QMJIP

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

Month: January, 2016

Product design protection in the fashion industry: the case of Céline

by Federica Pigozzo

Ever since she was appointed Creative Director in 2008, designer Phoebe Philo has managed to turn the historic maison of Céline into one of the world’s uncontested leaders in the leather luxury goods market. Thanks to her understated aesthetics and fresh approach to design the French fashion house, which has been owned by the LVMH Group since 1996, has experienced an unprecedented success both from an economic and critical point of view, as consumers as well as fashion critics have saluted Philo’s creations with great enthusiasm.

The main reason of these achievements lies in the brand’s handbags production: not only Céline purses continue to be considered as cult items season after season but also – and more impressively – Philo is the pioneer creator of what can surely be regarded as one of the most noteworthy and distinctive bag shapes of the past decade, namely the ‘winged’ shape.

With success predictably comes imitation. Therefore, it is with no surprise that anyone who is remotely familiar with the fashion industry will be able to spot dangerously similar bags in catalogues and advertising campaigns of a variety of different brands including Valentino and Zara, Forever 21 and Michael Kors.

On the other hand, what could surprise the public at large is Philo’s perspective on the abovementioned phenomenon. As she has famously stated in an interview with Hamish Bowles for the March 2013 issue of Vogue US, the designer is ‘nothing but flattered’ by imitations and knock-offs. As Coco Chanel before her, she allegedly considers the lack of copies to be more troublesome than the copies per se, as that would imply her inability to identify future trends and subsequently a lack of recognition within the fashion community.

However, actions speak louder than words. Despite the creative’s claims, it is indeed possible to notice how both Céline and LVMH have been undertaking a series of practical and legal measures whose final aim is to control and ultimately reduce the imitation game.

Firstly, despite the growing importance of e-commerce practices within the fashion business[1], Céline does not retail online nor has an official social media presence on any platform.

If focusing on in-store sales can clearly be beneficial in the context of a branding strategy designed to enhance the brand’s aura of luxury and exclusivity, the same expedient can also be valuable in terms of lowering the chances of being used as a source of imitation, as well as useful when it comes to separate the original creations from the knock-offs which circulate on the internet.

Secondly, LVMH has been taking advantage of the distinctiveness of Philo’s handbags in order to obtain legal protection.

In 2013, Céline was granted two design patents in the US, respectively for the Diamond Clutch (part of the house’s Autumn/Winter 2013 collection) and the Case Bag (highlight of the Spring/Summer 2013 accessories line).

Moreover, two of the company’s most coveted handbags have been awarded trademark protection, once again under US law.

In May 2015 the Trapeze bag’s configuration, consisting in a ‘rectangular handbag with exaggerated, extendible pleated sides with a single rolled handle attached to a flap that covers ¾ of the front of the bag and which attaches to the bag by a rectangular metallic closure located at the bottom center of the flap […]’[2] has been successfully granted registration. More recently – January 5th 2016 – the already iconic Luggage bag has been conferred protection which extends to the ‘three-dimensional configuration of a rectangular bag with extendable accordion-style sides, extruding parallel S wave designs on bag front, and rear, shield-shaped handle bracers designs on front and rear of bag. The broken lines depicting the handles, body, and central rectangular zipper outlined on the front face of the bag indicate placement of the mark on the goods and are not part of the mark. As placed on the front of the bag, the zipper represents the mouth of a face design in which the handle supports appear to be the eyes and the S wave designs represent the facial outline’[3].

In both cases, Céline filed for the registration of a shape mark. When it comes to trade dress protection, US trademark law states that product design cannot be considered as inherently distinctive[4]. Accordingly, in order for it to be registered, the applicant has to prove it has acquired secondary meaning by showing evidence of the fact that consumers connect the design in question to the specific brand that produced it and that the principal function of a trademark – being an indicator of origin – has therefore been safeguarded.

