 |
| A very busy Kat |
If last week passed quicker than a filing deadline, here’s what unfolded on the IPKat.
Copyright
Jocelyn Bosse reported on AG Szpunar’s Opinion in Inter IKEA Systems v Vlaams Belang (C-298/23), which analyses “due cause” as the mechanism for balancing trade marks with a reputation against freedom of expression. The Opinion notes that political use may only qualify where it targets the trade mark holder or contributes to a public interest debate, not when it exploits exploiting the mark’s reputation.
Katfriend Simone Driusso reviewed Publishers’ Rights and Copyright Law: Safeguarding Access to Information and Media Pluralism by Michalina Kowala. The book analyses the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of the CDSM Directive and examines its interaction with technological change and market dynamics, providing rich comparative insights into the evolving relationship between press publishers and digital platforms.
Trade Marks
Söğüt Atilla-Aydın reported on the General Court’s recent ruling in Puma v CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA, where the assessment of reputation under Article 8(5) EUTMR took centre stage. Let’s just say that Puma took the jump on this one… but whether it lands on its feet remains to be determined.
Oliver Fairhurst reported on the Hague District Court’s judgment in the BMW fire-damaged vehicles case, where exhaustion, transit status and post-incident opportunism collided, proving that sometimes when you try to salvage a deal, you risk getting burned.
Patents
Claire Gregg reported on the Federal Court of Australia’s interlocutory decision in Scidera v Meat and Livestock Australia (No 2), which questioned whether part-performing a diagnostic method outside the jurisdiction is enough to sidestep infringement. Let’s just say that when it comes to cross-border testing, the Court hinted that not everything can be outsourced.
Rose Hughes explored 2025 EPO case law trends on antibodies and biologics, noting how growing scientific complexity is pushing patent law to adapt, particularly in relation to added matter, inventive step and the role of post-published data.
Rose Hughes also examined the first post-G 1/23 application of non-reproducible prior art in T 1044/23, showing that, while such commercial products may now defeat novelty, turning them into a successful inventive step attack remains far trickier when key know-how stays locked behind trade secrets.
Opportunities and Events:
