Keltie LLP

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

Archive

Keltie: Charity Events

Keltie-Logo - tough mudder and run the river

This September Keltie teams will be raising money for a range of charities by taking part in the Run the River and Tough Mudder events. Full details including links to their team profiles and charity pages are below. (more…)

US caselaw – countering an obvious combination objection

USWe’ve all been there. The Office Action for your client’s latest US patent application contains an inventive step objection based on the combination of two documents. The documents together appear to be relevant to your main claim but the client swears blind that the documents would never be combined to arrive at the invention. What do you do? How can you argue against such a combination of prior art. Well, here is a brief compilation of relevant US cases bearing on the obviousness of combinations*. (more…)

Rihanna, Topshop and a Narrow Opening to Image Rights in the English Legal System?

rihannaThe English legal system does not acknowledge image rights. Celebrities cannot claim a monopoly on their image, nor a right to control the use of their name, likeness and other attributes that the public associates with them. Historically, they have resorted, as a compromise, to other forms of protection, such as registered trade marks and passing off (see explanation of passing off below), in particular.

However, a recent appeal judgement by the English Courts indicates that in certain circumstances, and depending entirely on the facts of the case, the Common Law tort of passing off can be “stretched” to prohibit the commercial use of celebrities’ images. This precedent is, in the view of the author, likely to be applied tightly, but presents an opening that celebrities will look to rely on to control the use of their image by unauthorised third parties.

The appeal judgement relates to the entertainment industry and follows a case successfully brought by pop-star Rihanna against the high street retailer Topshop. However, the implications for sports personalities, for whom a large proportion of the earnings originates from product endorsements, are self- evident and possibly greater that those for the entertainment industry. (more…)

A Question of Data Protection

IMG_4334One trend in sport that is becoming increasingly prominent is the capture (and subsequent processing) of athlete data via wearable devices. While this is usually done for medical, training or performance purposes, the desire on the part of sports bodies to identify new revenue streams is strong and there is no doubt that the demand for this kind of data is growing. Alongside the technological difficulties, one of the most significant obstacles to the successful commercialisation of that data is data protection. Nick White, Partner at Couchmans LLP, examines the treatment of athlete personal data gathered via wearable technology and does so through the lens of the recent general approach adopted by the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) on 15 June 2015 concerning the proposed draft General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’).  (more…)

Meisterkreis: German Luxury Brands United Against Counterfeiting

marques_logoFollowing on from IPCopy’s 3 July post reporting from the Marques Luxury Brands Symposium that took place in Zurich at the end of June 2015, we are now bringing you a summary of the presentation given at the Symposium by Clemens Pflanz, founder and CEO of Meisterkreis. (more…)

Book Review: ‘Inside Intellectual Property – Best Practice in Intellectual Property Law, Management and Strategy’

MikeJewess‘Inside Intellectual Property’ is written by a true ‘insider’ . Mike Jewess is the quintessential IP insider, his impressive career in IP having spanned private practice at a major London IP firm, senior in-house roles across a range of industries (including telecoms, packaging, aerospace and defence), and heading departments. He is a sought-after speaker, commentator and mentor in the IP community. If that isn’t enough, his comprehensive book is also informed by an in-depth survey of 25 UK IP practices. The result is a text that should become a seminal reference work. (more…)

Relocation of the Museum of Brands

MusuemofBrandsFrom the Museum of Brands comes this press release about their relocation:

The UK’s only museum dedicated entirely to brands is relocating on 6 October 2015  to larger premises on London’s Lancaster Road.  Since it opened  in Notting Hill’s Colville Mews in 2005, visitors to the Museum of Brands have increased fourfold, to a staggering forty thousand  in 2014. Continued growth and success have led the Museum to find a new, larger home at the London Lighthouse building, on Lancaster Road. As well as providing unrivalled insight into the history of British consumer society from the late 1800s, the move will enable the Museum to offer two unique venue spaces for hire during the day and the evening, perfect for conferences, drinks receptions and much more. (more…)

Portugal ratifies the UPC Agreement

IMG_8533From IPcopy reader Gonçalo Paiva e Sousa comes news that the Portuguese president has apparently ratified the UPC Agreement.

Gonçalo’s comment in full reads:

“The Portuguese president has ratified the UPC Agreement, after the parliament approval. It is now official that Portugal has ratified the Unitary Patent Court Agreement – Presidential Decree n.º 90/2015 dated August 6, 2015.”

The text of the announcement can be found here. (more…)

Keystone vs Keystone

Trade Mark Application No. 2655215

Trade Mark Application No. 2655215

The following article is a review of case O/135/15 at the UKIPO.

Background

Keystone IEA Limited (the Opponent) opposed Keystone Wealth Management Limited’s (the Applicant) Trade Mark Application No. 2655215 for “mortgage & protection advice, financial services” in Class 36 on the basis of Section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (similar to an earlier mark for identical/similar services, resulting in a likelihood of confusion). The Opponent relied upon its Trade Mark Registration No. 2641172 covering “estate agents” in Class 36.

The Applicant responded stating that the services were sufficiently distinguishable, meaning there was no likelihood of confusion.

No further submissions were filed and a decision was made on the papers. (more…)

Unitary patent and UPC news round-up

IMG_8533-1Here’s a selection of unitary patent and UPC flavoured news items that we’ve seen in the last few weeks:

Opt out fee

The regulations and agreements surrounding the unitary patent package have been picked over many times which has resulted in discussions about “hard coded bifurcation“, the Malta problem and just what the “exclusive competence” of the UPC means. To add to that list we now have the question: “Just what is the legal basis for the opt out fee?”  (more…)

Keltie on Twitter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,461 other followers

Blog Stats

  • 183,798 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,461 other followers