If the Christian Louboutin saga has taught us anything, it is that secondary meaning can be extremely hard to prove in practice, even in the presence of compelling evidence: when non-traditional marks are involved, showing that consumers see them as indicators of origin is a difficult undertaking, especially in the fashion industry. Nevertheless, in this case both applications have been successful, showing that investing in branding and advertising can be an overall winning strategy for companies whose business model consists in reintroducing their most successful designs every season and that may thus benefit greatly from a long-term legal protection of their assets.

 

Federica Pigozzo

Associate Editor, QMJIP

_________________________________

[1]https://www.exane.com/Link!docExternal.action?cmd=69723233263d6c3d26433d3035646138376c316f3575723137206f3d323967266736736d303920

[2]http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86356235&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

[3]http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86048728&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

[4] As stated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. 529 U.S. 205 (2000).

“No one has become poor by giving”. Anne Frank’s Diary, in front of complex Copyright Law issues.

by Maria Tsouvali

Seventy years after the end of World War II, many copyright issues arose regarding Anne Frank’s widely known book “The diary of a young girl”, which –accidentally- became available to the public domain on 1st January alongside Adolf’s Hitler autobiography the “Mein Kampf”. The Swiss foundation, established by Anne’s father Otto Frank, has strongly denied that copyright has expired, and has tried to follow different legal paths (such as trace mark registration) in order to keep exploiting Anne Frank’s diary a little longer.

As far as European law is concerned, copyright protection lasts 70 years post mortem. That means that 70 years after Anne’s death in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945, copyright protection has now elapsed. The Anne Frank Foundation claims Otto Frank to be co-author of the diary and subsequently of the literary work that is embodied in it. Their basic argument is that he edited the original edition to such an extent that it led to a work of joint authorship. But what does joint authorship mean in legal terms?

According to Section 26 and 37(2) of the Dutch Copyright Act[1], in cases where the work has not been made under the guidance of another person or one of the authors, and where the work has not been compiled from various works, two or more creators may be named as co-authors. There is no specific definition of joint authorship here, but through these negative definitions, one may assume that for joint authorship the contribution to the work must be equally significant by all co-authors. In that case, Otto Frank’s contribution did not constitute co-authorship if it was only by editing the original work.

On the other hand can Otto’s contribution be described as having true authorial originality?  As we already know the criterion of originality lies in the author’s own intellectual creation, as a result of ECJ harmonization decisions. Especially after the Infopaq decision, the level and the notion of originality radically changed. It is not just a “sweat of the brow” case.

“ It is only through choice, sequence and combination of [those] words that the author may express his creativity in an original manner and achieve a result which is an intellectual creation”.[2]

Did Anne Frank’s father make such a contribution to the diary? And more importantly, were those contributions as significant as Anne’s so that Otto Frank can be named co-author? The copyright in the original version of the diary certainly should be solely owned by Anne. If the Foundation wants to support such a position in court then the family should provide evidence that Anne’s father directed words or thoughts in the diary or that his alterations were so fundamental that the diary should be considered a reflection of his own work. But isn’t a diary, by definition, something so personal that only one person could have written it?

In my opinion it is not only a matter of originality, or significance, but also a matter of moral rights, albeit only in those countries recognizing moral rights after the expiration of economic rights. It is a matter of historical significance and public interest that the right person is recognized as an author of such work, notwithstanding copyright law. Anne Frank’s diary is not just a best seller it is a landmark of world’s history and part of our social development as human beings.

Also, one might wonder what the rationale of copyright law is in this situation. It’s widely perceived that the law has drawn a certain timeline for copyright protection. This is because the law tries to mediate between private and public interests[3]. If we accept that Otto Frank has copyright in the diary, that will endure until 2051. Isn’t that a very long time for the public to be kept away benefiting from Anne Frank’s legacy? The law is here to balance conflicting interests, and this is the reason that copyright protection should not be further extended.

Copyright law sets boundaries and guards the author’s rights and work, but not so as to perpetually extend protection and economic benefits. As Anne said “No one has ever become poor by giving”. Anne’s Foundation should keep this in mind and offer that treasure-book its freedom.

