Original news and analysis on international IP policy
Yet another part of US trademark law is dead. On Friday, a US appellate court struck down a statutory provision that prohibited the registration of immoral or scandalous marks. The decision was almost inevitable, after a recent Supreme Court ruling applying the US Constitution’s free speech guarantees to trademark law. And it is likely to be followed by further successful court challenges to America’s trademark law.
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) has rejected an opposition from Starbucks to trademark registration no. 5897739 for the green-and white “BULL PULU TAPIOCA” concentric circle logo with a puppy white bull dog in the center, writes Masaki Mikami.
Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. last August,[1] many patent commentators have asserted that the decision marked a significant change in the analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, especially as a weakening of single-reference obviousness grounds. Notwithstanding this decision, petitioners and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board have continued to rely on single-reference obviousness to assert and find that claims are obvious, write Amy Simpson and Kyle Canavera.
A case now before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Spanski Enterprises v. Telewizja Polska, creates a legal dilemma. The court needs to find Telewizja liable for copyright infringement, or else the court will create a roadmap for pirates, enabling them to stream copyrighted works into the US with impunity. But if the court finds Telewizja committed infringement simply because the Polish company put online works that could be accessed in the US, the court will apply US copyright law in an extraterritorial manner that will create problems around the globe.
VCAST, a UK company that makes available to its customers internet retransmissions of Italian television programmes stored in the cloud, must obtain right holders’ consent first, the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) ruled on 29 November.
President Trump's nominee to be the next director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Andrei Iancu, could receive Senate committee approval by the holidays if things line up just right. If appointed, he told a nomination hearing today that he would "evangelize" the IP system and make possible reform of the patent review process a high priority.
US copyright law is supposed to apply only within US borders, not to actions done in Poland. But when a company in Poland streamed copyrighted TV shows into the US, that infringed US copyrights, according to a US trial court. This decision will be upheld on appeal, experts widely expect. Such an appellate decision, however, could expand the reach of US copyright law to a problematic extent. It will be tricky to find infringement in this case without also extending US copyright law to any online content posted anywhere on the globe.
According to a study by a watchdog group released this week, numerous judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have worked or are working on at least 90 investor-state dispute settlement cases, despite a prohibition on them doing work…
A World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel today was established on request of Qatar, which is challenging measures by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) taken in the name of anti-terrorism but which Qatar says unfairly violate its intellectual property rights and other WTO rules. Separately, also at today's WTO Dispute Settlement Body meeting, members continued to be at odds over a closely watched disagreement on appointing new Appellate Body members.
A case at the High Court in India set for 15 December could decide whether a patent on some of the most important drugs to fight hepatitis C should be removed. It is one of many attempts to challenge patents on hepatitis C drugs in various countries around the world and serves as an opportunity to learn more about the group leading the legal case.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today issued changes to some patent fees, including increases in certain areas, including the cost of using the inter partes review process. Following feedback from users, the office went with some proposed increases, while keeping others at existing levels despite proposals to increase them, it said.
Members of a US congressional subcommittee on intellectual property held a hearing last week that appeared aimed at finding ways to stop companies from “renting” the sovereignty of Native American tribes in order to avoid a process that can lead to the invalidation of patents. Elected officials called a deal between Allergan pharmaceutical company and a northeastern tribe a “sham” and a “mockery”, and signalled the start of the legislative procedure to prevent such deals.