General Global Week in Review 22 August 2011 from IP Think Tank

Here is Think IP Strategy’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet.


Highlights this week included:

USPTO issues 8,000,000th patent (Maier & Maier) (The Patent Librarian’s Notebook) (IP Spotlight) (Patently-O) (Patents Post Grant Blog)

2nd Circuit: First sale doctrine does not apply to foreign-made works – Importer is copyright infringer: John Wiley & Sons Inc. v. Kirtsaeng (Copyright Litigation Blog) (IP Spotlight) (EFF) (IPKat) (IPKat)


Please join the discussion by adding your comments on any of these stories, and please do let us know if you think we’ve missed something important, or if there is a source you think should be monitored.



Global – General

Help select the Blawg 100 (Patent Baristas) (Spicy IP)


Global – Trade Marks / Brands

Making scents of celebrity fragrances (IPKat)

How to select a trademark (Seattle Trademark Lawyer)


Global – Patents

Recent scholarship: Do patents disclose useful information? (Patently-O)


Global – Copyright

WIPO looks to find balance between performer and producer rights (IP Osgoode)



African legal resources available through FALM (Afro-IP)



Mambo minus “M” equals 100% Mabo – Mambo agrees to cease trademark opposition proceedings against Malcolm Mabo (IP Whiteboard)

Bodum succeed in enforcing trade dress rights on appeal before FCAFC: Bodum v DKSH Australia (Class 99)



BUD-fight in Bulgaria goes to Budvar (Class 46)



More update on opt-outs from the Access Copyright interim tariff & some questions that may arise (Excess Copyright)

Canada clarifies applicability of ‘good faith’ rule to granted patents: Corlac Inc. v Weatherford Canada Ltd (PatLit)


Central African Republic

A to Z of African official IP websites: no. 9: Central African Republic (Afro-IP)



A to Z of African official IP websites: no. 10: Chad (Afro-IP)



Free Trade Agreement between Costa Rica and China (IP Dragon)

Sober advice to stop counterfeit wine as Lafite bubble in China attracts more counterfeiters (IP Dragon)

Subtle changes to challenging design patents in China (PatLit)

How to transform the image of Chinese brands? Hint … it’s not product placements (IP Dragon)

Kan Zu on the art of patent enforcement (IP Dragon)



Can one patent make 1,000 jobs in Denmark and 10,000 worldwide? (Innovationpartners)



CJEU – Exceptions to public lending rights and authors’ remuneration: Vereniging van Educatieve en Wetenschappelijke Auters (Vewa) v Belgium (JIPLP)

EPO BoA: Claim excluded from patentability under article 53 EPC as method of treatment: T1680/08 determining airway pressure levels (Kluwer Patent Blog)

EPO BoA refuses to find set of claims filed with grounds of appeal admissible, because of earlier refusal to file these claims during first instance proceedings: T144/09 Traction sheave elevator, (Kluwer Patent Blog)

Daves stop making waves – Branding consultancy withdraws opposition to CTM application to register DAVE by TV channel (IPKat)

Contested wafers: Czech GIs trump trade marks (Class 46)

A fresh batch of European delicacies receive GI protection (Class 46)

Unpaid OHIM opposition costs – what’s your preference? (IPKat)



German Federal Supreme Court: phonetical identity or similarity between two marks can only be neutralized by visual differences between respective accompanying devices: Kappa (Class 46)

German Copyright Law – Court as “film critic”? No “fairness compensation” for German dubbing actor (IPKat) (1709 Blog)

Court of Appeal Dusseldorf: Positive or negative finding of patent infringement in the opinion not covered by the professional pledge of secrecy of the patentee’s attorney-at- law or patent attorney: zeitversetztes Fernsehen  (Kluwer Patent Blog)

Indirect requirement for urgency – follow up to inspection orders (Kluwer Patent Blog)



Copyright Office loses the file pertaining to the International Copyright Order, 1999 (Spicy IP)

Prentice Hall-Copyright – Recent decision of Delhi High Court on issue of permanent injunction for restraining author from assigning copyright to any other person: PHI Learning Private Limited vs. Dr. (Mrs.) P. Meenakshi (Spicy IP)



What do diaper wars and cottage cheese revolts have to do with the Israel Patent & Trademark Office? (America-Israel Patent Law)

A headline I never thought I’d see: Raytheon and Rafael cooperating (or, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em) (America-Israel Patent Law)

