Rihanna tops

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, 8 July 2013

Rub-a-dub-dub, a tri-functional Hub

Posted on 00:59 by Unknown
On Friday this Kat received an email circular headed " EMBARGOED UNTIL 08.59 AM MONDAY 08 JULY 2013 THE COPYRIGHT HUB LAUNCHES PILOT". After pausing for a moment to reflect on whether it's the hub that launches the pilot or the pilot that launches the hub, he decided to take the sensible course of turning this ill-kept secret into an easy blog post. Anyway, the story goes something like this:
At 9am today [exactly one minute after this blogpost] the Copyright Hub launches a consultation pilot. You can find it and follow progress at www.copyrighthub.co.uk

The launch of the Copyright Hub is one of the outcomes of the Hargreaves Review on intellectual property and growth, alongside various other recommendations concerning changes to copyright law. Professor Hargreaves recommended the creation of a digital copyright exchange (DCE). Richard Hooper carried out a feasibility study of the digital copyright exchange which in his final report Copyright Works dated July 2012 looked at a wide range of ways of making copyright licensing more fit for purpose for the digital age.

The Copyright Hub is two things. It is a web portal connected to a network of organisations from the audio-visual, publishing, music and images sectors of the creative industries (which includes DCEs that do automated licensing). It is also a forum for collaboration between the different creative sectors and their organisations.

The Copyright Hub, that is to say the web portal and its network of connected organisations, does three things:
* Help people find out about copyright and find their way through the complexities of copyright
* Be a place where rights holders can, if they so choose, register their rights information via organisations connected to the Hub, so that people can find out who owns what rights to what
* Be a place where people can get permission from rights holders to use copyrighted works legally and easily
These three functions map accurately to the three findings in the feasibility study report Copyright Works: people have difficulty finding their way through the copyright maze; it is difficult to find out who owns what rights to what; it is not always easy for potential rights users to license copyright works or elements of copyright works.

The users/customers of the Copyright Hub are all those individuals, small businesses, charities, educational institutions, larger businesses who want to find out about copyright and license works for specific purposes, for example use music on the family website or personal video.

The vision for the Copyright Hub is ambitious. The pilot, beginning today, is just a start. The pilot involves only a small selection of organisations involved with copyright licensing. The Copyright Hub Launch Group [Kevin Fitzgerald (CLA), Andrew Hughes (NLA), Mark Bide (PLS), Mark Douglas (PPL), Mark Lawrence (PRS for Music), Michael Healy (CCC), Paul Brown (BAPLA), Ben White (British Library), Simon Juden (Pearson), Serena Tierney (BDB Law), Jonathan Lockwood (Getty Images), Tony Ageh (BBC), Michael Holderness (CRA), Sara Geater (Freemantle Media), Tom Morgan (Museums DCE), Jane Dyball (Warner Chappell) and Godfrey Rust (Linked Content Coalition) -- of whom at least one of these good souls is known to this Kat and deemed to be of sound mind and judgment], the committee chaired by Richard Hooper, which governs the Copyright Hub, is anxious to avoid the equal and opposite dangers of proceeding too fast or too slowly [How curious, says Merpel, that proceeding at all is not regarded as a danger]. 
Lessons from the pilot will be fed into later stages when more organisations join and more services are added – this why we are calling it a consultation pilot. The pilot is a straightforward signalling and navigation phase, taking customers/users via simple hyperlinking to the websites of connecting organisations quickly and efficiently to, for example, get permission to use an image or a piece of music.

The Copyright Hub pilot has been financed by the British Government and also by matched funding from the creative industries themselves. The Copyright Hub is industry-led.

What the Launch Group are doing this morning ...
Richard Hooper, Chair of the Copyright Hub said: “We are today just dipping our toes in the water [so that's what they've been doing!]. This is a pilot from which we will learn a lot and which will allow us to build firm foundations for the future. 
So much for an early-start up
We are not trying to do everything at once and are approaching the whole project in an organic, step by step way. We do not subscribe to the view that we should, at this stage, spend large sums of money building something in the hope that people will come. History has taught us that this does not usually work. I am most grateful to the Government [and not many people can say that!] for providing some early start-up funding, to Lime Digital (the contractors who built the site) for working so hard against tough deadlines, and to members of the Copyright Hub Launch Group for their constant support and counsel.” ...
The IPKat promises to keep you informed of future developments.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in copyright hub, United Kingdom | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Milan Court of First Instance rules in favour of Guess in the Gucci/Guess saga
    IPKat team members' keyring Can IP litigation stories be as appealing to the general public as Italian gossip characters'  weddings ...
  • Losing its fizz: the end of the Euro-Bud dispute?
    Could this be the final decision in the Battle of the Buds?  Today the General Court gave its ruling in regard to four cases which have been...
  • Wake up and smell the coffee: Arnold J gets real with consumables and indirect patent infringement
    What happens when coffee and Kats combine - something too cute to drink The AmeriKat loves many things. Fresh lemonade. Kittens' paw pa...
