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

A Lawyer at Man Utd: Patrick Stewart on His Career in Football

Left to right: Sean Cummings, Patrick Stewart and Colin Carroll

Left to right: Sean Cummings, Patrick Stewart and Colin Carroll

On Tuesday night Keltie hosted and sponsored a presentation by Patrick Stewart, Director of Legal & Business Affairs at Manchester United. The event was organised by LBDC (‘Lawyers Business Development Club) and brilliantly introduced by LBDC’s CEO Colin Carroll and Keltie Partner, Sean Cummings. We had a full house and were sorry that several interested people could not get a place. However, for those who could not attend and as a memo for those who could, here is a brief account of the talk, that leaves out the witty anecdotes (sorry, I know it’s those you are after, but I don’t think it’s fair to publish them on a blog). (more…)

Are You Protecting Your Most Valuable Assets? An Introduction to Intellectual Property

IP imageOver the next couple of weeks, IPcopy will be republishing some general introduction to IP articles that we prepared to present some topics, facts and issues from the area of intellectual property law for people who have had little or no contact with intellectual property. The articles are designed as (brief) primers to highlight some particular elements of the subject area.

Intellectual property (IP) can sometimes be overlooked. Intellectual assets are not tangible and, as such, can be difficult to value. Often, they are not taken into consideration properly when assessing the worth of a business. However, these assets can be the most important to a business, contributing significantly to its goodwill and reputation, and need to be protected properly. (more…)

UPC updates: Judgment Day for Spain & confusing communications from the EU Commission

IMG_8533-0A couple of unitary patent snippets today comprising news of Judgment Day in the CJEU for Spain and a confusing European Commission communication. (more…)

UPC Update: UK Purdah and a Belgian challenge

IMG_8533-1The UK election is on its way (in case you hadn’t noticed) and while Dave, Ed, Nick and Nigel battle it out, UK government civil servants are now in the period of purdah. During purdah, which is the period between the calling of a General Election and the General Election, rules apply which limit what can be said and done in public by civil servants to ensure they are impartial during the election process. As a result the UK UPC Taskforce is likely to be fairly quiet until after 7 May 2015.

Before they went into this period of restricted communication however, the UK UPC Taskforce issued another UPC update, the main points of which are noted below. Also highlighted below is a challenge against the ratification of the UPC Agreement in Belgium (Note: Belgium ratified the UPC agreement on 6 June 2014). (more…)

The UPC and Patent Litigation at the High Court and the IPEC

stacked-booksPublished recently on the UKIPO website is a report examining the number of patent cases at both the UK High Court and the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in the period 2007-2013.

The High Court and IPEC of course both currently have jurisdictions over matters relating to UK patents granted by the UKIPO and EP patents validated in the UK. The introduction of the Unified Patent Court may impact the number of EP(UK) patents that are handled by these two venues and the UKIPO report attempts to quantify the number of cases that have been filed at the High Court and IPEC.  (more…)

UPC Court Delivers Swift Justice

EU flagOn 2nd April 2015 we saw, for the first time, an approximation of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in action during an excellent live-from-Paris webinarized event set up by a plethora of French IP institutions. Indeed, the sheer number of acronymical institutions (thirteen!) representing the interests of the French IP industry was almost as impressive as the high quality of the broadcast itself. (more…)

Non-traditional Trade Marks in Sports – An EU Perspective

Law in Sport

 

 

By Manuela Macchi written for and published by LawInSport.com on the 1 April 2015. View the original article here.

Wilkinson_Stance_Eleven_of_Hearts_Lightning_Stance_0de67c91c60a8b5880b4786dd37b25c0
Trade marks in sport are commonly constituted of word or logo marks like ‘MANCHESTER UNITED’ or Nike’s famous ‘swoosh’ logo .

Registered protection of trade marks is the safest and most cost efficient way of obtaining an easily enforceable trade mark right. Whilst some jurisdictions like the UK afford protection to non-registered trade marks that have acquired goodwill through their use, the enforcement of these non-registered rights relies on the expensive and time consuming exercise of evidence gathering in relation to the use of the mark, whereas a trade mark registration certificate is prima facie evidence of the existence of the associated right.

In recent years, the sports industry has seen a growing number of registrations and attempted registrations of marks that differ from what is considered the more traditional words and logos (as above), which can be broadly categorised as “non-traditional” or “unusual” trademarks. This article takes a trip through examples of such non-traditional trademarks, and explores the protection that sports brands can achieve from their registration, a process that, in the author’s opinion, remains underutilised despite the potential that registration offers to an industry that increasingly relies on the exploitation of Intellectual Property (IP) and IP related rights. (more…)

US Patents – Eligible Subject Matter – Top Tips for Prosecution (Finnegan Review Seminar)

stacked-booksOne of the sessions at the recent Finnegan Patent Case Law covered the issue of patent eligible subject matter and the recent Interim Guidelines for Examination at the USPTO (more detail on which can be found in IPcopy’s earlier post here).

The session again highlighted the divergence in two of the Interim Guidelines examples between what might be expected in Europe and the position stated in the Guidelines (see Examples 2 and 5 in the previous IPcopy post). Also discussed in this session were some top tips to bear in mind when prosecuting software subject matter in the US. (more…)

Unitary patent: Responses to the UK’s call for evidence

IMG_8533-1Back in the summer last year the UKIPO ran a consultation looking at the implementation of the unitary patent and unified patent court into UK law. Although the UKIPO is still processing the comments, a summary of the various responses received has been published (see here). (more…)

EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal on Clarity: Clear As It Has Ever Been

epologoThe Enlarged Board of Appeal has now issued its Decision on referral G 3/14.  G 3/14, originally reported in IPcopy here and with subsequent updates, most recently here, relates to how issues relating to clarity should be considered in opposition and opposition appeal proceedings.   The Enlarged Board was faced with a choice between a “conventional” approach in which clarity can only be considered where the lack of clarity lies in the amendment (a line of cases which the EBA considered to lead from T 301/87) and a “divergent” approach allowing a wider power to examine for clarity (a line of cases considered to lead from T 1459/05 – the EBA drew particular attention here to T 472/88).  The Enlarged Board came down clearly on the side of the conventional approach, but also went beyond the circumstances of the case referred to discuss the boundary between claims that should and should not be examined for clarity. (more…)

Keltie on Twitter

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

Join 1,274 other followers

Blog Stats

  • 162,985 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,274 other followers