IPcopy writers
ipcopy
ipcopyamelia
ipcopyaz
ipcopyben
ipcopydev
ipcopyeleni
ipcopyemily
ipcopymanuela
ipcopymark
ipcopyrichKeltie LLP
K2 IP Limited
SkyDrive v Sky: Microsoft lose against BSkyB over the use of the term “Skydrive”
BSkyB, the British Satellite Broadcasting company has won a case against the American multinational software corporation (Microsoft) in actions for passing off and for infringement of two CTM Registrations and two UK trade mark registrations for SKY. By way of these actions, BSkyB sought to prevent Microsoft from using “SkyDrive” as the name for their cloud storage service in Europe.
In a counterclaim, Microsoft filed for a declaration of partial invalidity in respect of the SKY trade marks on the grounds of descriptiveness for cloud storage services. (more…)
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…)
Patent Marking on Vintage Recreation Products – Inspired by Gretsch® Guitars
You may not believe it, but in her spare time, this IPCopy writer does occasionally turn to pursuits other than combing through Unitary Patent legislation (no, really). Not so long ago, she was perusing the website of Gretsch® guitars, on the brink of doing some damage to her wallet, and stumbled across something that caught her eye*.
Gretsch® has been around since the 1880s, and started out making banjos and ukuleles, soon progressing to guitars. Today, they focus on vintage-style guitars, some being recreations of earlier instruments. Why on earth might you care about this? Well, recreating the appearance of a vintage instrument is relevant to the important subject of patent marking (no, really).
New dimension to Louboutin’s Red Sole Saga
Louboutin’s Trade Mark 008845539
The famous brand of shoes with heels and oversized red soles, which since 1992 has been so successful for their creator Louboutin, has long been immersed in a somewhat uncertain legal environment. Now a Dutch Court Adds New Dimension to Red Sole Saga by finding infringement, by Van Haren, of Louboutin’s red sole trade mark. (more…)
Cycling, le Tour Cycliste Féminin and a case of trade mark infringement
On the 21st July 2013, Chris Froome became the second British person ever to win the Tour de France. It was a great day for Britain and for British cycling. The Tour has always been considered as the pinnacle of any professional road cyclist, anyone who wins the tour will have their name etched in cycling history forever, look at Lance Armstrong, he made his mark in cycling did he not?
However, how many people have heard of Nicole Cooke, first Brit and two time winner of the Tour de France … Féminin! You would have thought that that the Tour de France Féminin, would also be the highlight of the year for all female cyclists. Sadly due to the lack of public interest in women cycling, sponsorship each year for the tour was very hard to come by. For many years, stages were held inside cities because they would contribute money towards the tour; this in turn led to long transfers from one stage to the next. (more…)
UK Space Conference – July 2013 – Report
Gemma Sparrow of Keltie LLP and Adam Brocklehurst of K2 IP Limited visited the 2013 UK Space Conference in Glasgow last week. Here is their report from the conference.
Almost £200m of public investment has recently been announced in launcher, satellite, software and other UK space companies, and the government has set a target to ride the wave of this growing industry by capturing 10% of the global market by 2030. For example, £60m is to be invested in the SABRE engine for Reaction Engines’ Skylon space plane.
Unitary patent – The Italian Job
As previously noted on IPcopy here, Italy signed the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court back in February but were not “fully paid” up members of the unitary patent package because they hadn’t joined the enhanced cooperation regime on the unitary patent.
We have previously heard that Italy was considering joining the enhanced cooperation regime but according to a news update here some more positive noises have been heard regarding Italy becoming part of the club. (more…)
Refund of Search and Examination Fees at the EPO – Increased Transparency
Administration Process at the EPO is not the sexiest of IP subjects, this IPCopy writer will admit. But when that process affects your wallet (or your client’s wallet), it becomes a bit more interesting.
The EPO is finally increasing the transparency of the process for the refund of Search and Examination fees, and IPCopy is pleased to have seen it! Here’s a quick look at what the problem has been until recently, and the ‘technical and administrative solution’ that the EPO has now implemented.
The Intellectual Property Bill – Freedom of Information plus Odds and Sods
Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
In the fifth part of a series on the Intellectual Property Bill, IPCopy summarises the proposals relating to the Freedom of Information Act plus some other remaining odds & sods that haven’t been covered in the earlier posts. [Note: 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.]
Unitary Patent Package – hard-coded bifurcation revisited
In an earlier post we pointed out how the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court appeared, by virtue of Article 47(5), to hard-code or hard-wire bifurcation into the system in instances where a licensee was bringing an infringement action. According to the UPC Article (see below) the defendant would need to start separate proceedings against the patent proprietor in order to challenge the validity of the patent.
In the 15th draft of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court there were some amendments to Rule 25 (Counterclaim for revocation) which, on the face of it, appear to address this issue. In this post we take a closer look at the changes. (more…)
Subscribe to RSS feed
IPcopy 