Further thoughts on Levola Hengelo v Smilde Foods and the taste of cheese: did the Court create a "validation" test?
When it comes to raising the furrow of one’s copyright brow, few cases in recent years have done a more effective job than the judgment in Levola Hengelo v. Smilde Foods. The essence of the referral to the CJEU was as follows– “Does EU law preclude the taste of a food product — as the author’s own intellectual creation — being granted copyright protection?” Fellow Kat Eleonora Rosati has deliciously dissected the decision of the CJEU, here (lucky for the case that it was not a slab of meat) and Kat readers can decide for themselves whether a furrowed brow is appropriate. What this Kat wishes to do is focus on a crucial component of the Court’s decision, stating in pertinent part that— 40 Accordingly, for there to be a ‘work’ as referred to in Directive 2001/29, the subject matter protected by copyright must be expressed in a manner which makes it identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity, even…
Read more detail on Recent Copyright posts –
- The AG Opinion in Levola Hengelo: more questions than answers? As announced earlier today, this morning Advocate General (AG) Wathelet issued his Opinion [not yet available in English] in Levola Hengelo, C-310/17. He advised the Court of Justice of […]
- I know what I like and I know when I taste it. Cheese flavour cannot be “copyrighted” (nor registered as a trademark) Sara Parrello and Fabio AngeliniIn law, perhaps one of the most famous aphorisms is “I know it when I see it”, which Justice Potter Stewart used to describe his threshold test for […]
- Hargreaves: some further thoughts and comments The sad fate of British reviews of intellectual property The dust has not yet settled on Digital Opportunity: a review of intellectual property and growth (the main recommendations of […]
- It's not just copyright: further thoughts on the UK government's further thoughts The IPKat's postbag has been positively bristling with comments on the UK government's response to the Hargreaves Review (for background and some helpful links see […]
- Some further thoughts on Iridium/Motorola: Deviating from Meridian? As Mr. Umakanth discussed in this post, the Supreme Court of India in Iridium India Telecom v. Motorola Inc. (Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2005, judgment dated October 20, 2010) has […]
- Some Further Thoughts on Fair Housing Act Medical Verifications I have had a handful of reasonable accommodation requests come across my desk over the last month with the same issue: when the leasing office gets a medical verification, the health care […]
- Taste Held Not Protectable Under European Copyright Laws Earlier this month, the European Court of Justice ruled that the taste of a food product is not eligible for protection under EU copyright laws. The ruling by European Union’s highest […]
- Del. Court Addresses Summary Judgement Issues in Dole Foods Take-Private Transaction Insurance Coverage Litigation The long-running insurance coverage litigation arising from the settlements of the shareholder claims filed in connection with the Dole Food Company’s November 2013 “going private” […]
- Mitigation Requirement After Termination Further Explained by Ontario’s Highest Court Typically, when an employee makes a claim for common law wrongful dismissal damages, he or she is required to make reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages. Mitigation often requires […]
- Insured’s Decision to Manufacture A Dangerous Product Knowing No Insurance Is Available Doesn’t Sway Court To Create An Equitable Exception To The Unavailability Rule The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently resolved an 18-year-old asbestos coverage row, encompassing 330 policies and thousands of claims. In reaching its decision in Cont’l Ins. Co. v. […]
This entry was posted in Copyright Law
and tagged "validation"
. Bookmark the permalink