  • IP blogging: a couple of ethical issues
    Information received from anonymous sources The IPKat regularly receives correspondence from impeccable sources who wish to disseminate info...
  • Spain takes Parliament and Council to Court over Unitary Patent Package
    The battle between David and Goliath is entering the second round. Spain has brought two last minute actions before the Court of Justice (Ca...
  • Can it really be? Consumers sue for trade mark dilution
    "If it's clear, it must be water, vodka or gin", muses Miffy. "... Oh, my goodness -- it's actually beer!" Most ...
  • Friday fantasies
    Around the weblogs .  PatLit is hosting an appeal by Kingsley Egbuonu for UK intellectual property litigants to participate in his short onl...
  • Coming soon: CIPA and IPAG's Big Events
    Citius, Altius, Fortius ...  CIPA Congress: of turtles and early birds .  The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys' annual gathering ...
  • Challenges to EPO decisions: a rational basis for irrationality
    Sean Gilday When he posted "The IPKat and his Blogging Friends -- a 2013 Round-up", here , last week, this Kat concluded with a ca...
  • Which comes first - patent infringement or FRAND? "Patent infringement", says Birss J (Part I)
    The AmeriKat has figured out one strategy: keeping warm in the garden during the English summers (courtesy of Joe Delaney ) As a litigator, ...

Categories

  • .amazon (1)
  • §43(a) Lanham Act; App Store/Appstore (1)
  • #inta13 (3)
  • 2009 Belgian precedent (1)
  • 2012 statistics (1)
  • 35 usc 112(f) (1)
  • 3D trade marks (1)
  • abuse (1)
  • abuse of dominant position (1)
  • abuse of rights (1)
  • acquired distinctiveness (2)
  • actual damages (1)
  • ad campaigns (1)
  • added matter (1)
  • advertising (1)
  • advocate general's opinion (2)
  • AdvoKat (1)
  • aereo (1)
  • AGA Medical (1)
  • AGCOM (1)
  • agency (1)
  • AIPPI UK seminar (1)
  • AIPPI UK talk (1)
  • All Saints (1)
  • Allan Zelnick (1)
  • Allergan v Sandoz (1)
  • ALRC paper Copyright and the Digital Economy (1)
  • Alzheimer's Disease (1)
  • amazon (1)
  • Amazon Kindle Worlds (1)
  • Amazon.com (1)
  • America Invents Act (1)
  • AmeriKat (15)
  • analogue vs digital copies (1)
  • analogy (1)
  • anonymity of recipient of injunctive relief (1)
  • antibody (1)
  • anticounterfeiting (1)
  • antitrust law (1)
  • appeal (2)
  • appeal or rehearing (1)
  • apple (7)
  • Apple brand (1)
  • Apple stores (1)
  • Apple v Amazon (1)
  • apple v samsung (5)
  • applicable law on infringement (1)
  • application for stay (1)
  • appstore (1)
  • Arnold J (1)
  • array of objects (1)
  • art (2)
  • Article 10 ECHR (1)
  • Article 101 TFEU (2)
  • ARTICLE 19 (1)
  • Article 3(1) InfoSoc Directive (2)
  • Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29 (1)
  • Article 5(2) Directive 2001/29/EC (1)
  • Article 53(1)(c) CTMR (1)
  • Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation 207/2009 (1)
  • Article 8(4) CTMR (1)
  • Articles 2 and 5 InfoSoc Directive (1)
  • Ashby Donald and Others v France (1)
  • Assessment of importance of IP (1)
  • Association for Molecular Pathology (1)
  • at-risk launch (2)
  • attorney general (2)
  • Australian perspective (1)
  • author's original creation (1)
  • author's rights (1)
  • Authors Guild v Google (1)
  • authorship (1)
  • autocomplete (1)
  • Babycham (1)
  • backlists (1)
  • bad faith (3)
  • balancing fundamental rights in the EU (1)
  • ballon d'or (1)
  • Bambi (1)
  • Batmobile (1)
  • battle of the Buds (1)
  • battle of the tablets (3)
  • BBC radio programme (1)
  • Be Happy (1)
  • beer (1)
  • behavioural economics (1)
  • Belgium (1)
  • Best Practices in IP conference (4)
  • BGH (1)
  • bifurcation (2)
  • bilateral agreements (1)
  • Bill Patry (1)
  • BlackBerry (1)
  • blind people (1)
  • block exemption (1)
  • blogroll (3)
  • Board of Appeal (1)
  • Bobbi McFerrin (1)
  • Bohemian Rhapsody (1)
  • Book review (2)
  • book notice (1)
  • book notices (5)
  • Book reviews (1)
  • books (1)
  • borrowing from culture (1)
  • Boston (1)
  • Bowman v Monsanto (2)
  • Branding (2)
  • brands (1)
  • breach of confidence (4)
  • breach of injunction (1)
  • British Brands Group (1)
  • broadcasting (1)
  • broadcasting rights (1)
  • broken lines (1)
  • browsing (1)
  • brussels regulation (1)
  • Budweiser dispute (1)
  • Bundesgerichtshof (2)
  • Bunny dispute (1)
  • burden of proof (1)
  • but everyone else does it (2)
  • BuzzFeed (1)
  • cadbury (1)
  • call for help (1)