Maria Tsouvali

Assistant Editor, QMJIP

[1] Ian Walden & Julia Hornle “E-Commerce Law and Practice in Europe”, (2011)Woodhead and Publishing Limited, Chapter 1, p.11.

 

[2]   Infopaq Int. v. Danske Dagblades Forening, Case C-5/08[2009].

[3] L.Bently & B. Sherman “Intellectual Property Law, Oxford University Press”(2014),Chapter 7,p.177.

February 2016 #IPEvents

by Pedro Malaquias

Here is the list of Intellectual Property events occurring in February 2016. If you have knowledge of or are organising any IP event not shown on the list, we would be grateful if you would let us know. Simply leave us a comment or tweet us @QMJIP@PedroMMalaquias #IPEvents and we can add it to the list.

A PDF version of this list is available here.

We also invite you to consult the IPKat’s list of forthcoming events, available here.

United Kingdom and Ireland

  • 2 February – London – CCLS Queen Mary University of London –The role of copyright in the digitisation of cultural heritage (Pinar Oruc) – Link.
  • 3 February – London – City Law School –Enter the Matrix: the Effects of the CJEU’s Case Law on Linking and Beyond – Link.
  • 3 February – London – CCLS Queen Mary University of London –IP Policy Making in the 21st century; The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a “Made in America” Agreement – Link.
  • 4 February – Oxford – OIPRC –Professor Dirk Visser: ‘Shavers, bricks and highchair tricks? The shape of things to come in EU trade mark law?’ – Link.
  • 4 February – London – CIPA –Patentable Subject Matter: Keeping up with 101 in Software Patents – Link.
  • 8 February – London – CCLS Queen Mary University of London –IP limitations and exceptions – Link.
  • 9 February – London – CCLS Queen Mary University of London –Standard-Essential Patents: the EU Landscape (Stylianos Alexandridis) – Link.
  • 9 February – Oxford – OIPRC –Trade secrets in the context of EU law and international law – Link.
  • 9 February – Glasgow – MBL Seminars –A to Z of Intellectual Property Law In One Day – Link.
  • 10 February – London – University of Westminster –Stop me if you think that you’ve heard this one before: music, copyright and plagiarism – Link.
  • 10 February – London – MBL Seminars –Patents Law: Secrets, Threats & More – Link.
  • 11 February – London – LES Britain and Ireland –LES Annual Licensing Update Seminar – Link.
  • 12 February – London – CIPA –Effective use of procedural options at the EPO – Link.
  • 12 February – Dublin, Ireland – ICEL, School of Law, Trinity College Dublin–Modernising Copyright in the EU Digital Single Market: – Link.
  • 15 February – London – CCLS Queen Mary University of London –Free speech and copyright – Link.
  • 15 February – London – Assimilate IP –Building, Managing and Monetizing Your IP Portfolio – Link.
  • 16 February – London – Competition Law Association –BEPS and state aid: a shifting landscape for IP planning – Link.
  • 17 February – London – Osborne Clarke –Current Issues for IP Specialists – Link.
  • 18 February – Oxford – OIPRC –Mr Kevin Mooney: ‘The proposed Unified Patent Court-European thoroughbred or camel’ – Link.
  • 18 February – London – CIPA –Initial Public Offering (IPO) Due Diligence: The Patent Attorney’s Perspective – Link.
  • 18 February – Bournemouth – CIPPM – Public lectures series 2016:Public art and copyright law (Maria Lillà Montagnani) – Link.
  • 19 February – London – MBL Seminars –IP Licensing & EU Competition Law: A Workshop – Link.
  • 22 February – London – CCLS Queen Mary University of London –Beyond warp technology: an analysis of the IP regime on stardate 41978.8 – Link.
  • 22 February – London – ITMA & CIPA –Japanese IP Law & Practice – Link.
  • 23 February – Oxford – OIPRC –Furthering the Development of the Communication to the Public Right Under EU Copyright Law – Link.
  • 23 February – London – Managing IP –MIP International Women’s Leadership Forum 2016 – Link.
  • 23 February – London – ITMA –Patent Plus Designs – Pros and cons of a blended IP portfolio – Link.
  • 23 February – London – CCLS Queen Mary University of London –Farming and intellectual property: the case of Greece (Paraskevi Kollia) – Link.
  • 24 February – Bristol – MBL Seminars –IP for Commercial Lawyers: A Practical Guide – Link.
  • 29 February – London – CCLS Queen Mary University of London –Policy Watch: International Copyright Reforms – Link.

Continental Europe

  • 2 February – Paris, France – FNDE –Dessins et Modèles – Propriété littéraire et artistique – Link.
  • 3 February – Lyon, France – Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 –Les indications géographiques protégeant les produits industriels et artisanaux (IGPIA) : un nouvel actif immatériel – Perspectives spatiales et substantielles – Link.
  • 3 February – Florence, Italy – European University Institute – Copyright challenges in researchLink.
  • 4-5 February – Amsterdam, The Netherlands – Euroforum –Unitary Patent Package – Link.
  • 9-10 February – Courbevoie, France – EPO –Ateliers sur le dépôt en ligne auprès de l’OEB et de l’INPI – Link.
  • 11 February – Helsinki, Finland – IPR University Center –Digitaalinen opetus ja tekijänoikeus – Link.
  • 11 February – Geneva, Switzerland – Faculte de Droit Université de Genève & ECTA –Geographical Indications: Global and Local perspectives – Link.
  • 11-12 February – Paris, France – UNIFAB –21stEuropean Forum of Intellectual Property – Link.
  • 18 February – Alicante, Spain – ECTA –Round Table on Geographical Indications – Link.
  • 18 February – Brussels, Belgium – ERA Academy of European Law –New EU Rules for Digital Contracts – Link.
  • 18 February – Warsaw, Poland – MARQUES –Coexistence Agreement Workshop – Link.
  • 18-19 February – Madrid, Spain – AIPPI Spain –XXXI Jornadas de Estudio sobre Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual – Link.
  • 18-19 February – Cologne, Germany – Wolters Kluwer –Cologne Symposium 2016 – Link.
  • 19 February – Barcelona, Spain – UAB, OMPI, OEPM & CSIC –Comunidad científica y patentes como fuente de innovación – Link.
  • 22 February – Munich, Germany – European Patent Academy –Oral proceedings at the EPO – Link.
  • 23 February – Riga, Latvia – European Patent Academy & Patent Office of the Republic of Latvia –Guidelines2day and Article 123(2) EPC – Link.
  • 23 February – Munich, Germany – European Patent Office –Workshop zur Online-Einreichung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der formalen und verfahrenstechnischen Anforderungen im Patenterteilungsverfahren – Link.
  • 25-26 February – Brussels, Belgium – ERA Academy of European Law –Annual Conference on EU Law in the Pharmaceutical Sector 2016 – Link.
  • 26 February – Munich, Germany – Union IP –Patent priority: prosperous or poisonous? – Link.
  • 28 February to 2 March – Munich, Germany – IPI Organization –IPI-ConfEx 2016 – Link.
  • 29 February – Brussels, Belgium – Liege Competition & Innovation Institute –Regulating Patent “Hold-Up”? An Assessment in Light of Recent Academic, Policy and Legal Evolutions – Link.
  • 29 February – Vienna, Austria – EPO, Patent Information Promotion & Training –Business use of patent information – Link.

