Late last month the European Commission issued a notice regarding the impact of Brexit on .eu domain names.
The notice states that, unless the EU and the UK agree otherwise in the withdrawal agreement, from 30 March 2019 the “EU regulatory framework for the .eu Top Level Domain” will no longer apply to the UK. This has a number of consequences: (more…)
No longer the neglected step-child of IP:
Trade secrets have been the neglected step-child of IP but that situation is fast changing. There are various forces at play helping to increase the importance of trade secrets.
Firstly, the law is changing.
· The Defend Trade Secrets Act passed in the USA in May 2016
· The EU Directive on Trade Secrets is enacted by member state on 9 June 2018
· China explicitly included trade secrets in its 2018 revisions to the Anti Unfair Competition Law
Changes in the eligibility requirements and enforcement mechanisms of patent laws around the world, but especially those in the US – and especially as they relate to software and business methods, make trade secrets an attractive mechanism to protect a company’s competitive advantages. (more…)
In the UK, section 1(2) of the Patents Act (which is set out at the bottom of this post) sets out certain categories of invention that are not patentable. These categories of invention are generally referred to as excluded subject matter. The assessment of patentability under section 1(2) is based on the judgment of the Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and Macrossan’s Application case at the Court of Appeal. This judgment approved a four-step test for deciding on whether an invention is patentable.
Two relatively recent case rulings that relate to the above-mentioned subsections of the act are: the “Google Inc.” case (BL O/364/17), and the “Accipiter Radar Technologies Inc.” case (BL O/390/17), which were heard in August 2017. Both cases are noteworthy as they were respectively refused and accepted, and so offer insight to the type of inventions that are considered by the UK courts to be patentable and non-patentable in view sub-sections (c) and (d) of Section 1(2) of the Patents Act. (more…)
Last month the UK Trade Mark Registry granted the New Zealand’s Manuka Honey Appellation Society Incorporated(*) a certification mark for the term “Manuka honey”. A certification mark is a specific type of trade mark which provides a guarantee that the goods or services bearing the mark meet a certain defined standard or possess a particular characteristic.
In this case, the certification mark will mean that buyers in the UK will be guaranteed that Manuka honey from New Zealand contains certain properties, such as antibacterial qualities, while Manuka honey produced in Australia will not carry this same guarantee. Australian honey makers would need to obtain approval from their New Zealand counterpart’s before they would be able to use the term, which seems unlikely given New Zealand’s efforts to secure the name for themselves. (more…)
The Applicant in this case (Case No: O/550/171), ABC DETERJAN SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI, filed an application for its ABC device in Classes 03 & 05. The Application claimed the colours red, blue, yellow and white. The Opponent, The Procter & Gamble Company, filed a notice of opposition under Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) and relied on its EUTM Registrations for its monochrome Atomium mark in Class 03 and its coloured ARIEL ACTILIFT mark in Class 03 (subject to proof of use). (more…)
The EUIPO has recently published a Q&A document relating to the impact of Brexit on EU trade marks (EUTMs) and registered community designs (RCDs). This document was effectively the third publication on the impact of Brexit on Intellectual Property after the EU Commission’s position paper last year and the EUIPO’s notice which was published in December 2017 (and updated in January 2018). (more…)
Last Wednesday the European Commission published its draft Withdrawal Agreement relating to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the European Atomic Energy Community. This was followed a couple of days later by a speech from the Prime Minister which set out some more details about the UK position. Intellectual property got a mention in both the Withdrawal Agreement and the Mansion House speech. (more…)
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has launched a consultation on changes to UK trade mark law in light of the amendments to trade mark law arising from the Trade Mark Directive 2015. The document includes a draft statutory instrument (SI) and discussion of some issues of particular interest. The UKIPO is seeking views from businesses, trade mark attorneys and other stakeholders on how these changes should be implemented. The consultation period will run for 8 weeks, until 16 April 2018. (more…)
The UK has now completed all its legislative steps with respect to the UPC Agreement and UPC’s Protocol on Privileges and Immunities and is in a position to ratify the UPC Agreement. However, the potential timescale of the constitutional court challenge in Germany and the remaining ratification/implementation period means, in IPcopy’s view, that the UPC system will not come into force, at least in its current configuration. (more…)
The Winter Olympics in PyeongChang are in full flow and while curling has been winning a new fan in the A-Team’s Mr T (#curlingiscoolfool), IPcopy has been watching the ice hockey. Or, more accurately, our colleague Samantha Walker-Smith was watching the preliminary round match between the USA and Finland. Now, while most of us might be content in marvelling at the skating skill levels on display and mentally comparing those skills to our feeble efforts at the Christmas wonderland ice rink a few weeks ago (…or maybe that was just me), Sam had other things on her mind. In particular, Sam noticed1 that the hockey sticks of the Finnish team were displaying patent markings! (more…)