Despite there being some more work to do in bringing the unitary patent system online (not to mention the possibility that Brexit could still potentially torpedo or severely slow down the whole process), IPcopy has been asked a growing number of questions recently about the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court.
What follows below is a selection of questions that we’ve encountered over the last few weeks. This is by no means an exhaustive summary of the current state of play of the unitary patent but we hope the discussion below is useful nonetheless.
A list of topics is below. Click on the topic of interest to jump to the correct part of the post. (more…)
After a five month Brexit induced wobble the unitary patent system appears to be heading toward lift off and is once again figuring in the plans of some patent owners.
Indeed, in the last week, IPcopy was asked whether a currently pending European patent application would be eligible for unitary patent status or if there was a risk it might grant before the system goes live.
In this post we take a quick look at what makes a European patent eligible for unitary effect on grant and how the unitary patent system timescale matches up with the European patent process. (more…)
By getting things right at the beginning, a Start Up can facilitate growth at a faster pace and be ready for the bigger challenges and hurdles coming down the line. (more…)
The UK Prime Minister announced this week that Article 50 would be triggered on 29 March 2017.
It had been previously reported that the UK might try and conclude its ratification procedure for the Unified Patent Court Agreement prior to the Article 50 notification but the ratification procedure has slipped sufficiently that this will not now be possible.
IPcopy understands from the UKIPO that there is currently no confirmed date for laying the Statutory Instruments (on Privileges and Immunities) before Parliament that are required to complete the UK’s ratification formalities. It is expected that this will now occur after the Easter recess towards the end of April. Further details on the UK’s path to ratifying the UPC Agreement can be found here.
The Goodwill Maze – a case review of O-609-16 – (The Crystal Maze) Invalidity – 20 December 2016
Mad Professor Ltd’s (‘MP’) is the proprietor of UK No. 3060820 ‘The Crystal Maze’ (‘TCM’) for inter alia “team building events” in Class 41. Adventure Line Production SAS (‘ALP’) sought to invalidate the registration under Section 5(4)(a).
ALP based its passing off claim on use of TCM since February 1990 in respect of “entertainment services, in particular television programmes, games and challenges”. MP denied ALP’s claims arguing that (1) its mark was lawfully registered, (2) the marks are not identical, (3) ALP does not own the goodwill, (4) there is no misrepresentation, and (5) there is no damage.
Although MP’s mark was filed on 20 June 2014, the relevant date to consider whether there had been passing off was 21 June 2011 as this was the first date in which MP made use of TCM on its website. (more…)
We’ve previously written about the problem of scam invoices in which UK, European and other IP rights holders receive invoices inviting them to pay for the publication of their IP right in some official sounding register. Variations of the scam involve offers to renew IP rights or even apply for IP rights. Previous IPcopy articles can be found here and all the main IPOs have their own sections which keep tabs on the latest examples of such scams (UKIPO, EPO, EUIPO, WIPO).
A more recent example of such scams is one in which the target is invited to buy domain names. According to the UKIPO the initial contact is a telephone call from an organisation that says they are the “Trade Marks Intellectual Property Office”. (more…)
Keltie will be offering face-to-face clinic sessions (free of charge) for startups and entrepreneurs to discuss protection of inventions, branding and designs. If you have a new idea/invention and you’re not sure how it can be protected or if you’ve designed your product and want to launch to market, or if you’re branding (or re-branding) your company and are looking for advice, then book on to one of our clinic sessions for a free, no obligation chat with one of our patent, trade mark or design attorneys.
To attend an IP clinic please either email Marketing@keltie.com or call 0207 329 8888 to arrange a mutually convenient time.
We are able to arrange clinic sessions during London Tech Week (12-16 June 2017) and also at any convenient time in the weeks leading up to London Tech Week.
Please note that BOOKING IS ESSENTIAL. We cannot accept drop in visitors to our IP clinics as space is limited.
To return to Keltie’s London Tech Week Listing – click here.
Season 6 of the US TV show Suits came to a close over the weekend. If it taught us one thing it’s that you should never use the firm Pearson Specter Litt to prosecute your patent applications.
OK, seeing as Pearson Specter Litt is a fictional law firm there’s not much chance of you engaging the services of Louis Litt as your patent attorney but the show did show a blatant disregard for the basics of the patent system which is why this post is subjecting Suits to the full IP Hit or Miss? Treatment. Is the show’s IP depiction accurate or does it fall short? (You can probably guess which way this one is going to turn out). (more…)
IPcopy has wondered for a while how the UK’s somewhat surprising announcement last November that we would continue preparations for ratifying the UPC Agreement would play out if the news got wider attention in the media. Despite the Government’s insistence that the UPC is an international court rather than an EU institution I couldn’t see this argument playing well with the readership of certain portions of the press who are champing at the bit for the moment we can retake control of our country. (more…)
THE CLAIMANT in this case, Michael Ross, applied to register the domain name “playboy.london” on 27th August 2014. The Defendant, Playboy Enterprises International, Inc (PEI), wrote to Ross on 21st October 2014 complaining of this registration. In his reply, Ross denied that he had registered the domain name in bad faith and refused to transfer the domain name. As a consequence, PEI submitted a successful complaint under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) seeking that the domain name be transferred.
Ross sought declarations and relief at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) on the basis that: (a) he had not infringed PEI’s trade marks or passed off any goods or services as those of PEI; (b) he was entitled to keep the domain name; and (c) the threats in the letter of 21st October were unjustifiable. (more…)