTAB declines Bass hedge fund IPR challenges in Ampyra dispute | Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v OHIM),  Repsol YPF SA and a basic litigation | BGH on IP zombie through unfair competition law | Under Armor and Armor & Glory, a story of religious IP | Fashion law and debates | SatCab Directive and geoblocking | Again on KitKat and acquired distinctiveness | New IPKat policy on comments | Singapore GFIP. 

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':