Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 26 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted alphabetically
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 16)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 20)
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 25)
John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law     Free   (Followers: 10)
Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship     Open Access   (Followers: 35)
Journal of Data Protection & Privacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 24)
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Propiedad Intelectual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Recent Patents on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial     Open Access  
The Journal of World Intellectual Property     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi     Open Access  
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.28
Number of Followers: 28  
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 0018-9855 - ISSN (Online) 2195-0237
Published by Springer-Verlag Homepage  [2626 journals]
  • Correction to: “Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents”
    • Abstract: The date of this decision published in 51 IIC 1107 (2019) was incorrect. The correct date is 25 November 2019.
      PubDate: 2021-01-12
  • “Eco TLC”
    • Abstract: Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a system whereby a private, non-profit eco-body, approved by the public authorities, receives contributions from those who place on the market a particular category of product and who enter into a contract with it to that effect, in return for a service consisting in the organisation on their behalf of the treatment of the waste from those products, and redistributes to operators responsible for the sorting and recovery of that waste, subsidies the amount of which is set out in the approval, in the light of environmental and social targets, does not constitute an intervention through State resources within the meaning of that provision, as long as those subsidies are not constantly under public control, which is for the referring court to determine.
      PubDate: 2021-01-12
  • “PE Digital (Parship)”
    • Abstract: Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the proportionate amount to be paid by the consumer to the trader where that consumer has expressly requested that the performance of the contract concluded begin during the withdrawal period and withdraws from that contract, it is appropriate, in principle, to take account of the price agreed in the contract for the full coverage of the contract and to calculate the amount owed pro rata temporis. It is only where the contract concluded expressly provides that one or more of the services are to be provided in full from the beginning of the performance of the contract and separately, for a price which must be paid separately, that the full price for such a service should be taken into account in the calculation of the amount owed to the trader under Article 14(3) of that directive. Article 14(3) of Directive 2011/83, read in the light of recital 50 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether the total price is excessive within the meaning of that provision, account should be taken of the price of the service offered by the trader concerned to other consumers under the same conditions and that of the equivalent service supplied by other traders at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Article 16(m) of Directive 2011/83, read in conjunction with point 11 of Article 2 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the generation of a personality report by a dating website on the basis of a personality test carried out by that website does not constitute the supply of ‘digital content’ within the meaning of that provision.
      PubDate: 2021-01-11
  • “KIKO v. Wycon”
    • Abstract: An interior design project or work, of unitary conception, adopting a defined and visually appreciable scheme, which reveals a clear “stylistic key”, of individual components organized and coordinated to make the environment functional and harmonious, or rather manifest the personal imprint of the author, can be protected as a work of architecture pursuant to Art. 2 No. 5 of the Italian Copyright Act (“drawings and works of architecture”). This is so regardless of the requirement of inseparable incorporation of the furniture elements with the building or of the fact that the individual furnishing elements that compose it are simple or common and already used in the sector, as long as the result is an original combination, not imposed by a technical or functional problem. To be protectable, the work of interior design must always be identifiable and recognizable as a unitary work of the author, due to precise choices in the composition of its elements.
      PubDate: 2021-01-11
  • “Raffaello”
    • Abstract: To determine whether a mark is well-known, legal relevance is attributed to its popularity and recognisability among consumers; the persons participating in the distribution channels; and business circles dealing with the type of goods or services for which the sign is used; as well as the association with the source of origin of the goods or services with the use of the mark. The duration of the use of the mark may only be one of the factors to determine whether a mark is well-known, but not the only and decisive one. The width and relevance of the circle of consumers in relation to a certain sign should be determined by the competent authority. The popularity of a particular sign may also be grounded in prior use of signs with a different form, if the consumer has transferred the popularity of a sign used earlier in time, including, for example, when there are minor differences between the signs, that do not attract the consumers’ attention. The well-known character of the trademark may be defined not only in relation to a specific producer, who may not be the rightholder and the person introducing the good on the market, but in relation to the person perceived as the source of the goods’ origin. Such a source may be the rightholder, a licensee or a person applying for recognition of the sign as a well-known trademark, or other members of the same group of entities of the rightholder, if the consumers associate the sign with one of the stated persons and may think that these people are related.
      PubDate: 2021-01-11
  • “COMPASS v. SingNet”
    • Abstract: A copyright tribunal determining an application made under s. 163(2) of the Copyright Act [a person may apply to the Tribunal where it claims that it requires a licence but that the applicable charges and/or conditions are not reasonable] has no jurisdiction to make retrospective orders under ss. 163(2) read with 163(6)(b) [the Tribunal may make orders, which specify the charges and conditions that it considers reasonable in the circumstances]. When an application is made under s. 163 of the Act, copyright users may be protected against infringement liability not only after the Tribunal has made its final orders (under s. 165), but also during the preceding interim period (under ss. 168 read with 165). S. 168 read with s. 165 of the Act is not meant as a licence for copyright users to engage in copyright infringement. It is only meant to afford copyright users, who have sought, obtained and complied with the Tribunal’s orders, a defence in copyright infringement proceedings for the limited period of time pending the Tribunal’s final determination. The copyright user must thus make an application and seek interim orders as early as possible. There is no restriction on the types of interim orders that the Tribunal may make.
      PubDate: 2021-01-07
  • “ZIPLOC”
    • Abstract: The register is assessed for competing marks as at the date of entry onto the register. But the date of application remains relevant. There cannot be an identical or similar trade mark belonging to different parties on the register at the same time. This means that an application for registration of a trade mark must: Not precede the date of application for revocation; or If it does, there must be an application to backdate the revocation to the date of application for registration, or there must be a finding of special circumstances under s 26(b) or that one of the other exceptions in s 26 applies.
      PubDate: 2021-01-07
  • “Aktiebolaget Östgötatrafiken”
    • Abstract: Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the distinctive character of a sign for which registration as a trade mark in respect of a service is sought, which sign is composed of coloured motifs and which is intended to be affixed exclusively and systematically in a specific manner to a large part of the goods used for the provision of that service, must be assessed by taking into account the perception of the relevant public of the affixing of that sign to those goods, without it being necessary to examine whether that sign departs significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned.
      PubDate: 2021-01-07
  • Hijacking Consumer Trust Systems: Of Self-Declared Watchdogs and
           Certification Trade Marks
    • Abstract: Abstract Consumers are becoming more demanding about the social and environmental conditions surrounding how products and services are made and provided. Aware of this trend, marketers have incentives to use social- or green-washing, to match consumers’ desire to purchase conscientiously. A newer marketing trend is “pink-washing”, where companies express their “wokeness” (or social-cultural progressiveness) about sexual and gender identity to sell their goods and services. One way to combat this is via certification trade marks, examined and registered through intellectual property offices, which consumers use as a trust system. However, there are companies that use normal or unregistered trade marks and claim to perform certifications. They are taking advantage of the trust system. This article undertakes a case study of “Rainbow Tick” in Australia and New Zealand to illustrate that it is relatively easy to exploit rising consumer concerns around social and environmental issues by hijacking the trust system of certification trade marks. This article proposes that we need to rebuild the trust system through four measures: (1) applications for normal trade marks that could mislead or deceive that they are certification trade marks should be rejected; (2) failure to apply for a certification trade mark (when the intention is to use the mark as a certification trade mark) should be deemed an application made in bad faith; (3) all certification trade marks should have “Cert. TM” on them, or otherwise indicate their nature; and (4) education programmes should ensure that consumers understand the distinction between normal trade marks and marks with “Cert. TM”, and what exactly this embodies.
      PubDate: 2021-01-04
  • Copyright Protection of Government-Related Material Before the Courts of
           the United States and Canada: Considerations for Future Reforms
    • Abstract: Abstract Copyright protection of government-related material lies at the intersection of private incentives, public interest, and political motivation. These interests naturally clash. Therefore, the justification and scope of copyright protection for such materials has been the subject of intense controversy ever since. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Canada handed down landmark decisions on the application of the respective century-old doctrines and provisions. Moreover, courts in the U.S. and Canada have lately addressed the protectability of privately created, government-adopted industry standards. This article takes these decisions as an occasion to reflect on the copyright protection of government-related material against the background of rapid technological advancement and substantial ongoing societal and political change. Taking into account the regulatory experiences in the EU, this article questions the prevalent assumptions of trustworthy state action and undistorted functioning of markets, which considerably underlie the design of current government copyright regimes around the globe. In this light, the article aims to provide avenues for future legislative reforms that address the copyright of government-related materials. It suggests a more focused, nuanced, and holistic regulatory approach for strengthening and maintaining open, democratic societies.
      PubDate: 2020-12-16
  • Bryan Mercurio: Drugs, Patents and Policy. A Contextual Study of Hong Kong
    • PubDate: 2020-11-23
  • A Matter of Choice: The German Federal Supreme Court’s Interim Decision
           in the Abuse-of-Dominance Proceedings Bundeskartellamt v. Facebook (Case
           KVR 69/19)
    • PubDate: 2020-11-16
  • What Is the Future of Creators’ Rights in an Increasingly
           Platform-Dominated Economy'
    • PubDate: 2020-11-10
  • The Borderline Between Legitimate and Unfair Copying of Products – A
           Unified Scandinavian Approach'
    • Abstract: Abstract Freedom of imitation, outside the boundaries of intellectual property protection, can be considered as a prerequisite for free competition in a free market economy. The rules on unfair competition should therefore not serve to extend exclusive rights beyond their scope and term of protection. On the other hand, regulations within national law that prohibit the unfair copying of products may be justified in order to avoid market failure, being directed towards the optimizing of fair competition among honest traders. The borderline between these two opposite positions is regulated with different approaches in the European countries. This article considers the extent to which the public interest in free competition and the protection of a trader against unfair competition function together in a complementary manner under Scandinavian legislation. In the early 1970s, the Scandinavian countries developed a distinctive approach to regulations on unfair competition under the Marketing Laws. This article undertakes an investigation of these regulations relating to the borderline between legitimate and unfair copying as of 2020, revealing the extent to which there is a unified approach to copying in Scandinavia. Differences between the regulations will have influence on the legal relationship and conflicts among traders operating in all three countries, while a unified Scandinavian approach could serve as a robust solution for navigating the borderline between legitimate and unfair copying. Such analysis might also shed light on how a Scandinavian approach fits into a broader European perspective on this borderline. Thus, the aim of this article is to analyze potential different approaches to the tension between the marketing rules outside the boundaries of intellectual property protection and the principle of legitimate copying. Examination of this borderline can be connected to how the trader’s investments and behaviour are balanced against a market-oriented approach to copying.
      PubDate: 2020-11-10
  • “Recorded Artists Actors Performers”
    • Abstract: Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must, in the light of Article 4(1) and Article 15(1) of the World Intellectual Property Organisation Performances and Phonograms Treaty, be interpreted as precluding a Member State from excluding, when it transposes into its legislation the words ‘relevant performers’ which are contained in Article 8(2) of the directive and designate the performers entitled to a part of the single equitable remuneration referred to therein, performers who are nationals of States outside the European Economic Area (EEA), with the sole exception of those who are domiciled or resident in the EEA and those whose contribution to the phonogram was made in the EEA. Article 15(3) of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty and Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 must, as EU law currently stands, be interpreted as meaning that reservations notified by third States under Article 15(3) of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty that have the effect of limiting on their territories the right to a single equitable remuneration laid down in Article 15(1) thereof do not lead in the European Union to limitations of the right provided for in Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115, in respect of nationals of those third States, but such limitations may be introduced by the EU legislature, provided that they comply with the requirements of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 therefore precludes a Member State from limiting the right to a single equitable remuneration in respect of performers and phonogram producers who are nationals of those third States. Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 must be interpreted as precluding the right to a single equitable remuneration for which it provides from being limited in such a way that only the producer of the phonogram concerned receives remuneration, and does not share it with the performer who has contributed to that phonogram.
