Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 29 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted alphabetically
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 17)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 20)
GRUR International     Full-text available via subscription  
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
International Journal of Innovation Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
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: 8)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 24)
Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
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)
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
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  [2656 journals]
  • Jochen Pagenberg 80
    • PubDate: 2021-05-07
       
  • “Dünya”
    • Abstract: The use of a trademark on the cover of a book only consisting of a design on the book’s cover and not as a sign to distinguish the writer’s or publisher’s book from other writers’ and publishers’ books does not consist in a trademark infringement.
      PubDate: 2021-05-04
       
  • "Calidad Pty v. Seiko Epson Corporation"
    • Abstract: The implied licence doctrine is not consistent with the certainty demanded by trade and commerce or with consumer expectations, which require the maintenance of the fundamental principle of the law recognising that an owner has full rights as to the use and disposal of a chattel. A patentee's rights with respect to a particular product are exhausted once that product is sold without conditions as to use (exhaustion doctrine). Modifications made to a product are within the scope of the rights of an owner when they are made in order to prolong the life of a product and make it more useful, thus not amounting to an impermissible making of a new product.
      PubDate: 2021-05-03
       
  • Easy Is Not Always Good – The Fragmented System for Adjudication of
           Unitary Trade Marks and Designs
    • Abstract: While the creation and still outstanding implementation of the Unified Patent Jurisdiction system continue to cause contentious debates among academics and practitioners, the system introduced in the early 1990s for adjudication of conflicts concerning unitary trade marks (and, later on, unitary design rights) had the charm of simplicity. Building on the national court systems instead of providing for a genuine EU judiciary, the scheme could easily be fitted into existing structures. On the other hand, the imperfect, limping character of the system creates issues inter alia concerning international jurisdiction and applicable law. Furthermore, attributing jurisdiction in infringement litigation to separate national court hierarchies may jeopardize the coherence of the system. While the prospects for reform may be dim insofar as the system in its entirety is concerned, the detrimental effects of fragmentation could be overcome at least to some extent by creating a unitary catalogue of sanctions.
      PubDate: 2021-05-03
       
  • “VG Bild-Kunst”
    • Abstract: Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the embedding, by means of the technique of framing, in a third party website page, of works that are protected by copyright and that are freely accessible to the public with the authorisation of the copyright holder on another website, where that embedding circumvents measures adopted or imposed by that copyright holder to provide protection from framing, constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of that provision.
      PubDate: 2021-04-28
       
  • “Toolbox for Freight Vehicles”
    • Abstract: When determining the similarity of designs, the appearance of both products as a whole must be observed and compared with each other in the same way, but not by separating and contrasting each element of both designs. The design similarity should be judged based on whether it makes the observer feel a similar or different aesthetic effect. If those dominant features are similar, they should be considered similar, despite some differences in details. Not only the appearance of the products in actual use but also their appearance upon sale must be compared in terms of the aesthetic impression. If the same or similar components in both designs are indispensable to ensure the functionality of products of the type in question, they should be valued as less significant than other parts. Nonetheless, the similarity found in these components of both designs does not automatically entail the similarity of the designs as such. If alternative forms are available to fulfill the functionality of those products, which, as a consequence, cannot be seen as indispensable for such functionality, the importance of these functional elements may not be underestimated simply because they are related to the function of products of this type.
      PubDate: 2021-04-28
       
  • Private Enforcement of the EU Rules on Competition – Nullity
           Neglected
    • Abstract: Private enforcement of the European Union’s rules on competition (Arts. 101, 102 TFEU) has become prominent as a counterpart to their public enforcement. Mostly, it is identified with tort actions brought under EU-harmonized national law by individuals claiming compensation for the harm suffered from anticompetitive agreements or practices. However, claims for compensation represent imperfect sanctions for the infringement of the competition rules because they are brought only once the damage is done and at a time when the conditions of competition may have changed. Typically also, such private actions are no equivalent or complement to administrative enforcement, but are largely dependent on it (follow-on actions). In addition, bringing them is attractive only if the damage suffered is considerable, sufficient evidence available, and the defendant solvent enough. Therefore, this paper revisits the first line of private enforcement, which is enforcing the nullity of anticompetitive agreements as provided for directly by primary Union law in Art. 101(2) TFEU. Nullity was a much-discussed issue under the authorization regime of Reg. 17/62, the first regulation implementing the enforcement of the competition rules, but has become somewhat neglected as a sanction since Reg. 1/2003 changed the enforcement system. Yet, it is precisely under the regime of immediate and direct applicability of both Arts. 101(1) and 101(3) TFEU, which Reg. 1/2003 reestablished, that the potential of nullity as a sanction of anticompetitive agreements could be fully activated. Such active use of invalidity challenges may lead to redefining the interface between EU law and national contract law, which is the line of severability of the innocent parts of a restrictive agreement from its anti-competitive parts. It should also result in reassessing the legal fate of follow-on transactions concluded by a party to an anticompetitive agreement with third parties, and it should bring abusive contracts within the realm of the nullity sanction that dominant firms impose on third parties. The guiding principle for such general reappraisal of the nullity sanction must be to bring its purpose fully to bear, which is to facilitate exit from anticompetitive agreements or from (abusive) contract clauses with a view to reopening competition and/or to allow the renegotiating of a transaction in terms of undistorted competition. This may mean that only the party whose freedom of competition is restricted may claim nullity.
      PubDate: 2021-04-28
       
