QMJIP

Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property

Category: Uncategorized

“Turn Down For What?” How About For Copyright Law!?

by Lisa D. Rhooms

In early May, Hip-Hop artiste, Lil’ Jon, and DJ and record producer, DJ Snake, were sued for willful copyright infringement. The complaint[1] is that the massively popular song “Turn Down For What”[2] released by the defendants, substantially copied another song, also entitled “Turn down For What”[3], and performed by Freddie GZ. The complaint contends:

“The copying alleged herein directly misappropriates quantitatively and qualitatively important portions of [the] Plaintiff’s Original Work in a manner that is easily recognizable to the ordinary observer. While [the] Defendants received accolades, awards, and a fortune for the Infringing Works, and built a brand on a foundation of copyright infringement, the writers truly responsible for the success of the Infringing Works received nothing, and their publisher, which owns the copyright, is now forced to bring this action to vindicate their rights for the taking of their work…”[4]

Lil’ Jon and DJ Snake are also not the only defendants whom the complaint alleges either performed, sold, caused to be sold, licenced, distributed or benefited from the sale of the purportedly infringing song.

The complaint also claims that:

“The idea for the Original Work came about in mid-to-late 2012. Freddie GZ and the team at A2M routinely threw around a saying, namely “turn down for what.” “Turn down for what” was their version of the colloquial term “turn up” (used to describe “get wild” or “let’s party,” among other things). Freddie GZ wanted to brand it, and believed the best way to brand this theme was to record it in a song. Freddie GZ composed the Original Song with Tha Architectz in late 2012; the final version was finished in the studio in January of 2013. A2M liked the Original Song and it was released as a single on March 9, 2013.[5]

The plaintiff contends that the original work was released to the public via several channels, including radio, iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, and YouTube, and gives statistics of the reach of the original work. The complaint also alleges that after the release, the song was “hyped” by respected Hip-Hop artistes such as Charlamagne.

As evidence of Lil’ Jon and DJ Snake’s awareness of the claimed original work, the plaintiff suggests:

“Tellingly, Lil Jon and DJ Snake exchanged tweets on July 15, 2013, only four months after the release of [the] Plaintiff’s Original Work. DJ Snake tweeted to Lil Jon ‘Turn Down For What ??? @LilJon’; Lil Jon replied ‘LET’S GO! Rt’@djsnake: Turn Down For What ??? @LilJon.’”[6]

The plaintiff further alleges that it was after the release of the original song that Lil’ Jon and DJ Snake recorded their “Turn Down For What”, which was “striking[ly] similar…[to] the Original Work and [which]when paired together with the timeline of events cannot be a coincidence.[Further] there is no possibility that the Infringing Works are creatures of independent creation.[7] Lil’ Jon and DJ Snake’s song was released in December 2013.

The crux of the copyright issue is that the similarities between Freddie GZ’s song and the contended infringing song are obvious, and are either undeniable similar or substantially similar; “strikingly similar”. As evidence, the complaint cites “Whosampled.com”, a website “which claims to be the world’s most comprehensive, detailed, and accurate database of samples, cover songs, and remixes, covering the entire history of music”[8],and which suggests that the Lil’ Jon and DJ Snake song sampled the plaintiff’s song.

Without going into too much about rhythm, count and lyric placement, as the complaint does, one essential point in the complaint was that:

“The Original Work’s introduction contains a steadily rising synth sound and the Infringing Works also start with a slowly rising synth line for the first seven measures. This similarity would be obvious to an ordinary listener and is just one example of the substantial similarities between the works at issue.” [9]

 Further:

“The structures of both songs are substantially similar. The choruses, which follow the introduction in both songs, are repeated three times in each song after two eight-measure sections, and both songs conclude with an instrumental section. This is very significant, would be obvious to an ordinary observer, and is a striking similarity. This is also not a common structure and the uses of eight measure sections are not common in rap songs.”[10]

 The complaint then alleges the commercial success of the allegedly infringing single which sold over a million copies in less than four months, certifying it platinum, and which has been remixed, with even a popular Dancehall remix; and which has been included on several compilation albums. The allegedly infringing song has also been on the music charts, and featured on the soundtracks of major motion picture films, and in commercials. Further, “Turn Down For What” has been featured on merchandise, and trade mark applications have been filed by the defendants for the phrase, as a word mark. The complaint sets out:

“Upon information and belief, the overwhelming success of the Infringing Works has provided [the] Defendants with substantial opportunities to tour and perform around the world. The revenue and profits derived from these performances and appearances are attributable to the success of the Infringing Works. These opportunities would not have been available to [the] Defendants if they had not infringed upon [the] Plaintiff’s Original Work, and are a ‘but-for’ cause of such profit.”[11]

The complaint states that these profits exceed fifteen million United States dollars (US$15,000,000.00).

In the concluding paragraph, the plaintiff prays for a declaration of infringement, an award of damages, and a permanent injunction, among other relief. It also demands a trial by jury.

Comment and Conclusion

Copyright Law is serious business, and if recent judgments such as the Robin Thicke “Blurred Lines” case are anything to go by, there may be nothing to sing, dance or ‘turn up’ about for the defendants. It will be interesting to see where this case goes, and whether substantial similarity will be found, coupled with an intention or will to infringe an earlier work, from which huge commercial gains flowed. Should a jury grant the relief as prayed, “Turn Down For What” may be turning down for good, for Copyright Law.

Lisa Diana Rhooms

 Assistant Editor, QMJIP

[1] Case 1:17-Cv-03329 filed 05/04/17 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFy0hQ3lY-w.

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stUSatCj6QM (Warning! Contains expletives).

[4] ibid n. 1 [2].

[5] [26] and [27].

[6] [37].

[7] ibid.

[8] ibid n. 1 [47].

[9] [48].

[10] [58].

[11] [86].

“Establishment” in the EU requires a broad interpretation, says the CJEU

by Alina Trapova

While likelihood of confusion, reputation, earlier national rights, distinctiveness and descriptiveness, etc. certainly form the “meat” of most EU trade mark disputes, a case can be quickly thrown out of court on the ground that the said court is not the right forum to hear the dispute. This is however not what is foreseen to happen in the Hummel vs. Nike conflict below, which originated in the German courts (and is perhaps going to unfold there in the future).

Whoiswho

Hummel Holding owns an international trade mark registration designating the EU for goods in Class 25 (“clothing”).

Nike Inc., the first defendant, is the ultimate holding company of the Nike Group, which has its seat in the US.

Nike Retail BV, the second defendant, forms part of the Nike Group and has its seat in the Netherlands. Interestingly, this undertaking operates a website on which Nike goods are sold in Germany and supplies independent dealers, again in Germany, with Nike goods.

Nike Deutschland GmbH, not a party to the proceedings, is a subsidiary of Nike Retail BV and has its seat in Germany. It does not have its own website, nor does it sell goods to the end consumer or intermediaries. What it actually engages in, is the negotiation of contracts between intermediaries and Nike Retail BV and the support of Nike Retail BV in connection with advertising and performance of contracts. It also provides after-sale service to consumers.

