Home » Designs (Page 8)
Category Archives: Designs
What’s going on with the Intellectual Property Bill?
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In an earlier series of posts (see here) we covered the various aspects of the Intellectual Property Bill as it was initially introduced. However, a few months have now gone by, so what’s the state of play with the Bill?
3D printing – seminar review
On 26 June 2013 Field Fisher Waterhouse held an excellent afternoon seminar on “Developments in UK and EU patent law”. David Knight’s session on 3D printing (“3D Printing – A licence to infringe IP rights?”) was particularly interesting as it looked at the implications for intellectual property rights owners arising from the developing field of 3D printing.
In this post we provide a (hopefully accurate!) recap of David’s talk and a look at the world of 3D printing. (more…)
The Intellectual Property Bill – registered designs
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In the fourth part of a series on the Intellectual Property Bill, IPCopy summarises the proposals affecting registered design rights and registered Community designs. [This post looks at the IP Bill as originally published. We will revisit the IP Bill at a later date to look at amendments introduced in its passage through Parliament.]
Clauses 5 through 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill relate to Registered Community design or Registered Designs. (more…)
Name that IP Right – A Cheat-Sheet
Are you writing about Intellectual Property Rights?
Are you writing about the right Intellectual Property Rights?
Experience suggests there’s a good chance you aren’t (see ipcopymark on this subject here). But don’t worry, IPcopy is here to help! Here’s a handy flow chart you can follow to make sure you don’t get your trade marks confused with your design rights, or your patents confused with your copyright. Run through it if you find yourself about to type a phrase like “Company X have patented the copyright in this technology” or “the manufacturing process infringes Company Y’s trade marks“. And if you’re still stuck, feel free to drop us a line to check!
IP – Hit or Miss? Patenting the socks off of your copyright (TM)
Not another newspaper article about IP! (Image from flickr – Brandon Grasley – source link below)
OK, before we begin, please note that this could turn into a mild rant. There, you’ve been warned.
One of the recurring topics on this blog is the series of articles called “IP – Hit or Miss?” which we use to analyse the representation of intellectual property (IP) in films, TV and the media. We’ve generally focussed on film and TV references but recently I’ve noticed a number of articles in the press where the terms “patent”, “trade mark” and “copyright” have been used seemingly interchangeably. Now come on guys, it’s not that hard to get it right? Is it?
Well, maybe it is. So it’s time to name and shame and then educate. In the words of Popeye “That’s all I can stand, I can’t stands no more”.
Croatia join European Union
Croatia joined the European Union today, 1 July 2013, to become the 28th member state of the union.
Croatia’s accession to the EU has an impact on Community Trade Marks (CTMs), Registered Community Designs and potentially the unitary patent system. (more…)
The Intellectual Property Bill – Unregistered Designs
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
The majority of the Intellectual Property Bill relates to changes to the protection of designs. Following the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, the UK Intellectual Property Office carried out a work programme to determine potential improvements to the current design framework. This led to a consultation in July 2012 with proposals to amend the current system for both unregistered design rights and registered community designs. In turn, the proposals in the Bill have basis in the work carried out by the IPO following the Hargreaves Review.
In the third part of a series on the Intellectual Property Bill, IPCopy summarises the proposals affecting unregistered design rights. [This post looks at the IP Bill as originally published. We will revisit the IP Bill at a later date to look at amendments introduced in its passage through Parliament.]
The Intellectual Property Bill – Criminal Provisions for Registered Design Infringement
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In an earlier post we looked at the patent related provisions in the Intellectual Property Bill. Today, it is the turn of the registered design related provisions, or more accurately, one specific part of the registered design related provisions: Clause 13 – “Offence of unauthorised copying etc. of design in course of business”.
Clause 13 introduces a criminal offence with respect to registered design infringement which is punishable by imprisonment of a term “not exceeding ten years” and an unlimited fine. As we see below this provision has generated some opposing views.
Misleading Invoices: a warning
What do you mean I spent all my pocket money settling a fake invoice?
No IP blog would be complete without a warning on misleading IP invoices, so here’s ours!
If you are the owner of an intellectual property (IP) right then you may from time-to-time receive communications that resemble official looking invoices for IP services. Such misleading invoices are sent directly to the IP owner and are designed such that they give the impression to the IP owner that they have to either use the service offered or pay the amount listed.
It is important that all IP owners double check the invoices they receive and satisfy themselves that such invoices are genuine.
Power in Numbers – Trade Mark Squatters in China
Trade Mark squatting is big business in China and is becoming more and more common. The new target appears to be up and coming European brands. It would appear that as soon as a mark becomes the slightest bit known in the UK, throughout Europe or the US, the marks are being filed as trade mark applications in China by opportunistic third parties known as trade mark squatters.
It would also seem that these third parties are not just trying to reap the rewards of just one trade mark either. It is becoming more common for trade mark squatters (which are now large ‘squatting’ companies) to file hundreds of well-known or well-publicised up and coming brands belonging to foreign owners.
IPcopy 