USA & Canada

  • 2 February – Boston, MA, USA – CSUSA –Edge Cases in Copyright: Theoretical Problems and Practical Solutions – Link.
  • 3 February – Austin, TX, USA – CSUSA –The Current State of Software Protection, Enforcement, and Licensing – Link.
  • 3 February – Washington, District Of Columbia, USA – CSUSA –The Lingering Legacy of Common Law Copyright: Sound Recordings and Beyond – Link.
  • 3 February – Washington, District Of Columbia, USA – The George Washington University Law School –IP Speaker Series: Branded – Link.
  • 3 February – Bloomington, IL, USA – Maurer School of Law –IP Practitioner-in-Residence: Joel Tragesser – Link.
  • 4 February – Madison, WI, USA – LES US & CANADA –Top 10 Court Cases of 2015 Affecting Licensing – Link.
  • 4 February – Denver, CO, USA – CSUSA –Copyright 101: The Top 5 Things You Cannot Afford to Ignore – Link.
  • 4-5 February – Denver, CO, USA – Denver Law Review –Future World IP: Legal Responses to the Tech Revolution – Link.
  • 5 February – Portland, OR, USA – Lewis & Clark Law School –‘IP In The Trees’ Workshop Series – Sarah Wasserman Rajec – Link.
  • 7-9 February – Phoenix, AZ, USA – LES US & CANADA –The 2006 IP100 Executive Forum – Link.
  • 9 February – Durham, NC, USA – LES US & CANADA –Do’s and Don’t’s of a Licensing Transaction: Questions You Should Ask Your Lawyer – Link.
  • 9 February – Chicago, IL, USA – LES US & CANADA –Perspective on Trades Secrets in a First to File World – Link.
  • 10 February – Charlotte, NC, USA – LES US & CANADA –Licensing the Components of a Sophisticated Biochemical Technique – Link.
  • 11 February – Toronto, Ontario, Canada – LES US & CANADA –Software Licensing: Advanced Issues, Cloud, Open-source Considerations, and the Fallout from Alice – Link.
  • 11 February – Washington, District Of Columbia, USA – LES US & CANADA –The Importance of the U.S. Patent System: A Former Chief Judge’s Perspective – Link.
  • 11 February – New Orleans, Louisiana, USA – CSUSA –Trans-Pacific Partnership: What It Means for Copyright in the U.S. and Beyond – Link.
  • 11-13 February – New Orleans, Louisiana, USA – CSUSA –2016 CSUSA Mid-Winter Meeting – Link.
  • 17 February – Oakland, CA, USA – California Lawyers for the Arts –Copyright Fundamentals in the Music Industry – Link.
  • 11 February – Montreal, Quebec, Canada – LES US & CANADA –Cloud Computing Demystified – Link.
  • 18 February – San Francisco, CA, USA – IAM –Inside Europe’s New Patent Market: Winning Strategies for the UPC Regime – Link.
  • 19 February – San Francisco, CA, USA – SFIPLA –International Patent Practice Update – Link.
  • 19-20 February – Washington, District Of Columbia, USA – University of Washington Law School & CASRIP –Works-in-Progress Intellectual Property (WIPIP) Colloquium 2016 – Link.
  • 23 February – Seattle, WA, USA – CenterForce –The 2nd Annual IP Strategy Summit Seattle – Link.
  • 23 February – New York City, NY, USA – Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts –Oracle v. Google: What is the Scope of Copyright Protection in a Computer Program? – Link.
  • 23-24 February – Boston, MA, USA – PIUG –PIUG 2016 Biotechnology Conference – Link.
  • 24 February – Palo Alto, CA, Canada – LES US & CANADA –The Unitary Patent System and the Unified Patent Court: The Practical Effects of Europe’s New Patent – Link.
  • 24 February – Berkeley, CA, USA – California Lawyers for the Arts –International IP Protection for Your Art and Technology – Link.
  • 25 February – Chicago, IL, USA – IPLAC –Women in IP Committee Eleventh Annual Federal Judicial Panel – Link.
  • 26 February – Chicago, IL, USA – The John Marshall Law School –60th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference: Hot Topics and Current Developments in Patent, Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets Law – Link.
  • 26 February – New York City, NY, USA – AIPLA –AIPLA/NYU Conference on Innovation Clusters – Link.