      PubDate: 2020-11-09
  • “Use of Trade Secrets by a Former Employee”
    • Abstract: The transfer, disclosure or use of someone else’s information constituting a trade secret or their acquisition from an unauthorised person is an act of unfair competition according to Art. 11(1) of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition (ACUC) if it threatens or violates the interest of a business entity. Such also applies to a person who performed work under an employment or other legal relationship, including a period of three years after termination of the contract, unless otherwise provided in the contract or the state of secrecy has expired (Art. 11(4) ACUC). A court may not prohibit co-operation between companies, only the use of trade secrets in such co-operation. An accusation of trade secret violation by an employer against a former employee shifts the burden of proof onto the former employee, provided that the business entity shows that certain information falls under the scope of Art. 11(4) ACUC. In this case, the former employee must prove that the disclosed information was not a trade secret or that the enterprise established by the former employee was organised on commonly known and used principles or on new principles resulting from the employee’s knowledge and professional experience. Information that is not disclosed to the public loses its legal protection when any business entity can find out about it in an ordinary and permitted way. The permissibility of conducting competitive business activity does not constitute a release from the obligation to keep trade secrets, because competitive activity and trade secrets are two different institutions of competition law. Article 11(2) ACUC applies to information covered by the employer’s trade secrets that the employee has acquired and obtained in connection with her work duties. Article 11(1) ACUC applies to information obtained outside the rights and obligations resulting from the employment contract, but that such employment relationship made it easier to obtain. In this case, the expiry period specified in Sec. 2 is irrelevant and the disclosure of such information always constitutes an act of unfair competition. Article 11(2) ACUC applies not only to persons performing work on the basis of an employment relationship but also to other legal relationships.
      PubDate: 2020-11-09
  • “Telenor Magyarország”
    • Abstract: Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that packages made available by a provider of internet access services through agreements concluded with end users, and under which (i) end users may purchase a tariff entitling them to use a specific volume of data without restriction, without any deduction being made from that data volume for using certain specific applications and services covered by ‘a zero tariff’ and (ii) once that data volume has been used up, those end users may continue to use those specific applications and services without restriction, while measures blocking or slowing down traffic are applied to the other applications and services available: are incompatible with Article 3(2) of Regulation 2015/2120, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) of that regulation, where those packages, agreements, and measures blocking or slowing down traffic limit the exercise of end users’ rights, and are incompatible with Article 3(3) of that regulation where those measures blocking or slowing down traffic are based on commercial considerations.
      PubDate: 2020-11-05
  • “Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents”
    • Abstract: As regards counterfeiting of patents for industrial inventions carried out for equivalence pursuant to Art. 52, para. 3bis of Legislative Decree No. 30 of 10/2/2005, as modified by Legislative Decree No. 131 of 13 August 2010, the judge, in determining the scope of protection conferred by the patent, must not limit himself to the literal content of the claims, interpreted in the light of the description and the drawings, but must balance the fair protection of the owner with the reasonable legal certainty of third parties, and therefore must consider every element substantially equivalent to an element indicated in the claims. For this purpose, he may avail himself of different methodologies for the assessment of the equivalence of the inventive solution, such as verifying whether the contested embodiment allows the same final result to be achieved with the adoption of variants that lack originality because they are obvious in the light of the knowledge of the average technician skilled in the art who faces the same problem. However, the judge cannot give importance to the subjective intentions of the patent applicant, albeit historically inferred through the analysis of the activities carried out during the administrative proceedings which lead to the granting of the patent.
      PubDate: 2020-11-02
  • References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: Experiences of a
           National Judge 2004–2019
    • Abstract: Abstract This article presents the experiences of one national judge of 14 preliminary references made by the High Court of England and Wales to the Court of Justice of the European Union in intellectual property cases during the period from 2004 to 2019. The references are discussed in chronological order, and some conclusions are then drawn concerning the roles both of national courts and of the CJEU.
      PubDate: 2020-11-01
  • Strategic Patenting by Pharmaceutical Companies – Should Competition
           Law Intervene'
    • Abstract: Abstract As the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the lives of thousands of people worldwide, the problem of timely access to affordable medicines has intensified today. Based on past experience of accessing medicines for life-threatening diseases there is a justifiable fear that access to any vaccines and treatments that are eventually developed may be hindered by patents, leading to unaffordable prices. In particular, one of the reasons that typically leads to high prices is strategic patenting employed by pharmaceutical companies. While this practice is currently considered lawful, this article argues that strategic patenting requires a long-overdue intervention by competition authorities and aims to attract their attention to its harmful effects. It maintains that, along with a more immediate negative effect in the form of high drug prices, strategic patenting affects dynamic competition by stifling innovation of both originators and generic companies. The article outlines the current approach to strategic patenting and provides arguments for the intervention of competition law. This, in turn, will open the possibility for competition authorities to investigate this practice and prevent its harmful effect on drug prices and pharmaceutical innovation, for the benefit of consumer welfare.
      PubDate: 2020-10-28
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-