Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 28 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted alphabetically
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 18)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
GRUR International     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
International Journal of Innovation Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Invention Disclosure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law     Free   (Followers: 8)
Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship     Open Access   (Followers: 32)
Journal of Data Protection & Privacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 22)
Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access  
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
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: 22)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.28
Number of Followers: 24  
 
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 0018-9855 - ISSN (Online) 2195-0237
Published by Springer-Verlag Homepage  [2467 journals]
  • “AdWords”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Article 43(5) of the Trade Mark Law, establishes a legal criterion which expressly states that proof is not required to impose compensation of 1% of turnover obtained with unlawfully branded goods or services. Advertising that does not fully enable the average internet user to determine whether the services included in the advertisement originate from the trade mark holder or an undertaking economically linked to it or whether, on the contrary, they originate from a third party, constitutes an unlawful trade mark use as it is done without the consent of its holder, to identify identical services, and thus undermining the function indicating the business origin of the services offered. In matters of compensation for damages, these are not presumed but must be proven by the party claiming them, both the existence and the amount unless their existence can be presumed when a situation occurs in which the damages are revealed as real and effective (ex re ipsa), so that there is no need for proof because it is incontestably proven by reality. When it is very difficult to quantify the economic damage, either by determining the direct damage to the plaintiff due to the loss of earnings or the profit obtained by the infringer or through a hypothetical royalty (Art. 43(2) of the Trade Mark Law), Art. 43(5) of the Trade Mark Law allows the holder of the infringed trade mark to request 1% of the turnover obtained with the services identified with the infringed trade mark. The turnover does not refer to the services rendered as a result of the trade mark infringement (here: the services invoiced to those who came to Vitaldent because of the advertisement, which constituted an infringement of the defendant’s trade mark), but rather to all the unlawfully branded services (here: all those which were advertised through the infringement of the applicant’s trade mark – implants, orthodontics, paediatric dentistry and cosmetic dentistry), without it being necessary to distinguish which were provided as a result of the advertisement and which were not.
      PubDate: 2023-03-20
       
  • “Next Models”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Portugal has to respect the provision of Art. 8 of the Paris Convention, recognising and protecting the trade names of foreign entities, even if these do not meet the requirements imposed on Portuguese entities wishing to achieve the same objective in Portugal, and for which they would have to obtain authorisations or registrations. As such, a foreign trade name enjoys protection in Portugal, if requested, even without being registered in Portugal. This protection may lead to the protected entity being able to react against an entity with a trade name registered in Portugal, forcing that trade name to be changed, as the former takes precedence. The requirements of Art. 238 of the Portuguese Industrial Property Code are applicable, albeit with adaptations, to cases in which there is a likelihood of confusion between a trade mark and a domain name. The choice of a trade name that makes possible the association with another’s trade name, even if not intentional to take advantage of the other’s image, results in its use being an element that a competition system based on the fairness of the conduct of competitors does not tolerate, by virtue of the prohibition contained in Art. 311 of the Industrial Code. Likelihood of confusion between the signs does not require the signs to be exactly the same. The comparison must be made with the set of objective elements used in the various industrial property rights in comparison, considering the goal of the associated protection.
      PubDate: 2023-03-20
       
  • Developing Artificial Intelligence-Based Content Creation: Are EU
           Copyright and Antitrust Law Fit for Purpose'

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Abstract Artificial intelligence offers promising applications for content production. However, their development faces significant copyright issues because it involves reproduction of protected subject matter and requires datasets so large that obtaining licences from all rightholders is unfeasible. These issues potentially hinder technological development and content production. On the other hand, some AI applications can threaten the interests and incentives of those who create works and subject matter that are protected by related rights. This article examines whether EU copyright and antitrust law are capable of addressing these challenges. It identifies possibilities and obstacles in applying exceptions for text and data mining (TDM) and temporary copying to the development of artificial creativity (AC) applications. The article also examines mechanisms by which EU antitrust law facilitates access to copyright-protected training materials and licences – an important complement to the copyright exceptions. While copyright and antitrust law enable the development of AC in certain situations, their tools are limited to particular types of AI applications, certain categories of subject matter and specific market conditions, and are subject to requirements concerning the development process as well as considerable legal uncertainty. Copyright and antitrust law also remain largely toothless against contractual and technological restraints, while recent EU initiatives dealing with data access also provide little relief in this regard.
      PubDate: 2023-03-15
       