  • Canada (1)
  • Capitol Records (EMI) v ReDigi (2)
  • Card and board games (1)
  • Case C-128/11 UsedSoft (2)
  • Case C-128/11 UsedSoft v Oracle (2)
  • Case C-170/12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (1)
  • Case C-283/11 Sky Osterreich v Osterreichischer (1)
  • Case C-348/13 BestWater International (1)
  • Case C-466/12 Svensson (1)
  • Case C-521/11 Amazon.com (1)
  • Case T-396/11 (1)
  • Case T-442/08 CISAC v European Commission (1)
  • Case T-498/10 (1)
  • Case T-579/10 (1)
  • cDna (1)
  • celebrity rights (2)
  • Champagne (1)
  • change of company name (1)
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1)
  • chiang (1)
  • China (2)
  • chocolate (1)
  • chocolate bunnies (1)
  • CIPA Congress 2013 (1)
  • Civil procedure (1)
  • CJEU (1)
  • CJEU reference (14)
  • CJEU references (4)
  • CJEU ruling (9)
  • class certification (1)
  • class headings (3)
  • co-authorship (1)
  • co-ownership (1)
  • Code of Public Health (1)
  • Coexistence agreements (2)
  • coexisting trade marks (1)
  • Colin Kaepernick (1)
  • collecting societies (1)
  • color trademarks (1)
  • Combigan (1)
  • combination products (1)
  • comment (1)
  • commercial ecosystem (1)
  • commercial exploitation (1)
  • communication of information (1)
  • communication to the public (2)
  • Community design infringement (1)
  • Community patent (1)
  • Community plant varieties rights (1)
  • Community registered design (4)
  • Community trade mark (13)
  • Community trade mark application (1)
  • Community trade mark opposition (1)
  • competition (2)
  • competition law (3)
  • Competition result (1)
  • composite marks (1)
  • compulsory licences (1)
  • computer language (1)
  • Computer mouse (1)
  • computer software patents (1)
  • computers and printers (1)
  • conference (2)
  • construction (1)
  • consultation (2)
  • consultations (1)
  • consumables (1)
  • Consumer response to perceived change in branded goods (1)
  • contempt of court (1)
  • contractor (1)
  • contributory infringement (2)
  • conversion (1)
  • cool (1)
  • copyright (20)
  • copyright and freedom of expression (1)
  • copyright and puns (1)
  • copyright boundaries (1)
  • Copyright exceptions (3)
  • copyright hub (2)
  • copyright in tattoos (1)
  • Copyright infringement (9)
  • copyright law (1)
  • copyright levies (1)
  • copyright levy (1)
  • copyright licensing (1)
  • copyright reform (1)
  • copyright registration (1)
  • copyright term extension (1)
  • correlation of patent filing with public debt (1)
  • cost (1)
  • Costs (3)
  • costs budgeting (1)
  • costs order (1)
  • council (1)
  • Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)
  • counterfeit drug products (1)
  • Cour de Cassation (1)
  • course syllabus (1)
  • Court of Appeal (2)
  • court of appeals (1)
  • Court of Justice of the European Union (1)
  • covenant not to sue (1)
  • covenants not to sue (1)
  • CPVO (1)
  • creativity (1)
  • credibility of witnes (1)
  • criminal libel (1)
  • Croatian accession (1)
  • crowd-funded litigation (1)
  • crowdsourcing (1)
  • CTM (1)
  • CTM appeal (1)
  • cybersquatting (1)
  • damages (1)
  • damages enhancements (1)
  • damages for infringing an invalid right (1)
  • data and market exclusivity (2)
  • data supporting utility (1)
  • David Kappos (2)
  • David Latham (1)
  • David Stone (1)
  • Debate (1)
  • Decision No 6095/2013 Gucci v Guess (1)
  • declaration of non-infringement (1)
  • deer (1)
  • defamation (2)
  • definition of format (1)
  • Derek Seltzer v Green Day (1)
  • descriptive sign (1)
  • design and trade mark overlap (1)
  • Design around (1)
  • design patents (1)
  • Design protection (1)
  • designs (1)
  • devoid of distinctive character (1)
  • digital afterlife (1)
  • digital goods (1)
  • dilution (1)
  • Dilution Act (1)
  • Directive 2010/13 (1)
  • Directive 2011/77/EU (1)
  • disciplinary proceedings (1)
  • Disclosure (3)
  • dissatisfied inventors (1)
  • Distance learning in copyright (1)
  • distinctiveness (1)
  • divisional application (1)
  • Divisional patent applications (1)
  • divisionals (1)
  • DNA (1)
  • doctrine of equivalents (1)
  • domain name (1)
  • domain name registration (1)
  • domain names (1)
  • Don't Worry (1)
  • dormant therapies (2)
  • draft online copyright enforcement regulation (1)
  • dubbers' rights (1)
  • due cause (1)
  • due diligence joke (1)
  • dvr (1)
  • E-commerce directive (1)
  • eastern district of texas (1)
  • eBooks (1)
  • ECHR (1)
  • Economics (1)
  • eli lilly (1)