  • Perverse Results from Pharmaceutical Patents in the United States
    • Abstract: In the United States, pharmaceutical patents have had a number of perverse and anticompetitive effects on the development and marketing of prescription drugs. Although some of these effects are unique to the United States, others have implications for patent policy across the world. Among the negative effects of drug patents are: (1) examples of misguided, anti-social, and anticompetitive promotion of patented drugs; (2) misguided incentives that push drug firms toward too much or too little research and development in critical areas: and (3) cartel-facilitating conduct linked to patent licenses or settlements of litigation involving drug patents. Some of these issues can be addressed directly through reforms in patent and competition law policy. There is, however, a need for a broader study of the role of patents in promoting drug research. That study should consider alternatives to the patent system, such as a prize system structured to supplement or partially replace patent rewards for pharmaceutical R&D.
      PubDate: 2021-04-28
       
  • “Whiteland Import Export”
    • Abstract: EU law must be interpreted as meaning that national courts are not required to apply Article 25(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] to the time-barring of a national competition authority’s powers to impose penalties for infringements of EU competition law. Article 4(3) TEU and Article 101 TFEU, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by the national courts having jurisdiction, according to which the decision to initiate an investigation, adopted by the national competition authority, concerning an infringement of EU competition law rules, is the final action of that authority which may have the effect of interrupting the limitation period relating to its power to impose penalties and excludes any subsequent action, for the purpose of proceedings or investigation, from interrupting that period, where it becomes apparent, having regard to all elements of the limitation rules at issue, that such an exclusion presents a systemic risk that acts constituting such infringements may go unpunished, which it is for the referring court to verify.
      PubDate: 2021-04-26
       
  • “Data Packet Conversion [Datenpaketumwandlung]”
    • Abstract: After expiry of the term of protection of a patent, an infringement action, even if it is based only on the main claim, as a rule gives rise to an interest in bringing legal proceedings for the infringing defendant in an action for revocation, including in respect of all dependent claims of the patent relating back to the main claim. The same applies in the case of independent claims, in any event if their content is the same to such an extent that the implementation of one claim (for example, a claim to an apparatus) typically leads to the implementation of the features of the other claim (for example, a process claim). The defence of a patent in amended form asserted for the first time in the appeal instance is generally admissible under Sec. 116(2) Patent Act if the new application differs from an application already filed at first instance only in that individual features added to the granted version have been deleted (confirmation of decision of the Federal Supreme Court, 20 March 2014 – X ZR 128/12 para. 52).
      PubDate: 2021-04-21
       
  • Inventorship Standards for Biotechnology Inventions Under the U.S. and
           Japanese Patent Acts
    • Abstract: This article highlights differences between the United States and Japanese inventorship standards by comparing a U.S. Federal Circuit decision and a Tokyo District Court decision in which inventorship of the same invention was disputed. It further discusses how Japanese courts, by applying Japanese inventorship standards, would not find one of the U.S. researchers in this case to be inventors, despite the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) finding inventorship while applying the U.S. standard. It argues that the U.S. standard is over-inclusive by including individuals who did not contribute to any part of the inventive process, but that the Japanese standard is too difficult to meet and may exclude inventors who made an important contribution. The over-inclusive U.S. standard is influenced by the legacy of “first-to-invent”: a formality requirement that all individual inventors must contribute to every claim to file a single application and a substantive requirement that an inventor’s prior joint invention is the prior art against her later invention unless the same group of individual inventors made both inventions. The article concludes with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of applying the U.S. and Japanese standards for determining inventorship of biotechnology inventions and proposes a harmonization of inventorship standards through the leadership of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
      PubDate: 2021-04-20
       
  • The Curious Case of Horseracing Data Caught in a Tangled Web of
           Relationships – The Racing Partnership Ltd v. Sports Information
           Services Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1300
    • Abstract: This paper comments on the recent split decision of the English Court of Appeal in The Racing Partnership Ltd v. Sports Information Services Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1300 concerning the common law action for misuse of confidential information. Although the majority overturned the decision of the trial judge and found in favour of the defendant, this author will explain why the conclusion reached by the dissenting judge is the more compelling.
      PubDate: 2021-04-14
       
  • “Betec Licht”
    • Abstract: All the features of the combination claimed to underlie the originality of a work must be taken into account when assessing the necessary originality required for copyright protection. An action for unfair competition may be based on facts which are substantially identical to the facts alleged in an action for intellectual property infringement, which has been rejected for the absence of a property right.
      PubDate: 2021-04-08
       