  • “Nova Chemicals Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co.”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: When a patentee chooses an accounting of profits as a remedy for patent infringement, the infringer must disgorge all the profits they gained that are causally attributable to the invention. This may involve consideration of the hypothetical profits that an infringer could have earned by selling a non-infringing option. Springboard profits may also be available. Whether there is a non-infringing option is a question of fact. There are no strict rules around this factual exercise, and the non-infringing option need not be a strict market substitute for the patented product. The onus is on the infringer to adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that the profits from its infringing product arose by virtue of features other than the patentee’s invention and that there is a non-infringing option that can help the courts isolate this value. Springboard profits are legally permissible. An accounting of profits requires that the infringer disgorge all profits causally attributable to infringement of the invention, regardless of when the profits materialize, including profits an infringer earns because of an accelerated entry into the market. Failing to disgorge those profits would leave gains that are causally attributable to infringement of the invention in the hands of the infringer and would be unfair to third parties that waited for patent expiry to compete with the patentee.
      PubDate: 2023-03-13
       
  • “Alibaba”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: When a network service provider becomes aware that a network user has infringed a party’s civil rights while using its network services and fails to take necessary measures, the network user and the network service provider shall be jointly and severally liable for infringement. The standards imposed on a valid notice vary according to the type of patent rights, the nature of the platform and the operator of an e-commerce platform. For notices involving patent rights, under the framework of platform governance rules, valid notices may include documents such as comparison charts in which technical or design features are listed, evaluation reports for utility model or design patent right, etc. As long as the notice contains basic information of the rights holder, proof of the rights, information that could accurately locate the allegedly infringing goods or services, preliminary evidence of infringement and specific measures the e-commerce platform needs to take, an e-commerce platform operator must fulfill its obligation to forward the notice without reviewing the preliminary evidence of infringement. Forwarding a notice to an accused party is the minimum obligation of an e-commerce platform operator, who shall not claim vice versa that, by forwarding a notice, it has taken necessary measures that are required by law. Whether an e-commerce platform operator is required to take further necessary measures after the notice is forwarded is subject to the content of the notice. It is for an e-commerce platform operator to decide, upon receipt of a valid notice (trigger for necessary measures), what necessary measures are to be taken according to the situation, depending on the type of network service, the nature of the (intellectual property) rights, and the infringement activities, etc. Deleting and disconnecting links is one of the necessary measures. Although e-commerce platform operators are not liable for infringements that are beyond their supervisory capabilities, they shall not remain passive or take no action by citing reasons such as that patent infringement cases are difficult to determine and that there are cases of malicious complaints. The action of removing products initiated by an operator on the platform shall not automatically be deemed as an effective measure taken by an e-commerce platform operator.
      PubDate: 2023-03-13
       
  • Overview of United Kingdom Trade Mark, Design and Copyright Cases 2022

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Abstract A number of interesting cases involving wide-ranging issues in the intellectual property areas were decided in the UK in 2022. The latest in the saga between Nestle and Cadbury was handed down in Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Cadbury UK Limited. This case concerned the registrability of the colour purple. Also on registrability, we had the decision in Husqvarna Aktiebolag v. UKIPO. This involved the registrability of a 3D trade mark, and the uncertainties surrounding this continue to linger. Moreover, the UKIPO Tribunal decision in Industria De Diseno Textil v. Amber Kotrri was straightforward enough from a factual point of view but garnered a host of publicity due to the PR efforts of one of the parties. It concerned an opposition based on likelihood of confusion and reputation grounds, but the result may be surprising to some readers. ABP Technology Ltd v. Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc. & Turtle Beach Europe Ltd was particularly interesting from a procedural point of view, and parties are reminded that their litigation strategy can be put to scrutiny. The importance of evidence, and in particular, specific and tailored evidence to a case, was made clear in DC Comics (Partnership) v. Unilever Global IP Limited. Also on evidence, Urbanbubble Ltd & Ors v. Urban Evolution Property Management Ltd (“UEPM”) & Ors reminds readers that evidence of confusion will not always lead to a finding of infringement or passing off because all the factors will need to be considered. Nonetheless, Match Group v. Muzmatch confirms that the absence of actual confusion is also not decisive in the likelihood of confusion assessment. Goodwill, especially in the case of a music band which then later splits, was considered in Alan Williams Entertainments Ltd and ANOR v. Clarke and Ors. This was a passing off case, with a claim for bad faith in a trade mark application. Though the case is factually complex, the resulting decision is a good reminder to all in the music and performing arts industries. In a similar vein, in Shazam Productions Ltd v. Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd, the courts considered whether copyright and actionable goodwill could subsist in relation to a television series.
      PubDate: 2023-03-13
       
  • “Multicaja”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      PubDate: 2023-03-13
       
