* German agriculture minister: "not every sausage" can be protected... The German Minister for Agriculture declared that thegeographical indication regime is too bureaucratic and sometimes misleading. What does that mean TTIP-wise, wonders Birgit?
* Survey: Should innovation be Europe's 2015 New Year's resolution? If so, what should Europe's New Year's innovation or IP resolutions be? To identify potential resolutions, one first must identify the frustrations and areas for improvement, thinks Annsley.
* The IPKat and his friends: a timely update Every three months, the IPKat and Merpel give an update of how this weblog’s doing and provide a list of IP-flavoured blogs that cannot be missed in your must-read list.
* Developments at the European Patent Office - Parliamentary oversight and lack of it Some weeks ago, Merpel posted a round-up and summary of what has been going on at the EPO. In the next couple of posts, she reports of the large number of developments that have recently taken place in the Eponia regime. This first episode relates to what has happened EPO-wise in the UK and the EU Parliament, together with some other snippets.
* Interest in unlikely sources - the Business Distribution Scheme for the Technical Boards of Appeal In this second episode, Merpel writes about the Enlarged Presidium of the Boards of Appeal’s Business Distribution Scheme for Technical Boards of Appeal, a yearly plan which essentially sets out which cases, according to their international classification, are to be handled by which Technical Board of Appeal. The 2015 version of that document includes some bizarre peculiarities, she notes.
* Building 1000 or Aviation House? Have your say on London's UPC location Where will the UK's seats of the Central and Local Divisions, hosted in London, be? Annsley explores the current property options.
* Keeping in trim? Ford wheel of fortune spins as CJEU faces spare part questions Case C-500/14 Ford Motor Company is a new reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union made by the District Court of Turin. As Jeremy explains, the matter is the unauthorised manufacture of "spare part" wheel trims bearing the trade marks of the original manufacturer in order to enable the purchaser to make sure that his purchase matches the appearance of the rest of his car.
* Judicial independence: Europe's IP judges raise EPO concerns Jeremy breaks the news of Sir Robin Jacob writing to Jesper Kongstad, Chairman of the Administrative Council of the EPO, on behalf of the Intellectual Property Judges’ Association (IPJA). What was this letter about? Have a guess…
* UPDATE: Why picking a London UPC court location is more difficult than you think After her post on the possible seats of UK Central and Local Divisions, Annsley shares some additional information on that issue with which Janis Makarewich-Hall (head of the UPC Taskforce at the UK IPO) had just updated her.
* The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office are to be reformed -- but how? In her earlier post, Merpel looked at the current Business Distribution Scheme of the Boards of Appeal (BoA) of the European Patent Office. Knowing that the current organisation of the BoA is to be reformed, she wonders how to achieve this objective and focuses on what we know about the imminent reforms and, equally importantly, on how much we don't know, but should.
* Data brokers and intellectual property: a call for comments What sort of spillover (if any) the development of data brokers will have on intellectual property, asks Katfriend Alexandra Mezulanik (currently completing an internship in The Bahamas at a boutique IP firm, Mosko & Associates)?
* Cross-border IP Enforcement: a new research title Jeremy reviews The Research Handbook on Cross-Border Enforcement Of Intellectual Property, published by his friends at Edward Elgar Publishing and edited by another Katfriend, Paul Torremans (Professor of Intellectual Property Law, School of Law, University of Nottingham).
* China's patent targets for 2020: what do they say about China and the rest of us? Two weeks ago, Neil reported on the apparent policy in China to engage in a form of import substitution to support local hi-tech champions, the ultimate goal being perhaps to replace foreign technology with home-grown development. More recently, Annsley discussed the status of patents and measures of innovation, largely from the European perspective. In this post, Neil provides for additional food for thought on this matter, starting from a recent report regarding the policy decision taken by the Chinese government to treble by the year 2020 the number of patents filed by local Chinese inventors.
* Can you reproduce Charlie Hebdo cartoons without permission? Following the attack to the offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, debate has ensued regarding the opportunity of reprinting its irreverent cartoons. What does that reprinting entail copyright-wise, wonders Eleonora?
* Cross-litigation on BIODERMA: different perspectives in national and Community proceedings Valentina writes about some cross-litigation concerning the ‘BIODERMA’ marks. In this dispute, the competent Community and national authorities reached opposite conclusions in assessing the distinctive character of the BIODERMA mark, given different relevant publics and, to some extent, the different goods and services concerned.
* The ethics of biotech patenting: a dialogue about monopolies, human dignity and the cost of medicinesFurther to last week’s introductory Katpost on biotech, this post by Suleman discusses the impact of ethics on the patentability of biotech inventions and the enforcement of biotech patents.
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE
Never too late 27 [week ending Sunday 4 January] -- The Irish PTO on well-known TMs’ extended protection in Stone Electrical Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc | The Irish PTO on revocation for non-use in HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises LLC v Dunnes Stores Ireland Company | Criminal penalty for infringement in Sweden | Congratulations to Trevor Graham Baylis | Australia copyright reforms and copyright enforcement on-line | The new guest Kats | New USPTO guidance on Patent Matter Eligibility | Confusion between TM with little distinctiveness | 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pom Wonderful LLC v Hubbard et al | Biotech inventions: controversies, case law, uncertainties and financing.
Never too late 26 [week ending Sunday 28 December] -- Arnold J on Ice cream van design in Whitby Specialist Vehicles v Yorkshire Specialist Vehicles | Adios to positive right of TM in Spain | Costs of Vestergaard Fransen v Bestnet Europe | Irish PTO on slogan TMs | Merpel summarises what’s going on with EPO | CoA for England and Wales on patent infringement by numbers in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA& Another | Database rights and much more in Medical Innovations Ltd v Eakins and others | What if China turns inwards on technology? | European Copyright Society on full harmonisation of copyright | Book review of Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights.
Never too late 25 [week ending Sunday 21 December] --Setting aside default judgements at the IPO | 2015, the year of blocking injunctions? | The future of private copy levies in the EU | Kat-tips for IP conferences | Appeals at EPO: beware of what you ask | EPO BoA’s independence | CJEU in International Stem Cell Corporation | IPKat’s 2014 Copyright Awards | Waze and innovation drawbacks | Battistelli and Kongstad interviewed | Porcelains that copy advertising | Jay-z’s “Oh” sample gets its decision, yo.
Never too late 24 [week ending Sunday 14 December] -- ** INTA’s When Trademarks Overlap With Other IP Rights Special ** | Scottish Law Society misinforms about UPC in Scotland | EPO Enlarged BoA Members’ letter against against President Battistelli’s BoA Member’s house ban | German lititgator writes German delegate to EPO AC | EU Judges join the chorus of condemnation against President Battistelli | EPO replies to multilateral concerns | Scam letters from EPO | Birss J on process claims in about Hospira v Genentech | End of Google News in Spain | Arnold J and the High Court on using a confusingly similar TM with the owner’s consent in Dalsouple Société Saumuroise Du Caoutchouc v Dalsouple Direct Ltd | Copyright and censorship in Sweden | IPKat’s comment policy | UKIP against a parodistic Twitter account | Oracle v Google on Java’s copyright.