Skip to content

Insights

21 November 2014

IP Newsletter - November 2014

Please click here for the November edition of "IP Newsletter" – the intellectual property law update from Charles Russell Speechlys' Intellectual Property team. The newsletter details some recent important cases and key developments.

Contents:

Patents
  • Advocate General Cruz Villalón's opinion on human embryo patent case may have important consequences for stem cell technology.
  • High Court's earlier decision refusing stay in patent revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings at EPO now reversed following undertakings given by the patentee.
  • UK High Court interprets CJEU ruling concerning entitlement to a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) based on a marketing authorisation obtained by a third party, and grants SPC.
  • Revised draft Rules of Procedure for the Unified Patent Court ("UPC") were published on 31 October 2014. A public hearing on this the 17th draft is scheduled to take place on 26 November 2014 in Trier, Germany.
  • Will there be a new UK Patent Box?
Trade Marks / Passing Off
  • Cranford College – IPEC rules no passing off in the absence of confusion.
Copyright
  • The CJEU defines parody in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn and confirms that it is for national courts to apply the relevant test for what amounts to a parody and to strike a fair balance between rights owners and freedom of experience.
Designs
  • "Broken cookie" registered Community design held to be invalid, because the design of the cookie lacked individual character.
Other matters of interest - in brief
  • IPEC assesses damages in designs infringement case, taking into account the nature of the feature of the infringed design.
  • Hong Kong resident successfully claims injunctive relief in UK concerning defamatory comments posted on website.
  • Be aware of misleading invoices and requests for payment concerning registered IP rights - such letters may not be from the UK IPO.
A round up of some recent trade mark registration decisions
  • The likelihood of confusion between several figurative marks depicting a polo player.
  • A 3D mark for desserts? Not in this case - the mark was devoid of distinctive character.

For more information please contact Ian Wood on +44 (0)20 7203 5124 or ian.wood@crsblaw.com

TOP