  • United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2022

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Abstract This report highlights a selection of the most important UK patent decisions from 2022, including: five Court of Appeal judgments (one relating to determining what constitutes an exclusive licensee, two dealing with permission to appeal and the appeal of a divisional patent validity challenge, one dealing with Arrow declaratory relief, and one dealing with the appropriate relief after a finding of standard essential patent (SEP) validity and infringement), and seven High Court judgments (one concerning a preliminary issues trial, one concerning divisional patent validity, one concerning plausibility, one considering an application for interim injunctive relief, one considering an application for Arrow declaratory relief, one looking at unjustified threats, and one looking at an expedition application relating to an infringement trial).
      PubDate: 2023-03-07
       
  • United Kingdom Copyright Decisions 2022

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Abstract This report highlights the most significant UK copyright decisions in 2022. Most of these relate to the issue of copyright subject matter, which remains the focus of much academic debate. Some of these cases also raise issues relating to infringement and the scope and application of certain exceptions and limitations. The report also discusses the latest decision on website blocking injunctions.
      PubDate: 2023-03-07
       
  • Bryan Mercurio and Ronald Yu: Regulating Cross-Border Data Flows –
           Issues, Challenges and Impact

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      PubDate: 2023-03-02
       
  • New U.S. Law Authorizes Presidential Sanctions for Trade Secret Theft

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      PubDate: 2023-02-22
       
  • “Novartis Pharma”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Article 9(2) and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of an EU trade mark is not entitled to oppose the marketing by a parallel importer of a repackaged medicinal product in a new outer packaging bearing that mark, where the replacement of the anti-tampering device of the original outer packaging of that medicinal product carried out in accordance with Article 47a(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, would leave visible traces of opening on that packaging and where those traces would cause such strong resistance on the part of a significant proportion of consumers on the market of the Member State of importation or on a substantial part of that market to medicinal products repackaged in that way that it would constitute an obstacle to effective access to that market, which must be established on a case-by-case basis. Article 5(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 of 2 October 2015 supplementing Directive 2001/83 must be interpreted as not precluding the barcode containing the unique identifier referred to in Article 3(2)(a) of that delegated regulation from being affixed to the outer packaging of the medicinal product by means of an adhesive label, provided that that label cannot be removed without being damaged and that, in particular, the barcode remains perfectly readable throughout the supply chain and throughout the entire period referred to in Article 6 of that delegated regulation.
      PubDate: 2023-02-21
       
  • “Bayer Intellectual Property”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Article 47a of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that provided that all the requirements referred to in that article are satisfied, repackaging in new packaging and relabelling of medicinal products imported in parallel constitute equivalent forms of repackaging as regards the efficacy of the safety features referred to in Article 54(o) of that directive, as amended by Directive 2012/26, without one prevailing over the other. Article 10(2) and Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed where it is objectively possible to relabel the medicinal product concerned in compliance with the requirements provided for in Article 47a of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2012/26, and where the medicinal product thus relabelled could actually access the market of the Member State of importation. Article 10(2) and Article 15 of Directive 2015/2436 must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed, where the visible traces of opening of the original outer packaging which, where applicable, would result from relabelling of that medicinal product would be clearly attributable to the repackaging thus carried out by that parallel importer, unless those traces give rise, on the market of the Member State of importation or on a significant part of that market, to such strong resistance on the part of a significant proportion of consumers to medicinal products repackaged in that way as to constitute a barrier to effective access to that market, which must be established on a case-by-case basis.
      PubDate: 2023-02-21
       
  • “IFPI v. I&Q Group and Hellspy”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The legal regulation limiting the liability of the provider of an information society service consisting in the storage of information provided by the user (public data storage service) according to Sec. 5(1) of the Act on Certain Information Society Services does not apply when assessing private obligations arising from a tort of an unfair competition, which do not result from the liability of the provider for the content of information stored at the user’s request (i.e. for interference with a private right to intangible property affected by this information), even if these obligations are economically related to the provision (to the manner of provision) of this service. Where the provider of such a service, which is operated in a form that enables users to threaten or violate intellectual property rights to a competitively significant extent through the information they store, pays remuneration to those users, the amount of which is dependent on the number or extent of downloads by third parties of the data files stored by them, without reasonably verifying that such remuneration is not paid in connection with the threatening or violation of intellectual property rights, it commits in principle unfair competition according to Sec. 2976(1) of the Civil Code. The provision of this service using an electronic search engine for stored information does not constitute an act of unfair competition merely because the search results may include a data file whose content threatens or violates intellectual property rights, as long as the provider of this service neither (actively) influences the search results beyond the automated process itself nor edits them in such a competitively significant manner that he would thereby enter the market for making intellectual property available.
      PubDate: 2023-02-15
       