Asia & Oceania

  • 2-5 February – Fremantle, Australia – The University of Western Australia –Intellectual Property Academic Conference – Link.
  • 8 February – Melbourne, Australia – IP Australia –Trade marks for start-ups – Link.
  • 10 February – Canberra, Australia – IP Australia –Trade marks for start-ups – Link.
  • 11 February – North Ryde, Australia – Association of Corporate Counsels Australia –IP disputes including trade marks, patents, litigation – Link.
  • 11 February – Perth, Australia – Association of Corporate Counsels Australia –IP disputes including trade marks, patents, litigation – Link.
  • 16 February – Singapore – IP Academy –IP/ IPM Course for Public Agencies – Link.
  • 19 February – Singapore – IP Academy –Trade Mark Basics: A Guide for Businesses – Link.
  • 23 February – Singapore – IP Academy –IPM Course & Toolkit for Procurement Officers – Link.
  • 23 February – Melbourne, Australia – Association of Corporate Counsels Australia –Drafting IP Clauses: Tips and Traps for In-House Counsel – Link.
  • 24-26 February – Sydney, Australia – WIPO –Sub-Regional Workshop on Copyright and Related Rights in the South Pacific for Decision Makers – Link.
  • 29 February to 1 March – Singapore – AIPPI & INTA –Designs: Into the Future – Link.

 

@PedroMMalaquias (Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Associate Editor; Legal Researcher at KU Leuven Centre for IT & IP Law; LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law at Queen Mary, University of London.)

 

#PrinceOfAppropriation

by federicapezza

Forget the Mona Lisa and every single painting of young girls sensually lying naked in their perfectly shaped bodies. Forget the well-framed combination of colours and the realistic atmosphere.

Now, start thinking about your digitally double-filtered, spontaneous iPhone selfies .

That’s postmodernity, the time of the fragmentation of the subject, of globalisation, psychoanalysis, inter-textuality and consumer involvement. In other words, this is the time where everything is art apart from what is supposed to be art.

 

In this new context, appropriation art, a movement defined by the Tate gallery as “the more or less direct taking over into a work of art a real object or even an existing work 
of art” can be considered as one of the main controversial areas of study, in so far as it stretches both the definition of art itself and of original protectable work under copyright work.

 

The perfect expression of these issues is the recent Donald Graham claim against Richard Prince, a famous appropriation artist accused by the claimant of unauthorized use of one of his images “Rastafarian Smoking a Joint” in his 2014 show “New Portraits”, a collection Instagram pictures on canvas.

 

Furthermore, this is not the first time the artist had troubles because of this practice: in 2008 he had already been sued by the photographer Patrick Cariou for the incorporation of his photos in the “Canal Zone” series. On that occasion however, the judges, specifying the criteria to get protection under the “fair use doctrine”[1], ruled on the side of Prince, because of the “transformative nature” of his work[2].

 

The outcome could be different in the current situation. In particular, from a legal point of view, apart from privacy concerns, there are three main issues to consider.

Firstly, the need of assessing whether or not a transformative use of the work may be claimed also in a case where the artist’s contribution was limited to the addition of a nonsensical comment under the picture.

Secondly, the issue of liability of the gallery for its contribution to the commercialisation of the work, considering the fact that it had been previously involved in litigation against Cariou and had received requests to cease and desist from Graham before the exhibition.

Finally, the issue on whether under the UK legal system, in the lack of the concept of fair use, the new parody exception would apply.

In anticipation of the ruling, the best we can do is to update our Instagram profile, since maybe, one day, even our “almost-no-filter” pictures could be sold for $90,000.

[1] (1) purpose and character of the use, (2) nature of the copyrighted work, (3) amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and (4) effect of the use on the potential market

[2] Where Cariou’s serene and 
deliberately composed portraits and landscape photographs depict the natural beauty of 
Rastafarians and their surrounding environs, Prince’s crude and jarring works, on the other hand, 
are hectic and provocative

Federica Pezza

Assistant Editor, QMJIP

New referral to the CJEU – Hotel-TV included in the ‘payment of an entrance fee’ ?

by Axel P Ringelhann

C-641/15 – Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk (VGR) is yet another case before the CJEU concerning communication to the public. As can be inferred form the question referred to the CJEU it appears that VGR, the Austrian collecting society managing rights for broadcasting organizations, took legal action against an operator of a hotel for infringement of its broadcasting right.

On 2 December 2015, the Vienna Commercial Court (Austria) lodged a request for a preliminary ruling with the CJEU concerning the interpretation of Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property].

The referring court wants to know whether the condition of ‘payment of an entrance fee’ within the meaning of Article 8(3) Rental and lending Directive is satisfied if

  • separate hotel rooms are equipped with TV-sets and the hotel management distributes the signal of TV and radio programs capable of being seen or heard by means of these apparatus (‘hotel room TV’), and

 

  • the hotel management charges payment for rooms per night (‘room price’), which also includes the use of a TV-set and TV and radio programs capable of being seen or heard by means of these apparatus.

January 2016 #IPEvents

by Pedro Malaquias

Here is the list of Intellectual Property events occurring in January 2016. If you have knowledge of or are organising any IP event not shown on the list, we would be grateful if you would let us know. Simply leave us a comment or tweet us @QMJIP@PedroMMalaquias #IPEvents and we can add it to the list.

A PDF version of this list is available here.

We also invite you to consult the IPKat’s list of forthcoming events, available here.

United Kingdom

  • 11 January – London – CCLS QMUL – The challenge of live-streaming to IP based media models: the case of English Premier League Football rightsLink.
  • 14 January – London – eLAWnora – Dreams are my reality: what lies ahead for EU copyrightLink.
  • 14 January – London – BLACA –Contractual Override of Copyright Exceptions – Link.
  • 14 January – London – Competition Law Association – EU Copyright Reforms and what they mean for the UK Link.
  • 15 January – London – ITMA – ITMA Trade Mark Administrators’ Course 2016Link.
  • 18 January – London – CCLS QMUL – Communication to the PublicLink.
  • 18-22 January – London – UCL IBIL – A course for Copyright, Entertainment & Media Law PractitionersLink.
  • 19 January – London – ITMA – ITMA Moot Trial ‘Jack Wills v House of Fraser’Link.
  • 20 January – London – MBL Seminars – Intellectual Property in R&D CollaborationsLink.
  • 25 January – London – CCLS QMUL – Free speech and industrial property cases: the good, the bad and the commercialLink.
  • 25 January – Manchester – EPO – Guidelines2day and Article 123(2) EPCLink.
  • 26 January – London – ITMA – ITMA London Evening MeetingLink.
  • 26-28 January – London – IQPC – Oil & Gas IP 2016Link.
  • 27 January – London – MBL Seminars – IP for Commercial Lawyers: A Practical GuideLink.
  • 28 January – Bristol – MBL Seminars – A to Z of Intellectual Property Law In One DayLink.

Continental Europe

  • 12-13 January – Amsterdam, Netherlands – Research and markets – Design IP Strategy ConferenceLink.
  • 14 January – Madrid, Spain – FIDE – Tributación de los derechos de propiedad industrial e intelectualLink.
  • 14-15 January – Helsinki, Finland – IPR University Center – Tavaramerkit ja brändit kilpailutekijänäLink.
  • 20 January – Milan, Italy – DE International – Detassazione degli utili prodotti dai beni immateriali: cd. patent boxLink.
  • 21 January – Paris, France – FNDE –Synthèse : Contrats de propriété industrielle sur brevets et savoir-faire – Link.
  • 21 January – Zurich, Switzerland – WIPO – In-House Counsel Seminar Alternative Dispute Resolution for IP and Technology Disputes Recent DevelopmentsLink.
  • 22 January – Lisbon, Portugal – LES – Can You Keep a Secret? Developments in EU and Brazilian Trade Secrets LawLink.
  • 22 January – Brussels, Belgium – ERA –Annual Conference on the EU Unitary Patent 2016 – Link.
  • 22 January – Munich, Germany – EPLIT – UPC Mock TrialLink.
  • 26 January – Madrid, Spain – PT Carratera – Jornada sobre aspectos legales de la I+D+i en el sector de la carreterasLink.
  • 28 January – Munich, Germany – INTA – Trademark Administrators and Paralegals in Germany – Make Yourselves Invaluable to your Firm and Company!Link.
  • 28-30 January – Strasburg, France – EIPIN – La propriété intellectuelle et le pouvoir judiciaireLink.