Previously on whohasjurisdiction

Hummel claims that some of Nike’s products, in particular basketball shorts, infringe its trade mark and that most of these infringements took place in Germany. Hence, it brought an action against Nike Inc. and Nike Retail BV before the Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Germany). The court held that it had jurisdiction since Nike Deutschland GmbH was an “establishment” of Nike. The action failed however on the merits.

Upon appeal, the concept of “establishment” as per Article 97(1) EUTM was disputed. Ultimately, the question for the CJEU for a preliminary ruling was whether Nike Deutschland GmbH is an “establishment” for the purpose of Article 97(1)?

CJEU favours uniformity and broad interpretation

On 18 May 2017, the CJEU gave its preliminary ruling in which it emphasised heavily the necessity for an “autonomous” and “uniform” interpretation of the concept of “establishment”.

Next, the Court analysed the wording, context and objective of Article 97(1) EUTMR.

(i) Wording

The provision says in essence that infringement proceedings in EUTM matters are to be brought in “courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled” or “has an establishment”.

It is apparent from the wording of the provision that a defendant, not domiciled in the EU, may have one or more establishments within the EU, which suggests that actions may be brought before the courts of various Member States where those establishments are located.

(ii) Context and objective

The Article aims to ensure that a court in the EU always has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes concerning infringement of an EU trade mark. As such, Article 97(1) establishes the primary rule of domicile/establishment. Only if the defendant has no domicile, nor an establishment in an EU Member State, then do the subsequent provisions kick in. They would act as an alternative, which provides for jurisdiction to lie with the courts of the domicile or establishment of the plaintiff and, as a further alternative, with the courts of the Member State where EUIPO has its seat (Article 97(2) and (3)). These are designed in a somewhat cascade manner. So the concept of “establishment” should be interpreted broadly since this is not the exception to the basic rule of jurisdiction at the defendant’s domicile. This was a point also emphasised by the Advocate General.

Touching upon some of the facts of the dispute before it, the Court ruled that it is irrelevant whether a body has legal personality for the purpose of it being an “establishment”. What matters is that third parties are able to rely on the appearance created by the establishment acting as an extension of the parent body. Coming even closer to the peculiarities of the dispute, the Court considered irrelevant the fact that an undertaking is a second-tier subsidiary of a parent body with a seat outside the EU and not a direct one.

Eventually, such a second-tier subsidiary, with a seat in a Member State, of a parent body, without a seat in the EU, is an “establishment” of that parent body if there are visible signs that the subsidiary is a centre of operations which, in the Member State where it is located, has a certain real and stable presence from which a commercial activity is pursued, as manifested by the presence of personnel and material equipment and has the appearance of permanency to the outside world, such as an extension of the parent body.

Full judgment can be found here.

Alina Trapova LL.M. (QMUL)

Here we laugh again! The eternal controversy over parody scope in Copyright law

by federicapezza

Remix, mash-up, fan fictions and “other strange animals”:  welcome all to the taking from-era.The eternal tension between original creator property rights and guarantee of social interests in Copyright law, is becoming even more crucial nowadays, due to the increasingly common practice of elaborating and reinterpreting copyrighted material.

One of the latest issues comes from the US.

Again, a balance is required. This time, however, the bone of contention lies in the drawings of comic books. Here we go again my dear copyright lawyer! Well, here we laugh again, to be fair.

But first things first. Let’s have a look at the facts.

Comixmix has been sued by Dr Seuss Enterprises(DSE), the estate of late children’s author and illustrator Theodor Seuss Geisel, for trying to sell a book called Oh, The Places You’ll Boldly Go!, proposed on Kickstarter as a “mash-up” of Dr. Seuss and Star Trek. In particular, the plaintiff, in its formal complaint, alleges that the unauthorized publication of the book,” by using innumerable copyrighted elements” of the original and iconic Dr Seuss “Oh the Place You’ll Go” , presents a clear infringement of his copyright under the US Copyright Act s. 106. Further, it would also amount to a trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, due to the distinctiveness of Dr Seuss marks[1]. On the other side, the creators, although totally aware of the risks connected to their work, rely on the fair use defence under s. 107 of the US Copyright Act. [2]

Quite interestingly, the lawsuit follows another complaint, based on the same reasons, which has been filed by CBS and Paramount Pictures over another crowd-funded project — a professional-quality “fan film” titled Axanar[3].

But there is more.

What makes the dispute even more intriguing to the non-geeks is the fact that the plaintiff, Dr Seuss, had already been involved, a few years ago, in one of the US leading cases on Copyright Law and Fair Dealing. [4]In that instance the US Court, having to decide whether the “Cat NOT in the Hat “by Dr Juice constituted an infringing copy of Dr Seuss book “The Cat in the Hat”, found for the plaintiff, ruling out the justifiability of the work under the US fair use doctrine. In that occasion the court adopted a narrow[5] interpretation of parody notion, which excluded the applicability of the exception any time the new work, rather than targeting the previous one(target parody),made use of it as a weapon against society.

Thus, how can one draw the line between authorised fan fiction and infringing copy?        As always, when talking about copyright, the answer is not a straightforward one.Law changes, society evolves, judicial interpretation is subjective…

So keep calm and go back to your Marvel Comics, my dear copyright lawyer.  That’s the daily lesson: he who laughs last, laughs best.

Federica Pezza

Assistant Editor, QMJIP


 

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3219155-Seuss-Suit.html

[2] Noticeably, on their webpage, anticipating the lawsuit, they already proclaimed While we firmly believe that our parody, created with love and affection, fully falls within the boundary of fair use, there may be some people who believe that this might be in violation of their intellectual property rights. And we may have to spend time and money proving it to people in black robes. And we may even lose that.”

[3] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2660454-Startreklawsuit.html

[4] DR SEUSS ENTERPRISES v. PENGUIN BOOKS USA INC http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1384979.html

[5] For the developmets on the fair use defence in US look at Cariou v Prince where a broader notion of fair use based on the transformativeness of the work has been elaborated.

Bogus Buys: Trade marks and Counterfeiting

by Lisa D. Rhooms

Counterfeiting comes in many forms, and is nothing new in business or in the law of Intellectual Property. However, where counterfeit goods are becoming nearly imperceptible, they pose a real risk to the owners of the goods being “knocked off”, and the buyers who believe they are getting the real thing. In a recent press release from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development[1] about their new report[2], they found that:

“nearly one in five mobile phones and one in four video game consoles shipped internationally is fake, as the growing trade in counterfeit IT and communications hardware weigh on consumers, manufacturers and public finances…”[3]

Counterfeiting however, does not begin or end with IT or communications goods, as nearly every good can, and probably has been counterfeited.