  • “Verdens Gang”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The use by a newspaper of photographs taken from a law firm's website and from an open Facebook profile without consent and without paying a remuneration is to be assessed under the current event rule in Sec. 36 subsection 2 of the Copyright Act and not under the rule on the right of quotation in Sec. 29. Here it was found that: The newspaper’s use of the photographs has a legal basis in Sec. 36 subsection 2 of the Copyright Act – Use of works in connection with the media’s reporting of a current event – and, also taking into account freedom of expression, it was entitled to reproduce them without permission but must, however, pay remuneration for the use.
      PubDate: 2023-02-13
       
  • “Tirol”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The continued use of a logo after the expiry of the licence agreement with the proprietor of the trade mark is misleading and therefore inadmissible, irrespective of whether the licence requirements are still fulfilled.
      PubDate: 2023-02-13
       
  • “S”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The very essence of the trade mark licence agreement in question (here: the right to use the distinctive sign) does not allow applying material change of circumstances as grounds for its termination under Art. 421 para. 1 of the Civil Code of Belarus on the basis that the licensor neither hired the licensee, nor provided the licensee with information about the quality of the licensor’s services to which the licensee’s services must correspond and information about the nature, techniques and methods of rendering services of class 44 of the International Classification of Goods and Services, in relation to which the claimant is entitled to use the licensed service mark, as the obligation of the agreement – the right to use the distinctive sign – was fulfilled and there was no damage as a result of which the licensee had largely lost what she was entitled to rely on when concluding the agreement.
      PubDate: 2023-02-09
       
  • Is the European Patent System for (Bio)Pharmaceuticals in Need of
           Change'

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      PubDate: 2023-02-01
       
  • “VANEMÕDE”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Section 11(1)1) Trade Marks Act (TMA) must be interpreted in such a way that to determine whether a person owns an earlier well-known trade mark, which precludes others from registering the trade mark, it is important to assess whether the trade mark is well-known at the time of the submission of the trade mark registration application submitted by another person or other persons. The ownership of the well-known trade mark must also be assessed as on the filing of the application for registration. The owner of a well-known trade mark should be determined based on who uses this trade mark in commercial activities to denote goods and services and who the relevant public (i.e. average consumers of these goods and services) associates with this trade mark as a sign of origin. The owners of a trade mark can be several persons at the same time. If it is a collective of persons (here: a musical ensemble) who operate under one sign and contribute to achieving the purpose for the sign to become well known, the well-known trade mark may be jointly owned by all those persons (here: the members of the ensemble). In the case that an ensemble is created and operates under the leadership of one or a few persons (known as the manager or managers) and the public associates that ensemble with the leading member(s), while the other members change, the trade mark may belong to only one (or several) managing members. When a well-known trade mark is jointly owned, consent of all members is necessary to register the trade mark, irrespective of who developed the (ensemble’s) logo and stylistics. The level of the possible legal protection of a previous sign, including the possible general recognition of the sign, is only one factor to be taken into account when assessing the bad faith of a registration application, as all factors relevant to the case at hand at the time of filing said application must be taken into account. The mere fact that the applicant knew or should have known that a third party, at the time of applying, uses a trade mark for identical or similar goods in a foreign country that can be confused with the trade mark applied for is not sufficient to establish bad faith. Bad faith in filing of the application must be assessed as a circumstance precluding the legal protection of the trade mark, regardless of whether the courts consider that the sign applied for was well known at the time of the registration application and irrespective of sole or joint ownership.
      PubDate: 2023-01-31
       
  • “Louboutin”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the operator of an online sales website incorporating, as well as that operator’s own sales offerings, an online marketplace may be regarded as itself using a sign which is identical with an EU trade mark of another person for goods which are identical with those for which that trade mark is registered, where third-party sellers offer for sale, on that marketplace, without the consent of the proprietor of that trade mark, such goods bearing that sign, if a well-informed and reasonably observant user of that site establishes a link between the services of that operator and the sign at issue, which is in particular the case where, in view of all the circumstances of the situation in question, such a user may have the impression that that operator itself is marketing, in its own name and on its own account, the goods bearing that sign. In that regard, the following are relevant: the fact that that operator uses a uniform method of presenting the offers published on its website, displaying both the advertisements relating to the goods which it sells in its own name and on its own behalf and those relating to goods offered by third-party sellers on that marketplace; the fact that it places its own logo as a renowned distributor on all those advertisements; and the fact that it offers third-party sellers, in connection with the marketing of goods bearing the sign at issue, additional services consisting inter alia in the storing and shipping of those goods.
      PubDate: 2023-01-24
       
 
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: 34.232.63.94
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-