North America

  • 7 January – San Francisco, California, USA – CSUSA – Copyright Litigation: The Year in Review with Robert ClaridaLink.
  • 14 January – Seattle, Washington, USA – LES – IP value: techniques, recent court decisions, and the impact of proposed USPTO changesLink.
  • 16 January – West Sacramento, CA, USA – California Lawyers for the Arts – 33rd Annual Music Business SeminarLink.
  • 19 January – New York, NY, USA – CSUSA – Copyright & Technology ConferenceLink.
  • 21 January – Houston, TX, USA – LES – Licensing in the CloudLink.
  • 21 January – Los Angeles, CA, USA – CSUSA – Copyright Conversation with Howard KingLink.
  • 22 January – Los Angeles, CA, USA – LAIPLA – LAIPLA Washington in the West 2016Link.
  • 24-27 January – Miami, FL, USA – ACPC – 2016 ACPC Winter MeetingLink.
  • 25-27 January – San Francisco, California, USA – Legal IQPC – 16th Anti-Counterfeiting & Brand ProtectionLink.
  • 27-30 January – LaQuinta, CA, USA – AIPLA –AIPLA 2016 Mid-Winter Institute: Enforcing IP – From Creation to Monetization and Litigation – Link.
  • 28 January – Philadelphia, PA, USA – CSUSA – Online Video DistributionLink.

Asia

  • 7-9 January – New Delhi, India – ITAG Business Solutions –8th Global IP Convention – Link.
  • 11 January – Singapore – IP Academy – IP/ IPM Course for Public AgenciesLink.
  • 11 January – Singapore – IP Academy – Apply Basic Knowledge of Patents Law to Support an OrganisationLink.
  • 11-27 January – Singapore – IP Academy – Apply Basic Knowledge of Intellectual Property Law to Support an OrganisationLink.
  • 12-26 January – Singapore – IP Academy – 3rd Development in IP Law SeriesLink.
  • 13 January – Singapore – IP Academy – Apply Basic Knowledge of Registered Designs Law to Support an OrganisationLink.
  • 18-19 January – Dubai, United Arab Emirates – IIPLA – 2nd Dubai IP Congress 2016Link.
  • 19 January – Singapore – IP Academy – IPM Course & Toolkit for Procurement OfficersLink.
  • 20-21 January – Phnom Penh, Cambodia – WIPO – National Workshop for the Effective Utilization of the Madrid System for Trademark Agents & SpecialistsLink.
  • 20-22 January – Singapore – ITECH Law – 2016 International Asia-Pacific ConferenceLink.
  • 22-24 January – Beijing, China – China IP and the IPR Channel of China Daily Website – The 6th China IP International Annual Forum 2016 Annual Conference of In-house IP Managers in China: IP Route and Strategy: Internationalization of Chinese EnterprisesLink.
  • 24 January – Singapore – IP Academy – Apply Basic Knowledge of Trade Marks Law to Support an OrganisationLink.
  • 26-27 January – Tehran, Iran – WIPO – WIPO National Workshop on the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): The System for Worldwide Filing of Patent ApplicationsLink.
  • 27 January – Singapore – IP Academy – Apply Basic Knowledge of Copyrights Law to Support an OrganisationLink.