Counterfeiting and the Trade mark- Confusion and Passing Off

Whether under United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) or European law, counterfeiting of a mark, particularly a famous trade mark, affects the mark, though the degree or harm may vary. The case of Hermes Intern v Lederer de Paris Fifth Avenue., Inc.[4] spells out skillfully, the harms that can arise where there is confusion because of the similarity of marks and goods, one counterfeit and one real. The judgment states:

“a loss occurs where a sophisticated buyer purchases a knock off and passes it off to the public as the genuine article, thereby confusing the viewing public and achieving the status of owning the genuine article at a knock off price… the creation of confusion in the post sale context can be harmful in that if there are too many knockoffs in the market, sales of the original may declines because the public is fearful that what there are purchasing may not be an original… the purchaser of an original is harmed by the widespread existence of knockoffs because the high  value of originals, which derives in part from their scarcity, is lessened.”[5]

This case looks at the harm in a post sale context, including the harm to owner of the mark, in terms of reduced sales, the fear of the prospective consumers that the goods they may be purchasing are fake, and the actual loss to owners of the goods due to a lack of scarcity. This case helps to illustrate the multifaceted harm counterfeiting can cause.

In the United Kingdom, even an unregistered trade mark is protected against counterfeiting by the law of passing off because of the harm it can cause to a trader. This is demonstrated in the case of Reddaway v Banham[6], where the judgement made clear that “nobody has any right to represent his goods as the goods of somebody else”[7]which is a clear shot at counterfeiting, as where there is passing off, there is harm, and when a trader commits passing off, he for all intents and purposes steals another trade’s patron and his reputation.

Counterfeiting and the Trade mark- Dilution

Another problem with counterfeiting is that it may cause dilution, which is a concept found in the US, UK, Europe and elsewhere. In the US, sections 43(c)(2)(b) and 43(c)(2)(c) of the Lanham Act relate to dilution by blurring, and dilution by tarnishment respectively. Dilution is a concept in respect of a famous trade mark, and dilution by blurring arises where the marks are so similar that the distinctiveness of the famous mark is impaired by the other mark. Cases such as Levi Strauss & Co v Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.[8] have determined that there need not even be an identity or substantial similarity of marks for there to be blurring, so a counterfeit item, intended to be a replica, would almost certainly cause dilution by blurring. Dilution by tarnishment arises where there is a similarity of the marks which gives rise to an association between the marks, and which harms the reputation of the famous mark. Thus, in the case of V Secret Catalogue inc, v Mosely[9], the court found that there was a rebuttable presumption of tarnishment where the famous mark was connected with sex products. Another scenario where tarnishment is possible is where the product, similar to one bearing the famous mark, is of poorer quality. Counterfeits are generally cheaper and of poorer quality than famous more expensive brands, and thus, a counterfeit good could very easily cause dilution by tarnishment. Again, in the UK, unregistered marks are protected by passing off, and dilution is a category of harm under passing off.

Conclusion

Counterfeiting is a sin against a genuine good as it can steal, kill and destroy. A counterfeit good can steal a customer from a trademarked brand, kill its reputation and destroy the business of the holder of the trade mark. Intellectual Property law, trade mark law in particular must therefore take serious steps in addressing counterfeiting through the policing of brands, bringing action against counterfeiters, and imposing other sanctions including heavy fine, and imprisonment. Trade mark law must be very careful, but also unyielding in disallowing bogus buys from hindering genuine products, and the resources which have gone into engineering them.

Lisa Diana Rhooms

Assistant Editor, QMJIP

[1] http://www.oecd.org/gov/trade-in-counterfeit-ict-goods-9789264270848-en.htm

[2] OECD (2017), Trade in Counterfeit ICT Goods, OECD Publishing, Paris.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264270848-en

[3] Ibid 1

[4] 55 U.S. P.Q 2d 1360 (2nd Cir. 2000)

[5] ibid

[6] [1896] AC 199

[7] ibid

[8] 633 F.3 1158 (9th Cir. 2011)

[9] 605 F.3 382 (6th Cir. 2010)

Right (not) to be forgotten in the companies register – an update from the CJEU

by Alina Trapova

Although strictly speaking not an IP matter, the right to be forgotten has entertained IP “cousin” blogs, journals and academics. Hence, a little update from the data protection sector would not harm.

Mr Salvatore Manni (IT) was the sole director of the company Italiana Costruzioni Srl, responsible for the construction of a tourist complex in Italy. He brought an action against the Lecce Chamber of Commerce since the companies register revealed that he had been the administrator of another company (Immobiliare e Finanziaria Salentina Srl) which went bankrupt back in 1992. Mr Manni believed that this publicly available information was the reason why properties in the newly built tourist complex were not selling. Therefore, it should be deleted, anonymised or blocked from the register.

Basis for his claim was the so-called Google Spain case [1], which in essence says that individuals have the right under certain conditions to request search engines to remove links with personal information about them. For the right to be forgotten to kick in, that information should be inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive, which was the case of Mr González where press articles discussed debt recovery proceedings in which he had been involved 16 years ago. Nevertheless, the right to be forgotten is far from absolute – it must be appropriately balanced with other fundamental interests such as freedom of speech. Inevitably, each case is assessed on its own merits.

Mr Manni was successful before the Court of Lecce (Tribunale di Lecce), which ordered the said information to be anonymised and compensation for the damage to be paid. The Lecce Chamber of Commerce was however unhappy with this outcome and appealed the case before the Court of Cassation (Corte suprema di cassazione), which in turn referred several questions to the CJEU. In essence it asked whether the Directive on protection of personal data [2] and the Directive on disclosure of company documents [3] preclude the public from accessing, without any time limit, data relating to natural persons set out in the companies register.

In a judgment of 9 March 2017 (C-987/15) the CJEU was less sympathetic to Mr Manni than the Tribunale di Lecce. It outlined the important role of the public companies register, i.e. safeguarding interests of third parties in relation to joint stock companies and limited liability companies. The Court also emphasised that it was not possible to specify the period after which the retention of this personal information would no longer be necessary.

It acknowledged that such retention of personal information long after the dissolution of a company interferes with fundamental rights, i.e. the respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data, both enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Yet such interference is not disproportionate as only limited data is entered on the company register and is nevertheless justified since natural persons who choose to set up joint stock company or limited liability company are to disclose data relating to their identity and functions within that entity.

However, there is a caveat – in specific situations after a sufficiently long period following the dissolution of the company in question there might be overriding and legitimate reasons justifying the limitation of access to that personal data (of course, relating to the specific case at hand). As usual, this limitation is applied on a case-by-case approach and it is up to each Member State to decide whether to adopt it.

In the present case, the legitimate interest of third parties in having access to the information in the companies register was vital and the mere fact that properties of a tourist complex do not sell as potential purchasers have access to Mr Manni’s data in the companies register was insufficient to outweigh it.

 Comment

Italy is a beautiful country (proof here, here, here, etc.), so the blame-shifting attempt about not selling the properties did not play to Mr Manni’s benefit on this occasion. Every time expressions such as “balancing against other fundamental rights”, “a case-by-case assessment” and “specific situations” crop up, one has the feeling that legal certainty quietly leaves the room. Well, it is safe to say that in the 65 paragraphs of this CJEU preliminary ruling no such ambiguity was left. After all, the companies register is not equivalent to Google Search.

Full judgment can be found here.

Alina Trapova LL.M. (QMUL)

[1] Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González, Case C-131/12.

[2] Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995, L 281, p.31).

[3] First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 (OJ 1968, L 65, p.8), as amended by Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 July 2003 (OJ 2003, L 221, p. 13).

An apple a day…keeps competitors away

by Alina Trapova

Pear Technologies Limited applied to register  Pear Technologies as an EUTM for computers, software, maintenance of computer software, etc. in Classes 9, 35 and 42. Apple Inc. opposed the application based on, inter alia, EUTM No. 9 784 299 Apple , registered for the unsurprisingly long list of goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. Importantly, reputation was claimed for, among others, goods/services in the here contested Classes 9, 35 and 42. The grounds of opposition were those laid down in Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) EUTMR, whereby Article 8(5) was the focal point of analysis for both EUIPO instances.

EUIPO’s Opposition Division upheld the opposition based on Article 8(5) EUTMR. Apple’s reputation, the identity/similarity of the goods and services and the potential harm in the form of unfair advantage were far from problematic to prove here. What is more intriguing is the signs’ comparison analysis.

comparison of signs

One must be recalled that for an Article 8(5) reputation-based opposition the threshold for signs’ similarity is lower than the one required for confusing similarity oppositions under Article 8(1)(b). In the present case, similarity leading to association is sufficient. In those lines, according to the Opposition Division, the signs were similar for the purpose of Article 8(5) as “the figurative element of the pear in the contested sign has graphical features which are similar to those of the earlier mark, and it will be associated with the concept of a pear, which is related to the concept of an apple.”

The 5th Board of Appeal in a decision of 18 January 2017 (R 860/2016-5) was not sympathetic to Pear Technology Limited and dismissed its appeal action. Apple’s overwhelming reputation is indisputable, so the numerous exhibits substantiating its strong market position are rather uninteresting from a trade mark perspective. The same goes for the comparison of the goods and services as it was rather straightforward for the Board to establish identity/similarity.

It was the comparison of signs which was rather more noteworthy.

Having reinstated the principles related to Article 8(5) the Board emphasised once more that “where there is no similarity between the marks at issue, the reputation or recognition enjoyed by the earlier mark and the fact that the goods or services concerned are identical or similar are not sufficient grounds for finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue or that the relevant public will make a link between them”. So, key here was to determine whether some similarity existed between the two signs.

In the Board’s view, visually the two signs depict a piece of fruit including a stalk/leaf. The differences are acknowledged, namely the word ‘PEAR’, the missing ‘bite’ taken out of the contested sign and the various black rectangular shapes within the contested sign. However, the following similarities hinted to the outcome the Board was headed for:

  • A leaf, even though different in shape, is placed in a similar position on both signs and is in fact in both signs oriented right at 45% and clearly detached from the fruit.
  • The figurative elements in the contested sign, positioned centrally, are dominant as the word “PEAR” is smaller, in a faded font and therefore considered secondary. Besides, it reinforces the figurative elements and creates a semantic unit.
  • Both signs depict sleek rounded silhouettes of a fruit, whereby “the abstract stylisations of the silhouettes are similar.”

Conceptually, a pear and an apple even though two distinguishable fruits, will be associated to one another.

Eventually, the Board acknowledged that the marks are only slightly similar and that “admittedly, there are some mental steps involved in the perception of the consumer”, but “because of the uniqueness and high reputation of the earlier mark the contested sign’s allusive, somewhat mocking image of the ‘pear’ will trigger and establish a mental ‘link’ with the earlier ‘Apple’ logo”

As a result, the contested sign can be associated with the earlier mark and in view of the identity of the goods and services it is capable of taking unfair advantage of Apple’s well-established reputation and the considerable investment undertaken by Apple to achieve that reputation.

Comment

Reputation, reputation, reputation. These are the words that echo even when one reads parts of the decision on entirely different norms, such as the comparison of signs. The decision should be approached with caution and in that sense looked at with the following peculiarity in mind – the opponent was not just anyone, but Apple Inc. and that should not be taken lightly by competitors.

Alina Trapova LL.M. (QMUL)

QMJIP – Volume 7 – Issue 1 (April 2017)

by Giancarlo Moretti

The last issue of QMJIP has been released (Volume 7 – Issue 1). The table of content reads as follows:

  • Editorial – J Gibson
  • Making patents work: of IP duties and deficient disclosures – S Basheer
  • Whither China’s protection of geographical indications? A case study of Qinzhouhuang Millet – Z Xiaoping
  • Protection of ‘handicraft’ as geographical indications under municipal law, TRIPS and BTAs vis-à-vis CETA: ‘Bangladeshi Jamdani’ as case study – M A Karim & M E Karim
  • Control or promote? China’s cultural censorship system and its influence on copyright protection – T He
  • Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on the Letters Patent for Invention Act 1835 – P Johnson
  • Metall auf Metall’ – the German Federal Constitutional Court discusses the permissibility of sampling music tracks Bunderverfassungsgericht BVerfG 1 BvR 1585/13 – ‘Metall auf Metall’ – M D Mimler
  • Book Review – M Iljadica
  • Book Review – R Sciaudone

 

Giancarlo Moretti LL.M. (QMUL), Ph.D. Candidate (QMUL) @GCarloMoretti

Latest news from WTO: amendment on TRIPS patent compulsory licensing finally entered into force

by Giancarlo Moretti

On Monday 23 January, after more than a 11-year waiting, the amendment on the current regime on patent compulsory licensing eventually entered into force. The protocol amending the Agreement has required the acceptance of two third of WTO member countries before taking effect. As remarked by the official statement, this process has been boosted during the last two years, with the deposit of instruments of acceptance by 37% of the members. The contracting parties that have not accepted the amendment yet are still bound to the waiver decided in 2003.

As for the substance, new Article 31bis allows now compulsory licenses for pharmaceutical products to be exported to countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity. This provision derogates the requirement of Article 31(f) of the TRIPS Agreement[1], according to which the issuing of a compulsory licensing ‘shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use’.

The discussion about Article 31 (f) and the connected limitation for developing and least-developed countries emerged during the Doha Round. The ‘Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health’ recognised the difficulties related to the exploitation of this TRIPS flexibility. In order to tackle this issue, before the amendment signature in 2005, a waiver allowing compulsory licensing for exportation of drugs was adopted in 2003. So far, it has been applied just in one case, with Canada issuing a compulsory licensing in favour of Rwanda for the exportation of anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS.[2]

Despite the discussions occurred last year at UN[3] and WTO,[4] the new amendment could be considered a major step ahead in assuring access to essential medicines to countries with no manufacturing capacity. Indeed, setting up and developing infrastructures that could be able to produce generic drugs may require a long period of time. The new instrument waive Article 31(f) as for the requirement of production for domestic market, but at the same time it provides for adequate remuneration to be be paid to patent holders in accordance with Article 31(h). Except paragraph (f), all the other parts of Article 31 are applicable, in order to try to struck a balance between the interests of the different actors involved.

Eventually, given the partial failure of 2003 waiver, it cannot be predicted if this amendment will be able to provide an efficient tool for addressing the issue of access to medicine. The results will be clearer in the upcoming years. In any case, it can be considered a partial victory for developing and least-developed countries, that could rely on a further flexibility in order to grant effective access to essential life-saving drugs.


