Insights

As a child, I loved my LEGO, spending hours creating huge towers and complex structures. Now, as a parent, I enjoy watching my children get the same satisfaction out of this wonderful toy (I even still do some occasional building myself!).

CRISPR-based techniques have revolutionized the field of gene editing in recent years. The Broad Institute is at the forefront of this technology and holds many of the original patents. However, the validity of some of those patents has been challenged at the European Patent Office (EPO) and developments this week are a blow to the Broad Institute’s patent coverage in Europe.

As has been reported in sections of the press recently, the Sussexes filed applications to register the trade marks SUSSEX ROYAL and SUSSEX ROYAL THE FOUNDATION OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX in the United Kingdom back in June 2019. The applications have presumably been of interest to the press insofar as they might shed some light on the Sussexes’ future plans – both applications covered, by way of example, services such as providing charitable fund raising activities, providing education and training relating to nature, and emotional support services.

So far this year, ‘Meghxit’ and the crisis in Iran have pushed Brexit firmly down the list of top news stories in the UK. However, with relatively little fanfare, Boris Johnson and his new Government have recently managed to achieve what Theresa May was unable to achieve last year, namely, securing Parliament’s approval of a Brexit deal.

The term “CRISPR” was first proposed in 2001 to describe various clusters of DNA repeats that had been identified in various bacteria over the previous two decades. Although it has only been 7 years since the landmark paper describing Cas9 gene editing was published, the term is now synonymous with gene editing techniques. The fact that “CRISPR” is already a term recognized by the general public is indicative of the impact this innovation has had on the world already.

I have worn glasses and contact lenses for most of my life to correct my ever-worsening myopia (short-sightedness). I’m by no means alone as about one in three people are affected by myopia in the UK, and about 1 in10 are genetically pre-disposed to severe short-sightedness.

It has recently been reported in the national press that the anonymous artist, Banksy, is engaged in a trade mark dispute with a greetings card company, Full Colour Black. The artist is quoted to have claimed, among other things, that the company was “contesting the trade mark” he holds to his art, and “attempting to take custody” of his name.

Kim Kardashian will no doubt be pleased to have been awarded $2.7 million in damages, in a court case against the fashion brand Missguided. In addition to damages, and an award of costs for Kardashian’s attorneys’ fees, an injunction was also issued against Missguided, prohibiting Missguided from using Kim Kardashian’s trade marks in connection with the sale, marketing or distribution of its products. Kardashian, the reality-TV star turned business-woman (and aspiring lawyer), brought the proceedings against Missguided in California earlier this year. Her case was based on claims that Missguided was infringing her trade mark rights, and on US laws protecting her rights of publicity.

The Kardashian/Jenner family have made millions by commodifying their personal lives and turning themselves into powerhouse brands. It should therefore come as little surprise that the younger generation of the family are seemingly being primed to follow in their footsteps.

IP practice around Europe is at its most inconsistent when it comes to Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) protection for second and further medical indication inventions. A recent Opinion of the Advocate General at the CJEU may point to a pending harmonisation of practice in this area but in a direction that will dismay applicants with inventions in this area.