AWACS a whacky injunction – Mobileye Technology Ltd. vs. L. D. Israel Auto Equipment Investments Ltd. et al (The IP Factor)



Italy claims unitary patent plans are unlawful and will distort competition (



Free Trade Agreements and Korea: Where is the love? (Korean Law Blog)



Kosovo – new design law (Class 99)



District Court of The Hague nullifies Dutch part of EP patent finding claims invalid for added matter and lack of inventive step: Vermop Salmon v. Newell Rubbermaid c.s. (EPLAW)

District Court of The Hague: Plaintiff claims inadmissible – obiter dictum judgment on merits concludes patent valid and infringed: Welvaarts Weegsystemen v. D-Tec B.V. and Kersten Integrated Weighing (EPLAW)

District Court of The Hague: International fashion chain C&A ordered to cease infringements of fashion brand G-Star’s trademarks (Class 46)



Nigeria Copyright Commission has its knuckles rapped over raids, seizures against collecting societies (Afro-IP)



Rectified reclaimed again (Class 46)



Tourists duped by Soviet Union memorabilia made in China (IP Dragon)



Utility models and efficiencies (Afro-IP)



Government IP policies – Thailand’s opportunity (IP Komodo)


United Kingdom

Wuthering Sites: a drama for users of the Patents Court (PatLit)

UKIPO: end of reclassifications by 31 October 2011 (Class 46)

UKIPO: Tribunal Practice Notice (2/2011) on case management of inter partes proceedings: (Class 46)


United States

US General

Coca Cola and Air Brakes – Faiveley awarded damages of nearly $20M over misuse of confidential information relating to technology developed nearly 40 years ago (IP finance)

District Court N D Illinois: No presumption of irreparable harm from breach of a non-compete: E.B.N. Enters., Inc. v. C.L. Creative Images, Inc. (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog)

Federal employees think creativity and innovation are quashed (Patent Baristas)

Intellectual property & antitrust issues: Market power (Patent Baristas)


US Patent Reform

Patent reform news briefs (Patent Docs)

What Congress should do to improve the patent system, step 8 (Patenthink)


US Patents

USPTO issues 8,000,000th patent (Maier & Maier) (The Patent Librarian’s Notebook) (IP Spotlight) (Patently-O) (Patents Post Grant Blog)

Can a favorable patent reexamination record undo a Markman Order? (Patents Post Grant Blog)

Limited patent reexamination choices for late stage litigants (Patents Post Grant Blog)

First Office Action backlog dips even lower (Director’s Forum)

USPTO clarifies criteria for reissue error (Patent Baristas)

Predicting patent litigation (Patently-O)

Recent scholarship: Did Phillips change anything? Phillips v. AWH Corp (Patently-O)


US Patents – Decisions

CAFC: Interpreting the scope of patent assignments beyond family members: MHL TEK v. Nissan, Hyundai, KIA, Porsche, Subaru, Audi, Volkswagen and BMW (Patently-O)

District Court C D California: Therasense drives summary judgment victory for reissue patentee: U.S. Rubber Recycling, Inc. v. ECORE International Inc., et al. (Patents Post Grant Blog)

District Court N D Illinois: False patent marking requires particular allegations that each defendant marked: Newt LLC v. Nestle USA, Inc. (Chicago IP Litigation Blog)

District Court E D Texas: Second mini-markman proceeding doesn’t result in summary judgment of noninfringement: Whetstone (

Court of Federal Claims: Judge’s mind not changed by reexamination outcome: TDM America v. United States (WHDA)


US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps

Butamax – US: Gevo’s response to SECOND Butamax infringement assertion (IPBiz)

Remy International – ALJ Rogers denies complainant’s motion to compel discovery in Certain Starter Motors and Alternators (337-TA-755) (ITC Law Blog)

Samsung – ITC institutes investigation (337-TA-798) regarding Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (ITC Law Blog)

Twin-Star International – ALJ Gildea sets procedural schedule in Certain Electric Fireplaces (337-TA-791) (ITC Law Blog)


US Copyright

Terminal blues for the record labels? – Ever growing list of artists and songwriters looking to reclaim copyrights from record labels and music publishers (1709 Blog)

22 American Universities form coalition to implement open access policies (IP Osgoode)

Copyright termination: What is it and why should I care? (PlagiarismToday)