 

[1] WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

[2] For a comment see J. Gibson, Intellectual Property, Medicine and Health Current Debates (Ashgate 2009) 154-156.

[3]See  http://www.unsgaccessmeds.org/#homepage-1.

[4] See https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/trip_08nov16_e.htm.

 

Giancarlo Moretti LL.M. (QMUL), Ph.D. Candidate (QMUL) @GCarloMoretti

November 2016 #IPEvents

by Giancarlo Moretti

Here is the list of Intellectual Property events occurring in November 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 and we can add it to the list.

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

UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND

  • 1 November – Oxford – Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre – Protecting Authors’ Rights through Human Rights Rationales: A Latin American comparative perspective Link.
  • 2 November – Glasgow – CREATe – CREATe Public LectureLink.
  • 2 November – London – CIPA – The 818th Ordinary General Meeting of the Chartered Institute – Link.
  • 2 November – London – ITMA – Women in IP – Launch eventLink.
  • 3 November – Bournemouth – CIPPM – Is there a European future for UK Intellectual Property Law- Link.
  • 3 November – London – ITMA – 2016 ITMA Seminar for Litigators Link.
  • 3 November – London – CCLS – Systemic Implications of the Enhanced Patent Cooperation Link.
  • 3 November – Oxford – Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre – The Propertisation of Trade Mark Law – Link.
  • 7 November – London – QMUL-CCLS & IPKey – EU-China Intellectual Property Forum: Preparing for Opportunities, Responding to Challenges Link.
  • 7 November – London – UCL – Drafting Clearer Contracts – Link.
  • 7 November – Southampton – iCLIC – It’s too complicated: How the Internet upends Katz, Smith, and electronic surveillance law – Link.
  • 8 November – Glasgow – CREATe – Copyright and Creation Link.
  • 8 November – London – MBL – A to Z of Intellectual Property Law – Link.
  • 8 November – London – Music tank – Rock ‘n’ Roll Disasters & What They Taught Me
    Read –
    Link.
  • 9 November – London – Osborne & Clarke – Commercialising your IP assets in the Life Sciences sector – Link.
  • 8 November – Manchester – ITMA – CJEU and General Court decisions 2016Link.
  • 9 November – Bournemouth – CIPPM – Opening PANDORA’S BOX: bridging the gap between film preservation and IP Link.
  • 9 November – Leeds – MBL – ‘Brexit’ – The Implications for European Trade Marks & Community Designs Link.
  • 9 November – London – FBLIP – Food And Beverage Law and IP – Link.
  • 10 November – Glasgow – CREATe – Open Innovation Design Jam – Link.
  • 10 November – Cambridge – BLACA & CIPIL – News and Copyright – Link.
  • 10 November – London – SCL – Advising in a time of technological change – Link.
  • 10 November – London – Taylor & Wessing – The British Fashion Council Fashion Trust & Taylor Wessing Seminar – Link.
  • 11 November – London – LES Britain and Ireland – The New Lambert Agreement Seminar Link.
  • 14-15 November – London- CIPA – The 2016 Life Sciences Conference – Link.
  • 15 November – London – Bird&Bird – Annual TechLaw Day 2016Link.
  • 15 November – London – UCL – IP Licensing: An Advanced Level Drafting WorkshopLink.
  • 15 November – Edinburgh- UK IPO – Intellectual Property: the Value within – Link.
  • 16 November – London – CIPA & UCL – Do Patents have a ‘Chilling Effect’ on the Incentives for Research and Development?Link.
  • 16 November – London – UCL & IBIL – Annual Innovation Panel – Link.
  • 18 November – London – MBL – Patent Court Litigation – Link.
  • 21 November – London – CIPA – Patent Case Law – Link.
  • 22 November – London – CCLS – Introduction to US Intellectual Property Law Research – Link.
  • 23 November – London – UK IPO – Enforcing IP on a Budget Link.
  • 23 November – London – Management Forum – Advanced Drafting Techniques for Successful EPO Patent Applications – Link.
  • 24 November – London – Bond Dickinson – Why were Trunki sent packing again? (and other recent developments in IP Law)Link.
  • 24 November – London – Bird& Bird – 2016 Annual IP SeminarLink.
  • 24 November – Manchester – ITMA – Recent developments on online blocking Injunctions and colour TMsLink.
  • 24 November – Oxford – OIPRC – Copyright and Course Packs: A Collision of Competing Values? – Link.
  • 28 November – London – Assimilate IP – Freedom to Operate for the Engineering Industries – Link.
  • 28 November – London – CIPA –CIPA/ITMA New Student Induction Day – Link.
  • 28 November – Bristol – CIPA – Patent Case Law – Link.
  • 29 November – London – UCL – Drafting and Negotiating Contracts with Universities Link.
  • 28-29 November – London – IBC Legal – International Copyright Law 2016Link.

CONTINENTAL EUROPE

  • 1 November – Helsinki, Finland – IPR – The Logistic of Ideas – Link.
  • 3 November – Strasbourg, France – CCI Alsace – Brexit – Consequences pour la PI Link.
  • 3 November – Munich, Germany – IAM – Pharma and Biotech IP Summit – Link.
  • 3 November – Madrid, Spain –EPO – PCT at EPO – Link.
  • 5 November – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – Vrije University – Selected Problems of the EU Trademark Law Reform Link.
  • 7-8 November – Paris, France –Dennemayer – Dennemayer Annual Meeting – Link.
  • 7-9 November – Cologne, Germany – BIO Europe – 22nd Annual International Partnering Conference – Link.
  • 8-10 November – Madrid, Spain – EPO – Patent Information Conference 2016 – Link.
  • 9 November – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – FORUM – Patent Due DiligenceLink.
  • 10 November – Paris, France – ASPI – Droit des Brevets – Link.
  • 10 November – Basel, Switzerland – University of Basel – IP Protection of Biological Inventions – Link.
  • 10 November – Geneva, Switzerland – WIPO – Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences – Link.
  • 10-11 November – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – FORUM – Supplementary Patent Certificates – Link.
  • 10-11 November – Stockholm, Sweden – IRI – The XXXI Nordic Conference on Law & IT Link.
  • 14 November – Berlin, Germany – GRUR & OUP – (Non-)Regulation of online platforms and internet intermediaries: state of play, visions, and next steps in Germany, UK, the Netherlands and at EU level – Link.
  • 14-15 November – Berlin, Germany – IQPC – Brand Protection & Anti-Counterfeiting – Link.
  • 15-16 November – Brussels, Belgium – CREATe – EU Hackathon – Link.
  • 15-16 November – Munich, Germany – IQPC – IP Life Sciences Exchange – Link.
  • 16 November – Zagreb, Croatia – Zagrebački Velesajam – INOVA – Link.
  • 17 November – Brussels, Belgium – Bird&Bird – Sample Management, Biobanking and Clinical Trials Link.
  • 17 November – Paris, France – FNDE – Droit du Numérique – Link.
  • 17-18 November – Trier, Germany – ERA – Annual Conference on European Copyright Law 2016 – Link.
  • 17-18 November – Vienna, Austria – Fleming – 4th Annual Open Innovation – Life Science, Pharma & BiotechLink.
  • 17-18 November – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – Marcus Evans – 10th Pan-European Conference in the P2P Series – Link.
  • 22 November – Anwtwerp, Belgium – Bird&Bird – Pharmaceutical Law Seminar – Link.
  • 22 November – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – FORUM – EU Design Law – Link.
  • 22 November – Basel, Switzerland – FORUM – Pharma IP Management – Link.
  • 22-23 November – Sofia, Bulgaria – WIPO – National Seminar on Copyright in the Digital Age – Link.
  • 23-24 November – Munich, Germany – EPO – Boards of Appeal and Key Decisions – Link.
  • 23 November – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – FORUM – Design Protection in China – Link.
  • 24 November – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – FORUM – International R&D – Link.
  • 24-25 November – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – FORUM – The Patent Roadmap – Link.
  • 24-25 November – Geneva, Switzerland – WIPO – Seminar on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge – Link.
  • 24-25 November – Geneva, Switzerland – WIPO – Seminar on the Practical Aspects of the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks – Link.
  • 24-25 November – Helsinki, Finland – IPR – Unfair Competition within (and beyond) IP ­– Link.
  • 24 November – Lyon, France – ASPI – Droit des Brevets – Link.
  • 24 November – Madrid, Spain – FIDE – Análisis de las Reclamaciones internacionales de inversión presentadas por Philip Morris contra Uruguay y Australia Link.
  • 26 November – Bologna, Italy – EPO – PCT at the EPO – Link.
  • 29 November – 1 December – Basel, Switzerland – FORUM – IP Strategy! – Link.
  • 29-30 November – Frankfurt, Germany – IICE – Information Management & Information Compliance – Link.
  • 30 November – Brussels, Belgium – INTA – Internet and the Rights HolderLink.
  • 30 November – Milano, Italy – EUIPO – DesignEuropa Awards – Link.

USA & CANADA

  • 1 November – Baton Rouge, LA, USA – USPTO – Patent and Trademark SeminarLink.
  • 2 November – San Diego, CA, USA – AIPF – Protecting your IP overseas Link.
  • 2 November – Washington DC, USA – George Washington Law School – IP Speaker Series: Stephen YeldermanLink.
  • 2 November – Whitewater, WI, USA – LES US&Canada – IP Business Basics 101 – Link.
  • 3 November – Bloomington, IN, USA – Maurer School of Law – IP Colloquium: Lisa P. Ramsey – Link.
  • 3 November – Los Angeles, CA, USA – CLA – Navigating the Legal Side of the Entertainment Business, the Right Way: Immigration & Contract DealsLink.
  • 3 November – Boston, MA, USA – CenterForce – The IP Strategy Summit: DefenseLink.
  • 3 November – Toronto, ON, Canada – LES US&Canada – IP Valuation: Options for Determining Value in Today’s Global Innovation Economy Link. ottom of Form

 

  • 3-4-November – Washington DC, USA – BIO – BIO Patient and Health Advocacy Summit Link.
  • 4 November – Los Angeles, CA, USA – LAILPA and Loyola Law School – TechTainment 2.0: Technology + Entertainment Link.
  • 4 November – Salt Lake City, UT, USA – AIPF – Protecting your IP overseas Link.
  • 4 November – Washington DC, USA – LES USA&Canada – IP Update: developments in Europe – Link.
  • 8 November – Chicago, IL, USA – CenterForce – The IP Landscape Has Changed: But Has Your Strategy?Link.
  • 8 November – Palo Alto, CA, USA – USPTO – Trademark Tuesday – Link.
  • 9 November – Cleveland, OH, USA – INTA – Young Practitioners and Trademark Administrators Reception and Roundtable – Link.
  • 9 November – Philadelphia, PE, USA – The Copyright Society of the USA – Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands: Separating the Useful and the Aesthetic for Copyright Protection Link.
  • 9 November – Santa Monica, CA, USA – CLA – Understanding Music Royalties and Copyright for Attorneys – Link.
  • 10 November – Boston, MA, USA – The Copyright Society of the USA – Public Art, Activism and Intellectual Property Link.
  • 10-11 November – Santa Monica, CA, USA – The State Bar of California – IP Section – IP On the American Riviera – Link.
  • 11 November – Québec City, QC, Canada – LES USA&Canada – Assurance en propriété intellectuelle: utile et rentable Link.
  • 15 November – Washington DC, USA – IAM – Patent Law & Policy 2016 – Link.
  • 15 November – Palo Alto, CA, USA – CenterForce – The IP Landscape Has Changed: But Has Your Strategy?Link.
  • 15-18 November – Hollywood, FL, USA – INTA – Leadership meeting – Link.
  • 16 November – Berkeley, CA, USA – CLA – Publishing Law 101: What Every Author MUST Know Before Getting Published – Link.
  • 17 November – New York, NY, USA – The Copyright Society of the USA – Donald C. Brace Memorial LectureLink.
  • 18 November – Dallas, TX, USA – USPTO – Spanish IP SeminarLink.
  • 24 November – Portland, OR, USA – Lewis&Clark Law SchoolHitting Refresh: Intellectual Property Rights and the Internet – Link.
  • 30 November – Palo Alto, CA, USA – Managing IP – European Patent Reform Forum – Link.
  • 30 November – 2 December – Philadelphia, PE, USA – IPQC – Pharmaceutical Packaging and Labeling Forum – Link.

LATIN, CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA

  • 13 September – Sao Paulo, Brazil – ASPI – Contratos e Parcerias sob a Lei Brasileira de Inovação – Oportunidades e Riscos – Link.

AFRICA, ASIA & OCEANIA

  • 1 November – Seoul, South Korea – CREATe – 2016 Seoul Copyright Forum – Link.
  • 3 November – Perth, WA, Australia – ACC Australia – IP Litigation – the real costs to your business and how best to manage itLink.
  • 8 November – Sydney, NSW, Australia – ACC Australia – Cyber Resilience Session Link.
  • 10 November – Melbourne, VIC, Australia – IAM – IPBC Australasia – Link.
  • 9-11 November – Tokyo, Japan – Japan Institute for Promoting Invention and Innovation, Japan Patent Information – Patent Information Fair & Conference – Link.
  • 11 November – Singapore, Singapore – IP Academy – Recent trends of IP Laws in Japan & Singapore – Link.
  • 14-15 November – Shenzen, China – Berkeley Centre for Law & Technology – The 5th Annual US-China IP Conference: Intellectual Property and Economic TransformationLink.
  • 15-16 November – Sydney, NSW, Australia – Australian Government & OECD – IP Statistics for Decision Makers – Link.
  • 17-18 November – Shangai, China – YIP – China Pharma Intellectual Property Summit 2016Link.
  • 20-22 November – Hong Kong – APCA – APCA Conference 2016 – Link.
  • 22 November – Sydney, NSW, Australia – University of Melbourne – What does a good IP system look like Link.
  • 24 November – Perth, WA, Australia – University of Melbourne – What does a good IP system look like – Link.

 

Giancarlo Moretti LL.M. (QMUL), Ph.D. Candidate (QMUL) @GiancaMoretti

June 2016 #IPEvents

by Giancarlo Moretti

Here is the list of Intellectual Property events occurring in June 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 and we can add it to the list.

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

UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND

  • 3 June – London – CCLS QMUL – Queen Mary Postgraduate Legal Research Conference 2016 – Link.
  • 6-7 June – London – IIPLA – Iipla 2Nd Global Ip Summit 2016 Link.
  • 7 June – London – The British Library – Intermediate guide to copyright – Link.
  • 8-9 June – Glasgow – CREATe – CREATe Academic Symposium & Exhibition on Copyright and Cultural MemoryLink.
  • 9 June – London – Osborne Clarke – PSD2 – Scope – Changes to the exemptions and its impact- Link.
  • 9 June – London – Taylor Wessing – Annual Life Sciences In-house Counsel ForumLink.
  • 9-10 June – London – IFCLA – IFLCA Conference 2016 – Link.
  • 10 June – London – CIPA – EPO Oral Proceedings – Link.
  • 10 June – Leeds – MBL – Intellectual Property Rights in Software – Link.
  • 10 June – London – QMUL & UAM – Intellectual Property Event – Contemporary Developments in IP Law : CCLS and UAM Conference June 10 2016.
  • 13 June – London – CIPA & AIPLA – Diversity in IP – Link.
  • 13 June – London – FICP, CIPA & ITMA – US IP Law and Practice – Link.
  • 13 June – London – ITMA – Breakfast Meeting with ITMA – Link.
  • 13 June – London – ITMA – US IP Law & Practice – Link.
  • 14 June – Bristol – IPO&ITMA – IPO&ITMA Roadshow – Link.
  • 13 June – London – MBL – Advanced Trade Marks: Adwords & More Link.
  • 14-15 June – Ireland – IQPC – Pat-Tech Exchange – Link.
  • 15 June – London – ITMA – ITMA Administration Session #1 – Link.
  • 16 June – London – MBL – All you need to know about the IP Patent Box – Link.
  • 16-17 June – London – Management Forum – Advanced PCT Formalities – Link.
  • 19-23 June – Newport – FICPI – FICPI American-Canadian-British ConferenceLink.
  • 20 June – London – Osborne Clarke – ADTech in 2016 Link.
  • 22 June – London – ALPSP – Understanding Copyright – Link.
  • 22 June – London – Bristows – Understanding blockchain: hype or game-changing technology?
  • 22 June – London – Bristows – Robotics: Future Technologies today – Link.
  • 22 June – London – UCL IBIL – Annual Sir Hugh Laddie Lecture
  • 22 June – London – ACID & Boult Wade Tennant – ACID & Boult Wade Tennant IP Seminar and Drinks Link.
  • 22 June – London – London Technology Week – London Technology Week – growing pains: from startup to scale-up – Link.
  • 23 June – London – Managing IP – IP in Asia Forum 2016 Link.
  • 23 June – Leeds – Bristow – IP Licensing & EU Competition Law – Link.
  • 23 June – London – CIPA – Patent Litigation in the United States – Link.
  • 23 June – London – LES Britain & Ireland – LES Annual Conference & AGM – Link.
  • 23 June – London – Practical Law – Life Science Law Forum Link.
  • 24 June – London – CREATe – CREATe FestivalLink.
  • 24 June – London – MBL – Copyright in new mediaLink.
  • 24 June – Southampton – MBL – Intellectual Property Rights in Software – Link
  • 27 June – London – Assimilate IP – Freedom to Operate for the Life Sciences and Pharmaceutical Industries Link.
  • 27 June – Leeds – MBL – All you need to know about the IP Patent Box – Link
  • 28 June – London – ITMA – London Evening Meeting – Link.
  • 28 June – London – Osborne Clarke – PSD2: Where are we now? – Link.
  • 29 June – London – Union IP – Union IP Summer Event – Link.
  • 29 June – London- Osborne Clarke – Copyright, online content and the Commission’s Digital Single Market initiative – Link.
  • 29 June – 1 July – London – ND – New Designers – Part I – Link.
  • 30 June – London – QMUL SIA & WIPO – SEP/FRAND Mediation and arbitration – Link.

CONTINENTAL EUROPE

  • 2 June – Barcelona, Spain – OEPM – Conferencia inaugural BDW 2016 – Link.
  • 5-7 June – Barcelona, Spain – IPBC – 2016 IPBS GlobalLink.
  • 6 June – Madrid, Spain – LES Spain&Portugal – El dictamen pericial sobre infracción y validez de patente: consejos formales, metodológicos y prácticos Link.
  • 7 June – Paris, France – WIPO – WIPO Roving Seminar – Link.
  • 7-8 June – Eindhoven, The Netherlands – Bird&Bird – Internet of Things – Link.
  • 8-9 June – Tirana, Albania – WIPO – WIPO National Workshop for Law Enforcement Officials on Building Respect for Intellectual PropertyLink.
  • 8 -10 June – Ilmenau, Germany – PATON – Kolloquium der Technischen Universität Ilmenau über Patentinformation Link.
  • 8-10 June – Dubrovnik, Croatia – EGA – Joint 22nd Medicines for Europe and19th IGBA Annual Conference Link.
  • 8-10 June – The Hague, The Netherlands – EPO –Search Matters 2016 Link.
  • 9 June – Munchen, Germany – FORUM – Post-grant procedures at USPTOLink.
  • 9 June – Sabadell, Spain – OEPM- Jornada sobre la Protección de la CreatividadLink.
  • 9 June – Lille, France – WIPO – WIPO Roving Seminar – Link.
  • 9 June – Madrid, Spain – OEPM – Conferencia: Arbitraje y mediación en el sector de las TIC, Estándares de Patentes y licencias FRANDLink.
  • 9-10 June – Brussels, Belgium – WIPO – Training Seminar – Mediation in Disputes on R&D and Related Commercial AgreementsLink.
  • 10 June – Stockholm, Sweden – INTA – Young Practitioners & Trademark Administrators Reception: Challenges of a Digital WorldLink.
  • 12 June – Boston, Massachusetts, USA – Copyright Society USA – Annual meeting – Link.
  • 12 June – Boston, Massachusetts, USA – Copyright Society USA – International Chapter Lunch | Beyond Notice & Takedown: Liability Regimes to Address Online Piracy – Link.
  • 13 June – Barcelona, Spain – Marcus Evans – Industrial Design & Innovation Summit 2016 Link.
  • 13-14 June – Montreaux, Paris – Marcus Evans – IP Law Europe Summit 2016 – Link.
  • 14 June – Paris, France – ASPI – PI et MédicamentsLink.
  • 14 June – Paris, France – ASPI – Licenses Frand Link.
  • 14-15 June – The Hague, The Netherlands – EPO – Examination MattersLink.
  • 15 June – Brussels, Belgium – GRUR – 7th GRUR meets Brussels Workshop – link.
  • 16 June – Madrid, Spain – ABG – IP Perspective II – Link.
  • 16 June – Brussels, Belgium – ERA – The adoption of the EU Directive on Trade Secrets – Link.
  • 16 June – Madrid, Spain – FIDE – Cuestiones actuales en materia de diseño industrial: reflexiones para una reforma legalLink.
  • 16 June – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – FORUM – Patent Intelligence – Link.
  • 16-17 June – Munich, Germany – Managing IP – MIP Euro Law Conference 2016 – Link.
  • 16-17 June – Amsterdam, the Netherlands – FORUM – Licensing Link.
  • 20 June – Bonn, Germany – UCLA – UCLA School of Law Information Session: Bonn, Germany – Link.
  • 21 June – Paris, France – Managing IP – IP in Asia Forum 2016 Link.
  • 21 June – Lisbon, Portugal – IPR Helpdesk – UE- América Latina: Desafios na Área da Inovação e da TecnologiaLink.
  • 21-24 June – Valladolid, Spain – 19th International Conference on Cultural Economics – Link.
  • 22-25 June – Dubrovnik, Croatia – ECTA – 35th ECTA Conference – Link.
  • 23 June – Munich, Germany – IBC – Biotech & Pharmaceutical Patenting Conference Link
  • 23 June – Geneva, Switzerland – WIPO – WIPO on the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial DesignsLink.
  • 23-24 June – Munich, Germany – IBC – Biotech & Pharma Patenting Conference 2016Link.
  • 24 June – Munich, Germany – TUM – Munich International Patent Law ConferenceLink.
  • 24 June – Paris, France – LIDC – Robotics and the Law – Link.
  • 27 June – 8 July – Strasbourg, France – CEIPI – Summer School on IP in Europe – Link.
  • 27 June-1 July – Trier, Germany – ERA – Summer Course on European Intellectual Property LawLink.
  • 30 June – Frankfurt, Germany – Dentons – IT Business Breakfast – Link.

USA & CANADA

  • 6 June – Stanford, CA, USA – Stanford Law School – 13th Annual Stanford E-Commerce Best Practices ConferenceLink.
  • 6-9 June – San Francisco, CA, USA – BIO – 2016 BIO International Convention – Link.
  • 7 June – Washington, DC, USA – CenterForce – IP Summit Strategy – Link.
  • 7 June – Chicago, IL, USA – IPLAC – Cuozzo Speed Technologies—Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
  • 7 June – Durham, NC, USA – LES USA&Canada – Duke Angel Network and other University Affiliated Angel Groups Link.
  • 8 June – Alexandria, VA, USA – USPTO – The economic contribution of technology licensing – Link.
  • 9 June – Chicago, IL, USA – John Marshall Law School – IP CLE Lunch & Learn SeriesLink.
  • 9-10 June – Arlington, VA, USA– AIPLA – 8th Annual Trademark Boot CampLink.
  • 10-12 June – San Coronado Bay, CA, USA – LAIPLA – Spring Conference 2016 – Link.
  • 10 June – Ottawa, Ontario, CA – LES USA&Canada – 2nd Pan-American LESI YMC Event Link.
  • 13 – 14 June – Berkeley, CA, USA – Berkeley Centre for Law and Technology – The 15th Annual Workshop on the Economics of Information SecurityLink.
  • 14 June – Portland, OR, USA – AIPLA – AIPLA 2016 Electronic & Computer Patent Law SummitLink.
  • 14 June – Santa Monica, CA, USA – CLA – Art World 2016: Bankruptcy, Art Consignment, and Resale Royalty 1.5 credits MCLE Link.
  • 15 June – Alexandria, VA, USA – AIPLA & USPTO – Bench and Bar Conference – Link.
  • 15 June – Toronto, Ontario, Canada – LES USA&Canada – Uneven Bargaining Power in Licensing Negotiations (aka How to Talk to Big Pharma or Big Tech) – Link.
  • 15 June – Washington, DC, USA – LES USA&Canada – IP Business Basics 101 – Link.
  • 15 June – Los Angeles, CA, USA – LAIPLA – Women in IP Presents: An Evening Oceanside Chat by the Strand ­– Link.
  • 15 June – San Jose, CA, USA – USPTO – Patent Cooperation Treaty Seminar – Link.
  • 19-22 June – Charleston, SC, USA – Association of Corporate Patent Counsel – 2016 ACPC Summer Meeting – Link.
  • 20 June – San Francisco, CA, USA – CLA – Copyright 101 for Songwriters and MusiciansLink.
  • 20-30 June – Various Cities, USA – INTA – Navigating the IR waters so you won’t drown – Link.
  • 22 June – Dolce Basking Ridge, NJ, USA – LES USA&Canada – Bringing Ideas and Discoveries from Conceptualization to the Marketplace Link.
  • 22 June – Santa Clara, CA, USA – LES USA&Canada – Hot Topics in Patent Licensing – Link.
  • 22 June – San Jose, CA, USA – USPTO – Trademark Madrid Protocol: Update and Tips for UsersLink.
  • 22-23 June – Miami, FL, USA – IACC & UL – Latin America Regional Brand Protection Summit Link.
  • 22-24 June – Atlanta, GA, USA – IQPC – Information Governance Exchange – Link.
  • 23 June – Houston, TX, USA – HIPLA – Monthly HIPLA Luncheon Meeting Link.
  • 23 June – Chicago, IL, USA – IPLAC – 26th Annual Trade Secrets Seminar – Link.
  • 27 June – Venice, CA, USA – CLA – Trademarks for Artists & Creative EntrepreneursLink.
  • 27-29 June – Los Angeles, CA, USA – IQPC – 7th Anti-Piracy and Content Summit . Link.
  • 28 June – Alexandria, VA, USA – USPTO – USPTO IP and 3D Printing Conference – Link.
  • 30 June – Chicago, IL, USA – IPLAC – Ethics in Intellectual Property – Link.

LATIN, CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA

  • 8 June – Sao Paulo – ASPI Brasil – Provas Periciais no novo CPC e a Propriedade Intelectual Link.
  • 9 June – Lima, Peru – IPR Helpdesk – Training en Lima: Aprende a proteger tus creaciones en Perú y en Europa – Link.
  • 13-15 June – Bogotá, Colombia – WIPO – Taller de la OMPI sobre servicios de apoyo a la innovación de valor añadido con base a la vigilancia tecnológica y a la inteligencia competitiva para el personal de los Centros de apoyo a la tecnología y la innovaciónLink.
  • 23 June – Sao Paulo – ASPI Brasil – Impactos da Impressão 3D na Propriedade Intelectual Link.

AFRICA, ASIA & OCEANIA

  • 15 June – Melbourne, VIC, Australia – ACLA – 3D printing and copyright: yet another threat for copyright owners Link.
  • 15 June – Colombo, Sri Lanka – WIPO – National Workshop on Increasing the Capacity and Pace for Technology Scouting, Absorption, Adaptation and Commercialization through a ‘Hub and Spoke’ StructureLink.
  • 23 June – Melbourne, VIC, Australia – ACLA – 15 June – Melbourne, VIC, Australia – ACC – VIC: 3D printing and copyright: yet another threat for copyright owners – Link.

 

Giancarlo Moretti LL.M. (QMUL), Ph.D. Candidate (QMUL) @GiancaMoretti