sutton043

The 205 th edition of Never Too Late offers a tour around the IPKat world for those who may have missed the highlights! Trade Marks In 2017, 5.748 million trade mark applications were filed in China. A considerable amount of them may have been filed purely for hoarding and waiting for the right price to sell. China’s trade mark law adopts the first-to-file principle, yet it does not explicitly stipulate the regulatory measures to prevent malicious applications. The Supreme People’s Court of China ruling might be a game changer. The Court clarified that hoarding a large number of trade marks without intention to use falls within the scope of “other illegitimate means” prohibited by Article 44, Section 1 of China’s Trademark Law. IPKat Asia Correspondent Tian Lu reports: ChineseSupreme Court: hoarding trade marks in bad faith falls within scope of“illegitimate means” . GuestKat Nedim Malovic discusses a recent decision rendered by EUIPO Fifth Board of Appeal, which ruled on a Turkish ch...

Are you passionate about IP? We have exciting news for you! The IPKat is seeking Expressions of Interest (EOI) for GuestKat posts and looking for IP enthusiasts to fill InternKat positions. GuestKat and InternKat positions will last six months and there are no geographical restrictions on either role. Please bear in mind that you need to have your employer’s permission to be part of the IPKat team. GuestKat Typically, GuestKats are in an advanced stage of their career. They contribute to keeping the blog fresh by providing unique perspectives on cutting-edge topics in their field of expertise. We are looking for those interested in blogging with strong IP expertise and good writing skills. GuestKats will work with a member of the permanent IPKat team and they are expected to contribute approximately four posts per month. Being a GuestKat provides an exceptional opportunity to bring your posts to a large audience around the world, as well as further developing your IP network. The EIO r...

The IPKat has previously presented the court’s reasoning with regards to plausibility of second medical indication claims. Time to turn to the issue of what constitutes infringement. The protection conferred by means of Swiss-type claims as well as the nature of the claims is of growing importance. This is the case despite   the fact that Swiss-type claims have been replaced by purpose-limited product claims under 54(5) of the EPC2000 and the Abbott ruling (G 0002/08 (Dosage regime/ABBOTT RESPIRATORY) of 19.2.2010) . Infringement of Claim 3 The  focus of the infringement ruling is Claim 3, stating  -- “use of pregabalin for the preparation of a pharmaceutical composition for treating neuropathic pain”. The claim in question is a purpose-limited process claim. It is a process claim since it concerns the preparation of the substance pregabalin, and it is a purpose-limited claim since it only covers the process if undertaken in order to treat neuropathic pain   Althoug...

Mad Dogg Athletics, based in California, is a company that markets various sporting equipment, including bicycles, men’s and women’s apparel, shoes, accessories, and functional training equipment, online. Since 2000 the company has been also the proprietor of the EU word mark SPINNING for goods and services in Classes, 9 (audio and video cassettes), 28 (exercise equipment), and 41 (exercise training) of the Nice Classification. In 2012 Aerospinning Master Franchising, a company from the Czech Republic, filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for revocation of the SPINNING word mark, pursuant to Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (the EU Trade Mark Regulation ). The basis for the claim was that SPINNING had become the common name for the ‘exercise equipment’ and the ‘exercise training’ services in question, that is indoor cycling. In 2016 the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO revoked Mad Dogg Athletics’ rights to the word mark SPINNING fo...

Should France [and any other colonial power] give back to Africa [or any other former colony] its cultural heritage? ‘Yes’ says the experts’ report delivered last week to President Emmanuel Macron, urging France to do so regarding Africa's cultural heritage ( here ).  In 2017, the French President commissioned a report to evaluate the possibility of making restitution regarding the African cultural heritage currently held by the collections and archives of French museums. A year later, heritage specialists Felwine Sarr and Bénédicte Savoy delivered a 252-page long report , outlining a five-year plan to return cultural heritage items to their respective places of origin.  Their proposed restitution policy is primarily concerned with the policies and conventions of conduct in place to trace the origin and rightful ownership of items, depending on the circumstances of their acquisition (sales, donation, looting and the like). At first glance, this discussion should have little to...

The dust has started to settle following the Supreme Court decision in Warner-Lambert v Actavis   [2018] UKSC 56  handed down recently (IPKat post   here ). Much of the commentary has focused on the infringement aspect of the decision. In this first of IPKat's follow-up posts, this Kat delves deeper into the court's take on the issue of plausibility. The plausibility of second medical use inventions - why is it necessary? In the Supreme Court decision, Lord Sumption began his discussion of plausibility by considering the problem raised by determining the sufficiency of Swiss-style second medical use claims. " Section 14 of the Patents Act and the corresponding provisions of the EPC assume that an invention will be sufficiently disclosed if the specification enables it to be “performed”. In the case of a patent for a new product or process, that assumption is almost always correct. But the assumption is not correct in the case of a second use patent. The invention is not t...

The IPKat is happy to host the following contribution by Mina Kianfar (Unverzagt von Have, Hamburg) on an issue that, despite having to do with vacuum cleaners, is often perceived as dusty: energy labelling obligations. Here’s what Mina writes: Vacuum cleaner producer Dyson has successfully challenged an EU non-legislative act: in its judgment of 8.11.2018, T-544/13 , the General Court (GC) has annulled Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 on the energy labelling of vacuum cleaners. Background Vacuum cleaners must, in accordance with Directive 2010/30/EU on energy labelling (replaced b y  Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 ), carry an energy label when sold. The Commission has laid down details on the content and design of the label in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013, specifying that the calculation of the energy performance of vacuum cleaners should be based on values obtained when the receptacle is empty. Dyson took the view that this requirement places bagless vacuum ...