US Copyright – Decisions

2nd Circuit: First sale doctrine does not apply to foreign-made works – Importer is copyright infringer: John Wiley & Sons Inc. v. Kirtsaeng (Copyright Litigation Blog) (IP Spotlight) (EFF) (IPKat) (IPKat)

District Court N D Illinois: Summary judgment granted based upon failure to comply with Rule 56.1: International Tax Advisors, Inc. v. Tax Law Assocs., LLC (Chicago IP Litigation Blog)


US Copyright – Lawsuits and strategic steps

Can’t Stop Productions – Can’t Stop Productions asks LA court to deny Village People’s lyricist Victor Willis’ attempt to exercise his ‘termination rights’ (IP Whiteboard)


US Trademarks

USPTO posts comments on notice of inquiry re settlement discussions (TTABlog)

How to use a trademark (Seattle Trademark Lawyer)


US Trade Marks – Decisions

8th Circuit affirms jury’s finding of fraud on the PTO in Fair Isaac “300-850” case: Fair Isaac Corp. v. Experian Information Services, Inc. (TTABlog)

When is Puerto Rican rum not Cuban rum? – 3rd Circuit judgment in Pernod Ricard USA LLC v Bacardi USA, Inc (IPKat) (IPKat)

District Court Nevada: Mystic Lodge loses trademark battle with Mystic Lake (Vegas Trademark Attorney)

Precedential No. 19: JUST JESU IT likely to cause confusion with and dilute Nike’s JUST DO IT, says TTAB (TTABlog)

WYHA? TTAB affirms 2(d) refusal of “df & Design” over “DF,” both for clothing (TTABlog)

Rejecting naked consent, TTAB affirms 2(d) refusal of ONE-STEP for glucose monitoring gear (TTABlog)


US Trade Marks – Lawsuits and strategic steps

Anheuser-Busch – Anheuser-Busch seeking trademarks for telephone ‘area code’ beers (IP Spotlight)

One Comment on “General Global Week in Review 22 August 2011 from IP Think Tank

  1. I am the author of the book.

     The issue is they make multiple copies the original details were not produced.

    For the same, the suggestion given to them was to make it to online e book that on subscription the author would receive an intimation.If not the copyright will be given to another publisher.

    Second revision was made and updated to them which was not made effective in the book and after which they published another reprint without informing the author.

    According  to article 27 of the universal humna rights declaration the copyright is to the sole possession of the author which can not be broken by any agreement.

    The issue is taken to court where the author is for arbitration and believes only conviction and not the legal action.

    The agreement with Prentice hall of India do not hold good with PHI learning limited which had been highlighted only to make the book come online.

    The expenditure on the part of the publishers are not needed for the book is to be sold for its content.The author made it for the need and emergency for a book when the syllabi was introduced to the engineering curriculum.

    The issue would have been to end if they showed the sales details from the sellers which was used by them to the royalty calculation.The court would have asked for it.

    Recently there had been a deposit to the account of the author a sum around 70,000 which was not detailed by the publisher.

    The author holds the entire communication as emails and the same had been copied to Delhi court too as she can not appear to court in person.
    A case can not be given judgment as none defended for the defendant, I received no email communication form the court and I preferred the same.

    I received a copy from the court by post which I did not receive for I had given my preferred mode of communication is by email which the court too has to accept for the mode can not be suggested to a person appearing for defense.

    I did this work not to my earning but to my credentials as a faculty in knowledge dissemination.I really do not bother for the content of the agreement.I had assured for two more books on solid waste management and air quality management to them even.

    You might be knowing there are a lot of self publications which are successful materialistically.In fact I did asked them to reduce the price for it should reach all.

    In fact I knew the contents have been to xerox for the students.None of my communication is over phone or in person.I have only email communications that I could make it to the analysis of court.

    Without getting my defense, they can not issue orders , they can only dismiss the case.It is for the hastiness of the publishers for they make it as push business where the basic purpose is to be genuine.

    I had claimed for 50% royalty for the true copies they made, as I gave it for direct printing without editing even, from their side.I had added a chapter too in 2008 and sent the same via email.

    The judgment given is wrong and we are democratic were we can not follow the procedures of imperialistic legal system.

    I had registered my difference of opinion to them through email regularly and the pass word can be provided to court when they move to reanalyze the claim form my side is genuine.

    Coimbatore Institute of Technology

%d bloggers like this: