The two year legal battle over the infamous ‘monkey selfie’ between a photographer and an animal rights group has finally reached its conclusion. Last month, a settlement was reached between the two parties, bringing this copyright drama to a quiet end.
By way of background, in 2011 a macaque monkey, named Naruto, took an image of itself in the Indonesian jungle after it picked up an unattended camera owned by photographer, David Slater. Disputes arose over ownership of the image when it was published on Wikipedia, without Mr Slater’s permission, and he asked for it to be taken down. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) defended Naruto, arguing that he owned the copyright in the image.
However, Mr Slater contended that he had a valid copyright claim based on the fact that he engineered the situation that resulted in the picture. He befriended the group of wild macaques and set up his camera equipment in such a way that a “selfie” picture might come about. (more…)
Autumn has officially arrived and so, as we get stuck into another academic year, IPcopy thought we’d quickly take stock of where we are with the unitary patent project. Since our last update back in July it seems like we’ve had a fair amount of news but little in the way of progress. (more…)
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Tyrone Walker of Moore Attorneys on the subject of a soft drink trade mark battle in South Africa. This post has been reproduced with the permission of the author.
The soft drink battle of “PEPSI TWIST” versus “LEMON TWIST” continued in South Africa in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
In 2006, PepsiCo had applied for the registration of the trade mark “PEPSI TWIST”. Atlantic Industries (“Atlantic”), a wholly owned subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company had opposed these trade mark applications. The basis of Atlantic’s opposition was that “PEPSI TWIST” was confusingly similar to their current trade marks “TWIST”, “LEMON TWIST” and “DIET TWIST”. PepsiCo responded with a counter action by applying for the expungement (“removal”) of Atlantic’s marks. (more…)
Back in June this year IPcopy noted that the UKIPO was running a consultation on proposed changes to statutory patent fees. The Government has now published its response and it appears that the UKIPO will now be joining the EPO in charging both excess claim fees and additional page fees.
It is noted that the proposed changes will require amendments to both the Patents (Fees) Rules 2007 and the Patents Rules 2007 but the Government anticipates a commencement date of 6 April 2018. (more…)
While listening to the radio last week I had cause to feel old when the presenter introduced the next track as celebrating 19 years of airplay. The track in question? Britney Spears’ “Hit Me Baby One More Time”. Unbelievably this was released in 1998 and even more unbelievably it was almost considered for the group Five….
Another “where has the time gone?” moment came later in the week when our blog notification alert went off to note that IPcopy is five years old. This got us thinking about our most viewed posts and so here are our top 10 patent, trade mark and IP posts from our first five years. (more…)
As noted in our post earlier this week, the European Commission has released its position paper on the treatment of intellectual property (IP) rights (including geographical indicators) after the UK completes its exit from the EU. It sets out general principles on unitary IP rights, geographical indicators, exhaustion, supplementary protection certificates and the protection of databases.
CITMA recently published its position paper on post-Brexit registered trade mark and design rights, and rights of representation. Many elements of the EU paper reflect the position of CITMA, in particular the unitary character of IP protection for European Union Trade Marks (EUTMs) in the UK and EU after the withdrawal date. However, there are two aspects of particular interest to UK practitioners that were not addressed: rights of representation and reciprocity of UK geographical indicators. (more…)
Earlier in September the European Commission published this position paper on Intellectual Property Rights (including geographical indications) in the context of negotiations under Article 50 TEU.
The position paper, which runs only to 5 pages (actually a fairly meagre 3 and a half pages once you strip out the cover sheet and white space), notes that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will create uncertainty both for Intellectual Property Right (IPR) holders in the UK and the remaining 27 members of the EU (EU27) in relation to the scope of protection of intellectual property rights.
The position paper goes on to set out some general principles that should apply when the Withdrawal Agreement comes into force. The paper mentions trade mark rights, design rights, supplementary protection certificates (SPCs), database rights and exhaustion of rights. Much media attention was also directed toward the section on Geographical Indications (GIs).
IPcopy has summarised the main points of the paper below but feels like the paper comes across as a bit of a weak effort. It’s quite a high level document which is looking at matters pretty much only from the point of view of EU27 stakeholders. There is nothing on representation rights for EU trade mark and design attorneys (which is important for UK stakeholders as well as attorneys) and nothing on the unitary patent system.
The paper also strays, to my mind at least, into the territory of future arrangements (see reference to UK putting in place domestic legislation for GIs) which is something that Michel Barnier said wouldn’t happen until “sufficient progress” had been made on the withdrawal negotiations. Or maybe I’m reading too much into it….. (more…)
Keltie was pleased to be one of the hosts of IP Inclusive’s recent webinar on Imposter Syndrome with guest speaker Jo Maughan. The session was chaired by Carol Arnold with contributions from Andrea Brewster. (more…)
On 1 October 2017 a number of important changes to EU Trade Mark Practice will take effect.
Here is what you need to know: (more…)
New Balance has won a record pay-out in a Chinese trade mark case after three Chinese shoemakers were found to have infringed the brand’s trademarked slanting “N” logo.
In this rare trade mark victory, the Chinese court awarded more than 10 million yuan (£1.2m or $1.5m) to New Balance. The case is believed to be one of the largest awards ever given to a foreign company in a trade mark dispute in China.
Although small by international standards, the significant increase on previous penalties reinforces current attempts by China to crack down on the widespread problem of trade mark abuse; this is particularly in light of international pressure on Beijing to take more action on suspected intellectual property theft by Chinese companies. (more…)