  • “Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto”
    • Abstract: Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where an undertaking which has allegedly participated in a single and continuous infringement of that provision, the most recent constituent element of which consists in the concerted submission with its competitors of a tender for the award of a public works contract, has won the contract and concluded with the contracting authority a works contract determining the essential characteristics of that contract and, in particular, the overall price to be paid for those works, the performance and payment of the price for which are staggered over time, the infringement period corresponds to the period up to the date of signature of the contract concluded between the undertaking and the contracting authority on the basis of the concerted bid submitted by that undertaking. It is for the national court to ascertain the date on which the essential characteristics of the relevant contract and, in particular, the total price to be paid for the work, have been definitively determined.
      PubDate: 2021-04-01
       
  • “Apple Mobile Phone Screens”
    • Abstract: The import of mobile phone screens, unlawfully affixed with a trademark covered by a permanent marker amounts to trademark infringement under Sec. 4 subsec. 1(a), cf. subsec. 3 of the Trademarks Act. The removal or covering of the affixed trademarks by a permanent marker alone does not eliminate the risk of harm to the trademark’s functions, since the ink from the marker may be removed. Protection in such a case cannot be weaker than in cases where the original trademark has been permanently removed.
      PubDate: 2021-04-01
       
  • A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data
           Directive
    • PubDate: 2021-04-01
       
  • “Novus Nexus v. Solidas”
    • Abstract: The provisions established in Art. 2(29) and Art. 4(1) of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (LCRR) form a basis to state that in order for a work to be considered an object of copyright, the following conditions must be cumulatively met: (1) the work must the result of a creative or, in other words, intellectual activity; (2) the work must be original; and (3) the work must be expressed in one or another objective form. The originality of a work is a subjective category of evaluative nature, the qualification of which depends on specific factual circumstances. The assessment of the originality of a work differs depending on the nature of the work, being the requirement of objective originality (for the so-called factual and functional works) at a lower level than the requirement of subjective originality. Drafts (projects) of data protection documents are functional works in their content and purpose, thus not requiring special creativity, originality or individuality. The originality of a work is determined by assessing the whole work as an integral form of expression of the author’s creative (intellectual) activity, and not separate parts of it, for the creation of which fragments of certain legal acts may be used. A person preparing drafts (projects) of data protection documents that must comply with the requirements of the GDPR has a certain freedom of expression, choosing the appropriate elements of content and form, and the implementation of this degree of freedom of expression is sufficient to recognize that such a work, as an integral form of expression of the author’s creative (intellectual) activity, may meet the requirement of originality and be the object of copyright. Unlike the list of copyright objects, the list of non-copyrighted objects is exhaustive and thus, cannot be interpreted too broadly. Drafts (projects) of data protection documents are not legal acts as they are understood according to Art. 5(2) of the LCRR.
      PubDate: 2021-04-01
       
  • “Casucci v. Unipol”
    • Abstract: Even elementary ideas and notions can sometimes acquire the status of a work eligible for copyright protection as an expression of the subjectivity of its author. In the case of a regulation, such can be the case when legal notions, sector-specific practices and professional experiences have been contextualized, organized and combined with each other in a “creative” manner, reflecting the subjectivity of its author. A regulation lacking unique and creative elaboration, consisting merely of only practical and functional indications, not going beyond the boundary of mere cataloging, cannot acquire the status of a work protected by copyright.
      PubDate: 2021-04-01
       
  • “Infineon v. NXP”
    • Abstract: As appears from the difference between Art. 14(1) opening words and (c) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) and Art. 2.23(1) opening words and (c) of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP), a broadening has taken place concerning the permissibility of trade mark use by a third party to refer to goods or services like those of the trade mark proprietor (“referring trade mark use”). The need to indicate the destination of a product or service is no longer the sole ground for the permissibility of the referring use of a trade mark, but only one of the instances in which such referring use is permitted. Referring trade mark use to indicate the destination of a product or service must, however, be “necessary”. Pursuant to Art. 14(2) EUTMR and Art. 2.23(1) BCIP, the exception for referring trade mark use only applies if the use by the third party is made in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. In order to determine whether the referring use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, it is decisive how the relevant public will perceive the statement concerned and whether the impression created with the relevant public is correct. If a claimed compatibility does not exist in reality, the referring trade mark use is not in accordance with honest practices in industry and commerce. …
      PubDate: 2021-04-01
       
  • The Criteria to Qualify a Geographical Term as Generic: Are We Moving from
           a European to a US Perspective'
    • Abstract: This article discusses the transformation of a distinctive trade sign into a generic term. Any distinctive trade sign carries this risk, primarily if it benefits from a high level of reputation or prestige, and the product identified is unique in the market. This is probably the most critical danger for such signs, especially if they are industrial property rights. Several criteria have been developed to determine if a sign has been transformed into a generic term. These criteria have economic and political relevance, as genericness is not a trivial issue. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has taken a position in this matter, as have the European Union Regulations on trademarks and geographical indications. However, the bilateral and multilateral agreements are the critical arena for conflicts concerning geographical terms’ qualification as common terms. The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have been in the spotlight for a long time, while China is also reaching a prominent place in this dispute. The most recent bilateral agreements have been twisting the criteria applied when assessing a geographical term’s genericness.
      PubDate: 2021-04-01
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 3.238.96.184
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-