Home » General Interest (Page 19)
Category Archives: General Interest
BBC’s Panorama & the Patent Box (IP – Hit or Miss?)
In the last couple of weeks, in the context of the UK’s patent box tax regime, this ipcopywriter has twice heard mention of a Panorama programme that discussed the patent box. In both cases the opinion expressed of Auntie Beeb’s current affairs show was as low as a World Champion limbo dancer.
So what was wrong with the programme? IPcopy decided to investigate.
The Duffin Controversy: Fear not Bea – all is not lost!
Proto-Duffin
As a lover of all things food-related, I was surprised this week to hear of a tasty baked good that hadn’t yet made it onto my radar – and a tasty baked good that has come to the world’s attention as the subject of an IP dispute, no less! What more could a girl ask for? Readers will probably already be aware of the ‘Duffin’ – the donut-muffin hybrid that has been made and gradually popularised by Bea’s of Bloomsbury since 2011, and that is now the subject of a trade mark registration by a company that supplies Starbucks (boo hiss taxes etc, etc).
Now, I’m no trade mark attorney – patents are more my bag – so if a contentious issue like this stumbled across my path, I’d be hailing down one of my esteemed trade mark colleagues to untangle it. But as it happens, I’ve spent most of this week committing as much trade mark law as possible to memory in preparation for professional exams, and this real-life example has served as excellent revision fodder.
A few basics of trademark law shed a lot of light onto this situation, and the real legal situation is rather different from the picture that might appear at first sight. Could big-bad Starbucks really stop Bea’s bakery, and others, from using the name Duffin? Well, purely as a self-training exercise, here’s my personal take on the situation.
The IP Bill and the “Chilling effect” of Clause 13 revisited
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In our previous series of articles on the IP Bill we looked at Clause 13 which seeks to introduce criminal provisions in respect of registered design infringement. This section of the Bill attracted a fair amount of discussion since it was felt in some (many?) quarters that the threat of criminal proceedings could be asserted via Clause 13 against designers which would have a “chilling effect” on the UK design industry.
As noted here, the IP Bill has now left the Lords on its way to the Commons and Clause 13 has been the subject of a massive amount of debate in the Lords and has been amended slightly during its passage through that House. So, what’s changed and why?
The Bridge Inspection Authority – the FTC and “Patent Trolls”
Everyone in the intellectual property community will be aware that the debate over the activity of “patent trolls” has lasted years, and has always contained plenty of heat and not a lot of light. The heat shows no sign of diminishing, as journalists realise that there’s an easy story to file in a day trip to Tyler or Beaumont to look at a corridor of brass plated doors with no-one behind them – but there are at least some attempts to shine a light under the bridge to see what these trolls really look like. The latest of these is the recently announced proposal for a collection of information by the Federal Trade Commission (the FTC).
There has been little unanimity on what a patent troll is – except than that no definition ever covers the commercial activity of whoever is making the definition. It has even been difficult to find a neutral generic term for such behaviour. We used to use NPE (“Non Practising Entity”), to distinguish patent owners only interested in licensing from patent holders who used patents to support their own commercial activity in selling products and services. This term fell out of use when it was appreciated that one class of NPEs is long established, generally respected, and considered by most to be behaving in an acceptable way with its stock of intellectual property – such NPEs are often known as “universities”.
Steve Jobs, a Keynote video and US/DE grace periods
Last week FOSS Patents carried an interesting article about the impact that the original iPhone Keynote presentation has had on the validity of one of Apple’s own patents. Follow up press reports (e.g. this one) have focused on the fact that the “rubber band” patent has been invalidated on the basis of this video disclosure. However, the original article contained some points of interest with respect to grace periods in the US and Europe and the effect that the German court decision on the “rubber band” patent may have on Apple’s utility model in Germany.
Curiosity suitably piqued IPcopy took a quick look at the case. For ease of reference we also produced a handy timeline of events so you can see what happened and when.
IPcopy’s First Birthday!
IPcopy is celebrating its first birthday today! Thank you to everyone who has been reading and commenting on the blog and also a big thank you to everyone who has contributed a post or two! The IPcopy team is looking forward to bringing you more IP related stories as we move into our second year and especially looking forward to tracking the progress of the unitary patent system as it moves towards implementation.
Our top blog post in the past year has been the Unitary patent package – Q&A post (the updated version of which is attached).
Our most read post in the last month was one that we put up a while ago – Why Malta could inadvertently block your unitary patent.
And, not counting our original “Hello World!” post, our least read post (show it some love!) is Trade Marks and Companies House.
By a happy coincidence, today is also the day that Keltie is hosting its Macmillan Coffee morning. Cakes all round!
Mark Richardson 26 September 2013
R&D Tax Credits
A group of boffins try to get their heads around the UK’s R&D tax credit system. Image from Flickr (Steve Jurvetson/jurvetson)
A report in Business Matters suggests that around 40% of companies that might be eligible for R&D tax credits do not apply for them. This supposedly equates to an average refund of £35,000 per year (tax free) that is not being claimed. In this article IPcopy takes a brief look at the subject and asks what are R&D tax credits, can I claim them and how do I go about this?
Unpacking the Trunki Judgement: Designs and Copyright with Magmatic vs PMS International
Trunki’s CRD
[Update 2 March 2014: According to a number of newspaper reports on 28 February 2014 the High Court decision discussed in the post below has been overturned by the Court of Appeal. Update: 4 March 2014: the Court of Appeal decision is out and IPcopy’s follow up post can be found here]
Anyone who has passed through an airport recently will be familiar with the now infamous Trunki: the ingenious child’s ride-on suitcase that, I’m reliably informed, makes travelling marginally less traumatic almost bearable fun for all the family. Trunkis, sold by Magmatic Ltd, first rose to fame on the UK TV show Dragons’ Den, when the Dragons foolishly let the chance for a slice of the Trunki pie slip through their fingers. Unhampered by this rejection, Trunkis have taken the world by storm, and Magmatic have, to put it bluntly, made a Trunki load of cash out of them.
PMS, a plastics manufacturing company, noticed the success of the Trunki and saw a gap in the market for a discount version. Their product, the “Kiddee Case” sought to fill this gap. Magmatic claimed for infringement of its Community Registered Design Right, its UK Unregistered Design Right, and its copyright in the trunki case and it accessories. The cases found themselves before the Hon. Mr Justice Arnold earlier this year, and the judgement includes some particularly interesting conclusions. [A side-by-side comparison of the CRD, Trunki and Kiddee case can be seen here]
The full Judgement can be found here, and is a relatively accessible read, but IPCopy is here to guide you through the important questions decided by the Hon. Mr Justice Arnold. So, keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times, hold on tightly to the curly antennae in front of you, and let us tug you along through the highlights of the case…
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?
Apple trains its Reality Distortion Field on the CJEU
Apple’s annual iPhone announcement is today and the liberal deployment of the Reality Distortion Field is expected to be trained on Fanbois the world over. However, in other Apple news comes notice from the UK Intellectual Property Office that an Apple trade mark case is being referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-421/13 though there are no available documents at present).
The case concerns Apple’s trade mark application in respect of the layout of its stores. Yes, you read that correctly, Apple’s store layout trade mark!
IPcopy 