  • emails as information (1)
  • embedding (1)
  • employer-employee (1)
  • employment (1)
  • endowment effect (1)
  • England and Wales (6)
  • english court (1)
  • enhanced cooperation (3)
  • Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (1)
  • Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (4)
  • entitlement proceedings (1)
  • EPA (1)
  • epi (1)
  • epo (4)
  • EPO appeals (1)
  • epo consultations (1)
  • eqe (1)
  • equitable remuneration (1)
  • Ericsson (1)
  • Essex (1)
  • estoppel (2)
  • EU (1)
  • EU Commission (1)
  • EU copyright (1)
  • EU copyright policy (2)
  • EU customs (1)
  • EU law-making (1)
  • EU patent (3)
  • EU patent package (1)
  • EU patent proposals (1)
  • EU trade mark law (1)
  • EU trade mark reform (1)
  • European Copyright Society (1)
  • European Court of Human Rights (1)
  • European Court of Justice (1)
  • European legislative process (1)
  • european parliament (1)
  • European Patent Institute (1)
  • European patent law (1)
  • European Patent Office (1)
  • European Qualifying Examination (1)
  • european trade marks (1)
  • european union (2)
  • European unitary patent (6)
  • evidence (1)
  • evidence of consent (1)
  • evidence-based copyright reforms (1)
  • Evil Empire (1)
  • examination results (1)
  • exceptions/limitations to right of reproduction (1)
  • excluded subject matter (1)
  • Exclusions from patentability (2)
  • exhaustion (1)
  • exhaustion of rights (2)
  • expert (1)
  • extended collective licensing (3)
  • extended passing off (1)
  • Facebook (1)
  • fair compensation (3)
  • fair use (6)
  • fair use poll (1)
  • fairytale (1)
  • fait maison (1)
  • fashion design (1)
  • fast-track patents (2)
  • Faulkner (1)
  • FDA (1)
  • federal circuit (1)
  • Ferrero (1)
  • financial retribution (1)
  • First Amendment (1)
  • First sale (1)
  • first sale doctrine (4)
  • first-to-file (1)
  • first-to-invent (1)
  • fiscal practices (1)
  • fleas (1)
  • Flora (1)
  • Florian Mueller (1)
  • flowcharts (1)
  • floyd j (1)
  • Forbes (3)
  • Fordham 2013 (10)
  • Fordham 2013; EU copyright (1)
  • Fordham 2013; news aggregators (1)
  • Fordham Conference 2013 (1)
  • Formulaic songs (1)
  • Forthcoming events (1)
  • framing (1)
  • france (4)
  • France Brevets (1)
  • FRAND (5)
  • FRAND licences (3)
  • FRAND licensing (2)
  • free speech (1)
  • freedom of art (1)
  • Freedom of expression (1)
  • French agreement (1)
  • French chefs (1)
  • Friday fantasies (18)
  • Frommer's (1)
  • Fross Zelnick Lehrman and Zissu (1)
  • FTA (1)
  • functionality (3)
  • functionality of computer software (1)
  • G logo (1)
  • GAO (1)
  • General Court (1)
  • generic names (1)
  • generic top level domains (1)
  • generics (4)
  • genes (1)
  • genetically modified wheat (1)
  • Genuine use of trade mark (1)
  • geographical indication (1)
  • geographical indications (3)
  • geographical indications of origin (1)
  • George Alexander Louis Windsor (1)
  • Germany (9)
  • Gita Hall May v Lionsgate Entertainment (3)
  • glaxo genentech (1)
  • Gleevec (2)
  • Glivec (3)
  • golden balls (1)
  • goods in transit (1)
  • goodwill (1)
  • google (3)
  • Google Adwords (1)
  • Google autocomplete and related searches (1)
  • Google Books Library Project (1)
  • Google Inactive Account Manager (1)
  • Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1 (6 February 2013) (1)
  • Google News (3)
  • Google News agreement in Belgium (1)
  • Google Tax (1)
  • gorillas (2)
  • Got Milk? campaign (1)
  • graduated response (1)
  • Greek yoghurt (1)
  • Griggs v Evans (1)
  • grounds of appeal (1)
  • Grumpy cat (1)
  • gTLDs (3)
  • Gucci trademarks (1)
  • Hargreaves review (1)
  • Hargreaves Review of IP and Growths (1)
  • harmonisation (1)
  • harmonised trade mark law (1)
  • hash oil (1)
  • hearing (1)
  • high-fashion brands (1)
  • hold up (1)
  • Hollande (1)
  • Honest (1)
  • honest descriptive use (1)
  • honest use of own name (1)
  • Hong Kong (1)
  • Hooper Report (1)
  • Hrdy (1)
  • Hungary (1)
  • hybrid audience (1)
  • Hyperlinks as copyright infringement (1)
  • IBM (1)
  • ICANN (2)
  • ILO (1)
  • image marks (1)
  • Image rights (1)
  • Imatinib (1)
  • immunity (1)
  • implied contract (1)
  • implied endorsement (1)
  • indefiniteness (1)
  • india (2)
  • Indian Supreme Court (2)
  • indirect patent infringement (2)
  • indiscriminate collection of levy (1)
  • individual character (2)
  • industrial espionage (1)
  • Infopaq string of cases (1)
  • information from anonymous sources (1)
