<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Ip on @ppmotskula</title>
    <link>https://peeterpaul.motskula.net:443/tags/ip/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Ip on @ppmotskula</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>et-ee</language>
    <managingEditor>peeterpaul@motskula.net (Peeter P. Mõtsküla)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>peeterpaul@motskula.net (Peeter P. Mõtsküla)</webMaster>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2020 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://peeterpaul.motskula.net:443/tags/ip/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>When it pays to wear belt *and* suspenders</title>
      <link>https://peeterpaul.motskula.net:443/2020/05/21/when-it-pays-to-wear-belt-and-suspenders/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2020 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>peeterpaul@motskula.net (Peeter P. Mõtsküla)</author>
      <guid>https://peeterpaul.motskula.net:443/2020/05/21/when-it-pays-to-wear-belt-and-suspenders/</guid>
      
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Hungary has given birth to several great inventors. Ernő Rubik invented — and patented — his Magic Cube in 1975. In 2006, Gábor Domokos and Péter Várkonyi came up with a weird object which had one stable and one unstable point of equilibrium and called it a &amp;ldquo;Gömböc&amp;rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;!--![Gömböc](gomboc.jpg)--&gt;
&lt;figure&gt;&lt;img src=&#34;https://peeterpaul.motskula.net:443/2020/05/21/when-it-pays-to-wear-belt-and-suspenders/gomboc.jpg&#34;
    alt=&#34;Photo of a gömböc&#34;&gt;&lt;figcaption&gt;
      &lt;p&gt;Photo: public domain&lt;/p&gt;
    &lt;/figcaption&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hungarian IP lawyers have also been inventive. After Rubik&amp;rsquo;s patent expired, they actually managed to re-protect the cube as a three-dimensional EU trademark in 1999. The mark was contested in 2006 on the grounds that the shape was essential to the cube&amp;rsquo;s function; after 13 years of legal battles the CJEU decided in October 2019 (case T‑601/17) that if the shape of a thing is essential to its function, it cannot be protected as a 3D trademark.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