  • infringement (5)
  • infringement. construction of claims (1)
  • Innocent (1)
  • innovation and copyright (1)
  • insufficiency (5)
  • INTA (1)
  • INTA 2013 (3)
  • INTA Meeting 2013 (1)
  • INTA Scholarships (1)
  • Intelellectual Ventures (1)
  • Intellectual Property and gender (1)
  • Intellectual Property Bill (1)
  • intention to create legal relations (1)
  • intention to target (1)
  • interflora (1)
  • interim injunctive relief (1)
  • interim relief (1)
  • internal market (1)
  • international law (1)
  • internet browsing (1)
  • internet streaming (2)
  • INTERPOL (1)
  • interpretation (1)
  • invalidation (1)
  • invalidity (4)
  • invention (1)
  • inventive step (3)
  • IP (1)
  • IP + retail (1)
  • IP and apps (1)
  • IP and Digital Entertainment conference (3)
  • IP and Digital Entertainment conference: Part IV (1)
  • IP and innovation (1)
  • IP and Retail conference report (2)
  • IP and Retail Conference: session 3 (1)
  • IP and Retail Conference: session 4 (1)
  • IP and retailers (1)
  • IP blogging and ethics (1)
  • IP driven growth (1)
  • IP fiction (1)
  • IP in family history (1)
  • IP lawyer (1)
  • IP license (1)
  • IP Licensing (1)
  • IP litigation (1)
  • IP Minister (3)
  • IP ownership (1)
  • IP rights (1)
  • IP Translator (8)
  • IPAG Conference 2013 (1)
  • IPKat 10th birthday event (2)
  • IPKat/1709 blog joint poll (1)
  • IPO (1)
  • IPO consultation (2)
  • IPO consultation procedure (2)
  • IPO logo (1)
  • IPO parody reports (1)
  • IPO patent opinions (1)
  • IPReg (1)
  • Ireland (3)
  • irony (1)
  • isolated dna (1)
  • ISP liability (4)
  • issue estoppel (1)
  • Italy (3)
  • ITC (3)
  • jackson reforms (1)
  • Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy (1)
  • Japan (1)
  • Jeremy Phillips (1)
  • Joachim Low (1)
  • Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 QC Leisure (1)
  • Joined Cases C-457-460/11 VG Worth (1)
  • joint authorship (1)
  • judge koh (1)
  • Judicial appointment (1)
  • jury awards (2)
  • justification of patents (1)
  • Kaepernicking (1)
  • Kat opinion (1)
  • Kate Moss (1)
  • Katnews (3)
  • Katonomics (1)
  • Katpoll (1)
  • Keywords (1)
  • Kirtsaeng v Wiley (2)
  • Kit Kat (1)
  • knowledge of earlier mark (1)
  • knowledge workers (1)
  • Knut (1)
  • later evidence (1)
  • law firm branding (1)
  • law reform (1)
  • Law Society of Ireland (1)
  • lease (1)
  • Legal Board (1)
  • legal reasoning (1)
  • Lescure (1)
  • Let's Plays (1)
  • Lex Google (1)
  • lex specialis (1)
  • licences and exhaustion (1)
  • Licences for Europe (3)
  • license without fixed term (1)
  • licensing agreements (1)
  • likelihood of confusion (1)
  • likelihood of congfusion (1)
  • likeness (2)
  • limited liability (1)
  • literary figures (1)
  • litigation (2)
  • live sports (1)
  • Loi Hadopi (1)
  • Lookalikes (3)
  • lord justice kitchin (1)
  • louboutin (1)
  • Lundbeck (2)
  • macros (1)
  • Mad Men lawsuit (2)
  • MadMen (1)
  • making (1)
  • makro (1)
  • Malarone (1)
  • Managing Intellectual Property (1)
  • Mark Cuban (1)
  • marks spencer (1)
  • Marrakesh (1)
  • massively multiplayer online games (1)
  • Max Planck Institute (1)
  • Mayer (1)
  • means for (1)
  • Meher Baba (1)
  • merial (1)
  • Merpel (1)
  • metatags (2)
  • microsoft (1)
  • Minnesota (1)
  • misappropriation (2)
  • Miscellany (1)
  • misleading and deceptive conduct (1)
  • mobile technology (2)
  • MODDERN Cures Act (2)
  • Monday miscellany (24)
  • Monday miscellany II (1)
  • monsanto (1)
  • moral rights (1)
  • motorola (1)
  • MPHJ (1)
  • mr justice birss (4)
  • multi-forum dispute (1)
  • multi-territorial licences (1)
  • music copyright (1)
  • mylan (1)
  • myriad (2)
  • Myriad Genetics (3)
  • Myth/Fact IPO note (1)
  • names as trade marks (1)
  • nascar (1)
  • national IP systems (1)
  • Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v Sweden (1)
  • nestle (1)
  • Netflix (1)
  • New York Yankees (1)
  • New Zealand (1)
  • news aggregators (1)
  • newspapers's headlines and snippets (2)
  • Newsweek magazine (1)
  • NFL Players Association (1)
  • nice classifications (1)
  • Nike (1)
  • Nike Pro Tattoo Tech (1)
  • NLA v Meltwater [2013] UKSC 18 (1)
  • non practicing (1)
  • notion of fair compensation (2)
  • Novartis (3)
  • novelty (4)
  • novelty-only prior art (1)
  • NPE (1)
  • NPE's (2)
  • npes (1)
  • nugtella (1)
  • nutella (1)
  • obviousness (4)
  • Occlutech (1)
  • offensive trade marks (1)
  • OHIM (1)
  • OHIM Board of Appeal (1)
  • Olympic trade marks (1)
  • omnipharm (1)
  • One Direction's Best Song Ever (1)
  • online advertising (2)
  • online content (1)
  • online copyright (2)
  • online copyright infringement (1)
  • online defamation (1)
  • online details of registrable transactions (1)
  • online drug sales (1)
  • opposition (4)
  • opposition grounds (1)
  • OQT (1)
  • originality (1)
  • Orphan works (4)
  • own name defence (1)
  • owners vs lesses (1)
  • ownership of IP rights (1)
  • packaging (1)
  • PAE (1)
  • Parody (2)
  • part-time employment (1)
  • Passing off (7)
  • patent (7)
  • patent assertion (1)
  • patent assertion entities (2)
  • patent claims (1)
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (1)
  • patent discosure (1)
  • patent examiners (2)
  • patent exhaustion (1)
  • Patent fund (1)
  • patent infringement (5)
  • patent injunctions (2)
  • Patent litigation costs (1)
  • patent monetization entities (3)
  • patent prior art (1)
  • patent rankings (1)
  • patent reform (1)
  • patent standards (1)
  • Patent statistics (1)
  • patent trolling (1)
  • patent trolls (5)
  • patentability (9)
  • patentability of computer programs (1)
  • patentable subject matter (2)
  • patented soybean seeds (1)
  • patently absurd (1)
  • patents (11)
  • Patents Act 1970 (1)
  • Patents County Court (3)
  • patents court (1)
  • payment (1)
  • PCT (1)
  • PDO (1)
  • peer assessment (1)
  • performance (1)
  • performance rights (1)
  • perpetual license (1)
  • personality right (1)
  • Personality rights (1)
  • PGI (1)
  • pharmaceutical industry (4)
  • photographs (1)
  • pirate bay (1)
  • plain packaging (2)
  • PME (1)
  • poisonous divisional; divisional application; priority application; Article 54(3) EPC (1)
  • poisonous divisional; divisional application; priority application; Article 54(3) EPC; Section 2(3) Patents Act (1)
  • poisonous priority (1)
  • polar bear cub trade marks (1)
  • Poll results (1)
  • Prägetheorie (1)
  • precedent H (1)
  • preliminary injunction (3)
  • prepatory committee (1)
  • press freedom (1)
  • principle of exhaustion (1)
  • print edition (1)
  • prior art (2)
  • priority (2)
  • priority based on US provisionals (1)
  • PRISM logo (1)
  • Privacy (1)
  • private copying (3)
  • privity (2)
  • privity of estate (1)
  • privity of interest (1)
  • Product placement (1)
  • professional conduct (1)
  • Professor Mark Lemley (1)
  • proof of use (1)
  • Proposal for a Directive on collective rights management (1)
  • proprietary interests in infringing goods (1)
  • Prosecco vs Prošek (1)
  • prosecution history estoppel (1)
  • protectable subject-matter (1)
  • Protection of Geographical Indications (1)
  • protocol on privileges and immunities (1)
  • pseudonym (1)
  • public performance (1)
  • publication (1)
  • Pun competition (2)
  • puns as copyright subject matter (1)
  • pursuit of alleged peer-to-peer file-sharers (1)
  • PwC (1)
  • quality patents (1)
  • Queen's Bench Division (1)
  • radio interviews (1)
  • rapper (2)
  • ratification (1)
  • readers poll (1)
  • rebroadcasting (1)
  • Recent publications (1)
  • redaction (1)
  • ReDigi (1)
  • regional agreements (1)
  • registered community design (2)
  • Registered Community designs (1)
  • registrability (2)
  • regulation (1)
  • Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)
  • regulation 44/2001 (1)
  • regulation 6/2002 (1)
  • Regulation 772/2004 (1)
  • relevant consumer (1)
  • renewal agencies (1)
  • rent-seeking (1)
  • replacement parts as patent infringements (1)
  • representation (1)
  • reprographic levies (1)
  • requirement of knowledge (1)
  • res judicata (4)
  • resale pf digital copies (1)
  • Resolution Chemicals (2)
  • reverse domain name hijacking (1)
  • reverse payment settlements (1)
  • reverse product placement (1)
  • revocation (4)
  • Ricard (1)
  • right in one's own image (1)
  • right of attribution (1)
  • right of privacy (1)
  • right of publicity (1)
  • right to oblivion (1)
  • Robert Thicke's Blurred Lines (1)
  • rocket docket (1)
  • roundtables (1)
  • royalties (1)
  • Royalty rates (1)
  • rule 36 epc (1)
  • rules of procedure (3)
  • rules of thumb (1)
  • ruling (1)
  • same-sex marriages (1)
  • samsung (4)
  • scams (1)
  • Schlitz (1)
  • Schütz v Werit (1)
  • scope of infringement (1)
  • scope of protection (1)
  • Scotland (2)
  • Scream Icon (1)
  • search (1)
  • second circuit (1)
  • second-hand books (2)
  • second-hand digital files (2)
  • Section 1(2) (1)
  • section 112(f) (1)
  • Section 3(d) (1)
  • Section 5 Markengesetz (1)
  • section 60(2) (1)
  • self-replicating technology (1)
  • settlement (1)
  • Shield Act (1)
  • shutz v werit (1)
  • similarity of goods (1)
  • similarity of marks (1)
  • Sir Robin Jacob (1)
  • smart machines (1)
  • SMEs (1)
  • software and other subject-matter (1)
  • software directive (1)
  • software manuals (1)
  • software patents (1)
  • software transactions (1)
  • solanezumab (1)
  • solum (1)
  • song formats (1)
  • songs (1)
  • Spain (1)
  • SPCs (2)
  • Special 301 (1)
  • speedy patent grants (1)
  • Spicy IP (1)
  • Spider Man (1)
  • sports licensing (1)
  • spring breakers (1)
  • standard essential patents (7)
  • standard setting (2)
  • standard setting organisations (1)
  • state involvement (1)
  • state law (1)
  • state patents (1)
  • statement of objection (1)
  • statements of working (1)
  • statistics (1)
  • Statutory damages (1)
  • stay (1)
  • stay of proceedings (1)
  • stem cells (1)
  • Stieg Larsson (1)
  • Stop43 (1)
  • Student sponsorship (1)
  • sufficient skill labour and effort (1)
  • Sun Valley (1)
  • super injunctions (1)
  • superheros (1)
  • Superman (1)
  • Supplementary Protection Certificate (2)
  • Supreme Court (1)
  • Survey evidence (4)
  • swartz (1)
  • Sweden (1)
  • Swiss Made (1)
  • tablet computers (2)
  • tatau (1)
  • tattoos (2)
  • TechCrunch (1)
  • technical function (2)
  • technology transfer (1)
  • television (1)
  • terms of employment (2)
  • territoriality of copyright (1)
  • text and data mining (1)
  • thank you (1)
  • The 12 most disruptive names in business (1)
  • The Hound of the Baskervilles (1)
  • The Right to Share (1)
  • The Scottish Premier League Ltd v Lisini Pub Management Company Ltd (1)
  • The Strange World of IP Consents (1)
  • theft of patents (1)
  • theft of trade secrets (1)
  • three dimensional shape (1)
  • three-dimensional mark (2)
  • three-dimensional trade mark (1)
  • Thursday thingies (6)
  • tick the box (1)
  • tmdn (1)
  • toilets (1)
  • trade dress (1)
  • trade mark (2)
  • trade mark amendment (1)
  • Trade Mark and Design Network (1)
  • Trade mark application (1)
  • trade mark bullying (1)
  • trade mark classification (3)
  • trade mark conference (1)
  • trade mark confusion (1)
  • trade mark infringement (13)
  • trade mark opposition (4)
  • Trade mark registrability (1)
  • trade mark search report (1)
  • trade marks (15)
  • trade secrets (1)
  • trademark (2)
  • trademark infringement (1)
  • transformative use (3)
  • transmission (1)
  • Treaty (1)
  • Tribunale di Milano (2)
  • TRIPs (2)
  • triviia (1)
  • trolling (1)
  • Trolls (2)
  • TSG (1)
  • Tufty's Law (1)
  • Tushnet (1)
  • UK (1)
  • UK copyright reform (1)
  • UK IPO Private Copying report (1)
  • UK legislative reform (2)
  • uk patent infringement (4)
  • UK Unregistered Design Right (1)
  • UKIPO (2)
  • Ukraine (1)
  • unauthorised use of likeness (1)
  • unfair advertising (1)
  • Unified Patent Court (13)
  • Unified Patent Litigation System (6)
  • unitary patent (7)
  • unitary patent proposals (1)
  • Unitary patents (1)
  • United Kingdom (4)
  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1)
  • United States (15)
  • United States IP system (1)
  • United States patent litigation (1)
  • university property (1)
  • unmonopolisable therapies (2)
  • upc (4)
  • Urban Outfitters (1)
  • US (2)
  • us copyirght (1)
  • US copyright (1)
  • US copyright act (1)
  • US Copyright Office (1)
  • US fair use defence (1)
  • US false advertising (1)
  • US IP legislation (1)
  • US law (1)
  • US patent damages (1)
  • US patent infringement (1)
  • us patent litigation (1)
  • us patents (1)
  • US provisional patent claims (1)
  • US publicity rights (1)
  • US Supreme Court (5)
  • US trade mark infringement (3)
  • us trade marks (1)
  • US Trade Representative (1)
  • USA (2)
  • use of own name (1)
  • useful purpose (1)
  • user-generated content (2)
  • users rights (1)
  • users' rights (1)
  • USPTO (7)
  • utility (1)
  • utility patents (1)
  • validity (4)
  • VEGF (1)
  • vermont (2)
  • Victoria Beckham (1)
  • Video Games (2)
  • voss (1)
  • watches (1)
  • Wayback machine (1)
  • Wednesday whimsies (12)
  • wikipedia (1)
  • willfulness (1)
  • WIPO (2)
  • wisdom of the crowd (1)
  • WTO dispute resolution (1)
  • ysl (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (490)
    • ►  August (49)
    • ▼  July (72)
      • Wednesday whimsies
      • Harry Potter and the Cuckoo's Tweet: battle averte...
      • So cool in court as Rihanna tops Topshop over T-sh...
      • Arrow misses target, but escitalopram is attacked ...
      • Later evidence may be relied on in patent validity...
      • Note from AmeriKat: Mockingbirds, Model Orders an...
      • Licensing and working patents in India: an update
      • Super injunctions: coming to a Loch near you?
      • Generics behaving badly? BMS v Teva illustrates U...
      • Generics behaving badly? BMS v Teva illustrates U...
      • "Design Around": Is What's Sauce for the Patent Go...
      • Disclosure of emails: property in information -- o...
      • Thursday thingies
      • Will Italy have its online copyright enforcement r...
      • European Patent Organisation Not As Immune As We T...
      • ICANN and the TLD jungle: when .amazon comes to a .
      • ICANN: Amazon Is Also A Region
      • Small errors, not many people affected -- or are t...
      • Something to read? Three new titles
      • Monday miscellany
      • No Ricard on Facebook: When intrusive advertising ...
      • Appstore madness: fighting like two cats in a sack
      • When words are irrelevant ... CJEU rules on Specsa...
      • TRIPS, EU competence and a dose of levofloxacin
      • Requiem for a Fair Use Challenge
      • Friday fantasies
      • The Death of Browsing; the Death of the Backlist; ...
      • Spider-Man Web-Blasts Away Patent Royalties
      • IP and Digital Entertainment conference: Part IV
      • IP and Digital Entertainment conference: Part III
      • IP and Digital Entertainment conference: Part II
      • IP and Digital Entertainment conference: Part I
      • Art vs Personality right: German rapper Bushido ca...
      • Lookalikes: what is their impact -- and what can b...
      • Do you care if the food at the restaurant is label...
      • Reach for the Sky? Or Drive more carefully ...
      • Golden Eye: "If you are reading this, then more th...
      • Monday miscellany
      • 'Indiscriminate' Austrians may claim private copyi...
      • The enemy of the BEST? Metatags come to court
      • No Searches on Excluded Matter- the UKIPO Dig Thei...
      • Today's European Parliament Health Committee vote ...
      • OQT joins PGI, PDO and TSG in EU
      • How Tufty’s Law detoxicates poisonous priority
      • Celebrity Tattoo News: Kate Moss’s Partnership wit...
      • If Mercury estate goes ape over gorilla, what will...
      • HADOPI to disappear and the French graduated respo...
      • Homeric BGH decision on Duff Beer - or: “Reverse p...
      • OHIM finally moves on invalidity of Apple designs ...
      • Out of Plaice: Monte Carlo beached in County Monag...
      • Italian Court excludes Wikipedia and Wikimedia fou...
      • "Is this real life? Is this just fantasy?" No rhap...
      • No more kitchen sinks, says Dermot Doyle -- and he...
      • Monday miscellany
      • Rub-a-dub-dub, a tri-functional Hub
      • The New European Customs Regulation and Goods in T...
      • UsedSoft Katpoll: Exhaustion will apply to any wor...
      • Friday fantasies
      • The Patent Legacy of the Computer Mouse
      • A new Member State, two wines and one controlled d...
      • More IP titles for your delectation
      • Lilly, Regeneron and a puzzling point: can you help?
      • Secrets on wheels: two automotive confidentiality ...
      • Is parody--not imitation-- the sincerest form of f...
      • A new IP treaty fights “book famine” for the blind
      • US v Windsor: Where Family Rights Meet IP Rights
      • No more "nonsense on Stolts" or damages for infrin...
      • Meltwater questions for CJEU: time to think
      • UK IPO two reports closer to finding a home for or...
      • 2nd Circuit rejects class certification in the Goo...
      • When groovy fingers don't make for good trade marks
      • Confused about the effects of IP Translator? The t...
    • ►  June (56)
    • ►  May (63)
    • ►  April (73)
    • ►  March (62)
    • ►  February (54)
    • ►  January (61)
  • ►  2012 (9)
    • ►  December (9)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile