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: 29)
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: 7)
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)
Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi     Open Access  
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  [2653 journals]
  • “INJEKT/INJEX”
    • Abstract: In cancellation proceedings, use for a special product also has the effect of preserving rights for a more comprehensive, not excessively broad, superordinate class of goods. The required commercial approach and the legitimate interest of the proprietor of the trade mark not to be unduly restricted in his freedom of trade justify the inclusion in the list of goods of those goods which, according to the public’s perception, generally belong to the same field of goods. The judicial practice on the restriction of superordinate terms developed for cancellation proceedings in the interest of the trade mark proprietor’s freedom of trade does not apply to trade mark infringement proceedings. If the trade mark is registered for a (broad) superordinate class of goods, it is to be treated in these proceedings as if it were registered only for the specific goods used. However, this does not mean that the trade mark is only protected for the specific individual product sold with all its individual characteristics (here: two-piece disposable syringes). Rather, the protection extends to similar goods (here: medical syringes) (continuation of decision of the Federal Supreme Court, 29 June 2006 – I ZR 110/03, GRUR 2006, 937 = WRP 2006, 1133 – Ichthyol II). If an opposition is filed on the grounds of a likelihood of confusion on the basis of a sign which has been registered as a trade mark and which is weak in terms of distinctive character or inherently ineligible for protection due to descriptive resonance, descriptive elements of the sign may not be excluded a priori when examining the similarity of the signs. A preferential treatment of weak trade marks that is incompatible with the purpose of the absolute grounds for refusal may be countered by invalidity proceedings based on these grounds. If a sign has been validly registered as a trade mark, the bar to protection under Sec. 23 No. 2 Trade Mark Act old version (Sec. 23(1) No. 2 Trade Mark Act new version) prevents inappropriate protection being given in the infringement proceedings to signs which are inherently unprotectable due to their descriptive resonance.
      PubDate: 2021-03-11
       
  • Intellectual Property Rights and Access in Crisis
    • Abstract: The importance of access to intellectual property rights (IPR) protected subject-matter in two crucial areas – public health, and educational and cultural engagement – has been extensively demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although they involve separate legal areas, patent and copyright, the common thread linking the two is intellectual property's difficult relationship with access in the public interest. This paper examines the tensions caused by access barriers, the tools used to reduce them and their effectiveness. It is clear that the access barriers magnified by COVID-19 are not restricted to narrow or specific contexts but are widespread. They are created by, and are a feature of, our existing IPR frameworks. Open movements provide limited remedies because they are not designed to, nor can adequately address the wide range of access barriers necessary to promote the public interest. Existing legislative mechanisms designed to remove access barriers similarly fail to effectively remedy access needs. These existing options are premised on the assumption that there is a singular “public” motivated by homogenous “interests”, which fails to reflect the plurality and cross-border reality of the public(s) interest(s) underpinning the welfare goals of IPR. We conclude that a systemic re-evaluation is required and call for positive and equitable legal measures protective of the public(s) interest(s) to be built within IPR frameworks that also address non-IPR barriers. The current pandemic and development of a “new normal” provides a crucial opportunity to comprehensively consider the public(s) interest(s), not just during a global health crisis, but on an ongoing basis.
      PubDate: 2021-03-09
       
  • United Kingdom Copyright Decisions and Post-Brexit Copyright Developments
           2020
    • Abstract: This report highlights the main UK copyright decisions in 2020, which relate to the right to communicate the work to the public in the context of hotlinking; copyright subject matter; the use of cheat software in videogames; and website blocking injunctions. It also discusses the implications of the end of the Brexit transition period for copyright law in the UK.
      PubDate: 2021-03-08
       
  • “YOOFOOD/YO”
    • Abstract: In the comprehensive assessment of the likelihood of confusion of opposing signs, descriptive elements are not excluded up front or in general from the evaluation of similarity. This does not, however, rule out the possibility of one or more components of a complex mark being characteristic of the overall impression. This standard must also be applied when evaluating a one-word sign composed of several elements.
      PubDate: 2021-03-04
       
  • “Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Kymab”
    • Abstract: The requirement of sufficiency imposed by Art. 83 of the EPC exists to ensure that the extent of the monopoly conferred by the patent corresponds with the extent of the contribution which it makes to the art. In the case of a product claim, the contribution to the art is the ability of the skilled person to make the product itself, rather than (if different) the invention. Patentees are free to choose how widely to frame the range of products for which they claim protection. But they need to ensure that they make no broader claim than is enabled by their disclosure. The disclosure required of the patentee is such as will, coupled with the common general knowledge existing as at the priority date, be sufficient to enable the skilled person to make substantially all the types or embodiments of products within the scope of the claim. That is what enablement means in the context of a product claim. A claim which seeks to protect products which cannot be made by the skilled person using the disclosure in the patent will, subject to de minimis or wholly irrelevant exceptions, be bound to exceed the contribution to the art made by the patent, measured as it must be at the priority date. This does not mean that the patentee has to demonstrate in the disclosure that every embodiment within the scope of the claim has been tried, tested and proved to have been enabled to be made. Patentees may rely, if they can, upon a principle of general application if it would appear reasonably likely to enable the whole range of products within the scope of the claim to be made. But they take the risk, if challenged, that the supposed general principle will be proved at trial not in fact to enable a significant, relevant, part of the claimed range to be made, as at the priority date. Nor will a claim which in substance passes the sufficiency test be defeated by dividing the product claim into a range denominated by some wholly irrelevant factor, such as the length of a mouse’s tail. The requirement to show enablement across the whole scope of the claim applies only across a relevant range. Put broadly, the range will be relevant if it is denominated by reference to a variable which significantly affects the value or utility of the product in achieving the purpose for which it is to be made. Enablement across the scope of a product claim is not established merely by showing that all products within the relevant range will, if and when they can be made, deliver the same general benefit intended to be generated by the invention, regardless how valuable and ground-breaking that invention may prove to be.
      PubDate: 2021-03-01
       
  • CK Telecoms UK Limited v. Commission – A Significant Impediment to
           Effective Protection'
    • Abstract: On 28 May 2020 the General Court of the EU annulled the decision of the European Commission to prohibit the proposed acquisition by Hutchinson 3G UK Investments Limited of Telefónica Europe Plc (which trades as O2 in the UK). The General Court’s decision is noteworthy for a number of reasons, such as elucidating a new test for determining whether a merger would result in a significant impediment to effective competition under the Merger Regulation, establishing the standard of proof to be applied, and for the rigorous nature of the General Court’s review of the Commission’s decision. The Commission has been highly critical of the judgment and lodged an appeal on 7 August 2020. However, the case will continue to have significant implications for merger control rules until the appeal is heard, and its impact will be felt for decades to come if the Commission’s appeal is ultimately unsuccessful. This opinion argues that the judgment represents a very troubling precedent from the perspective of European consumers, as it will result in potentially harmful mergers being permitted and ultimately lead to lower competition on already highly concentrated markets. It may also lead to more paltry offers of remedies from merging parties to cure competition concerns. Therefore, the result of the decision may represent a very significant impediment to effective protection of competition on markets for years to come.
      PubDate: 2021-03-01
       
  • United Kingdom Patent Decisions 2020
    • Abstract: This report highlights a selection of the most important UK patent decisions from 2020, including: two Supreme Court judgments (one concerning insufficiency and one concerning FRAND); two Court of Appeal judgments (considering SPC fees and Arrow declarations); and four High Court judgments (regarding the Crown use exception, injunctions and the public interest, the treatment of experts in patents trials and technical primers, and interim injunctions).
      PubDate: 2021-03-01
       
  • Overview of United Kingdom Trade Mark and Designs Cases 2020
    • Abstract: This report is a summary of important UK trade mark and design decisions that were rendered in 2020 (including a late 2019 case). First, the CJEU decision in Sky v. Skykick was finally handed down and the UK High Court took on board its ruling, which is very interesting bearing in mind the UK is now officially out of the EU. The claimant was successful on the ground of reputation and unfair advantage in Red Bull GmbH v. Big Horn Limited, which will be useful for owners of well-known brands who are trying to prevent lookalike products from being sold. Planetart LLC v. Photobox Ltd & Anor is a good reminder of the relevant law in trade mark infringement and passing off but is also a useful guide regarding the application of trade mark law in the field of mobile apps. Another classic infringement case is Sazerac Brands, LLC v. Liverpool Gin Distillery Limited where expert evidence was accorded significant weight and was key in the outcome of the case. Similarly, Merck KGaA v. Merck Sharp & Dohme relates to an infringement case but with a peculiarity: the rise of the internet which rendered the co-existence agreement in place between the parties no longer fit for purpose. Whilst 2020 was not rich in design court cases, it was certainly the year of non-conventional marks and other IP rights including collective marks and PDOs. Indeed, in Fromageries Bel SA v. J Sainsbury plc, a UK 3D mark accompanied by a colour description was cancelled due to the fact that the description was too broad, which is consistent with the Cadbury purple colour case. Another shape mark was cancelled in Jaguar Land Rover Limited v. Ineos Industries Holdings Limited, but this time because the mark had not departed significantly from the norms and customs of the sector and had not acquired distinctiveness through use. Moving away from shape marks, the UK High Court interpreted the scope of an EU Collective mark (probably for the last time) in Foundation for the protection of the traditional cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v. Babel Sajt Kft and reminded us that the test for distinctiveness and confusion is not the same as for “normal” trade marks. The decision in Les Grands Chais De France SAS v. Consorzio Di Tutela Della Denominazione Di Origine Controllata Prosecco concerns the enforcement of a PDO and confirms the level of protection afforded by this IP right. Last but not least, Glencairn v. Product Specialities Inc does not discuss a specific IP issue but still concerns IP litigators and practitioners. This case addresses the issues of conflicts of interest, confidentiality and information barriers when a firm of solicitors acts for two unrelated parties in separate litigation with similar facts against a third party, where the first case is settled on confidential terms.
      PubDate: 2021-03-01
       
  • Creation of Technical Conditions for Use or Infringement – The Meanders
           of the Warehouse Keeper’s Liability in Light of CJEU Judgment C-567/18
           Coty Germany
    • Abstract: One form of industrial property right infringement is stocking for the purpose of offering or marketing. This form of infringement appears both in EU legal acts on trademarks or designs, as well as in national regulations, including those concerning patents. What is specific to stocking when compared to other activities comprising the stipulated exclusivity of the holder of industrial property rights is the fact that the literal meaning of “stocking” does not explain whether the infringing party or the warehouse keeper is the entity that places the goods in storage. The structure of industrial property rights as absolute rights would theoretically permit the view that the law is violated by both the entity that accepts the goods for storage and the entity that places such goods in storage. To determine if there is an infringement, it must be established what the goods being stocked are further intended for. It is not without significance that the finding of an infringement of industrial property rights does not depend on fault or awareness. From the point of view of the industrial property law regime, it is difficult to find arguments against this understanding of infringement by stocking. Since the offeror of goods infringing industrial property rights may be held liable even if the goods have not yet been manufactured, it is conceivable that the entity accepting such goods for stocking is also liable. This interpretation of the concept of stocking would certainly correspond to the absolute nature of liability for infringement. In a recent judgment the CJEU confirmed that the warehouse keeper who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trademark rights only creates the technical conditions for trademark use by this third party provided that the warehouse keeper is not aware of that infringement. The CJEU also confirmed that only the person who decides about the purpose of storing the goods can be treated as an infringer. However, the CJEU did not respond to the question regarding whether the warehouse keeper could be treated as an infringer if it pursues the aims of storing the goods at the request of the entity that put the goods into storage.
      PubDate: 2021-02-24
       
  • “Aspen”
    • PubDate: 2021-02-24
       
  • The Proposed Digital Markets Act and Access to Data: A Revolution, or
           Not'
    • PubDate: 2021-02-23
       
  • An Empirical Analysis of the Fashion Design Case Law of Australia
    • Abstract: Australian laws relating to the protection of fashion design have been unfavourably compared with those of Europe. Some commentators have argued for the adoption of a European-style unregistered design right or a tort of unfair competition. These commentators argue that armed with these causes of action, courts could better enforce design rights which in turn would increase the welfare of consumers. This study counters these arguments by presenting a systematic empirical examination of fashion design cases pursued in Australian courts. Identifying 85 cases over 16 years (1 January 2004 – 1 January 2020), this study reveals that Australian court enforcement of rights is comparable to that found in similar European studies. This study finds that for both counterfeit and non-counterfeit copying cases, fashion designers (asserting trade, copyright or registered design rights) have these rights enforced the majority of the time. Therefore, additional causes of action (which incur heavy evidentiary costs) would be of limited benefit to potential plaintiffs. This article also discusses recent reviews of the Australian design eco-system conducted by IP Australia. These reviews include important survey evidence from Australian designers on the impediments to enforcement (typically high cost) and evidence from consumers as to how they value original design (highly price sensitive). The original empirical analysis in this study (in conjunction with IP Australia’s survey evidence) indicates that the majority of Australian designers do not pursue infringing copyists for economic reasons, and not for want of a cause of action.
      PubDate: 2021-02-23
       
  • “Bronze Bust”
    • Abstract: A bust sculpture may not be reproduced without the consent of the author, as Art. 98 of the Copyright Act is only applicable to photographic portraits. By allowing only photographic portraits to be reproduced without the consent of the author, the legislature deliberately excluded from this possibility the reproduction of portraits different from photographic ones (such as paintings or works of sculpture). Furthermore, Art. 98 of the Copyright Act restricts the authorization to reproduce photographic portraits without consent of the author solely to the person portrayed (and successors or assignees). Third parties are not covered by this legal exception.
      PubDate: 2021-02-17
       
  • “Husqvarna”
    • Abstract: Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a counterclaim for the revocation of rights in an EU mark, the relevant date for the purposes of determining whether the continuous five-year period referred to in that provision has ended is the date on which that counterclaim was filed.
      PubDate: 2021-02-16
       
  • “Red Cat”
    • Abstract: In accordance with para. 4 of Art. 1259 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (CCRF), no registration of a work or any other formality is required for the creation, exercise and protection of copyright. Until proven otherwise, the author of the work is considered to be the person, indicated as such on the original or the copy of the work or otherwise in accordance with para. 1 of Art. 1300 CCRF (Art. 1257 CCRF), in the Registry of Computer Programs or in the Registry of Databases (para. 6 of Art. 1262 CCRF). On this basis, the authorship of a specific person is established only through the evidence which confirms the fact of creation of a work by this specific person (e.g. witness statements, publications, drafts, evidence based on establishing the author’s creative style, etc.). The deposit of a work is a voluntary procedure which is not prescribed by law, to which the legislation does not attribute any consequence. The deposit only confirms the existence of the copy of a specific work at a certain point in time. The deposit of a work is not related to the presumption established by Art. 1257 CCRF, according to which the person, indicated as the author on the original or the copy of a work, or otherwise in accordance with para. 1 of Art. 1300 CCRF, is considered as its author, if not proven otherwise.
      PubDate: 2021-02-16
       
  • Stefan A. Schmidt: Zugang zu Daten nach europäischem Kartellrecht
    • PubDate: 2021-02-16
       
  • “Zyfas Medical v. Millennium Pharmaceuticals”
    • Abstract: Process patents must be declared in an application for registration of a therapeutic product pursuant to reg 23(2) of the Health Products (Therapeutic Products) Regulations 2016 (S 329/2016).
      PubDate: 2021-02-08
       
  • “BY (Preuve photographique)”
    • 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 concept of ‘communication to the public’, referred to in that provision, does not cover the transmission by electronic means of a protected work to a court, as evidence in judicial proceedings between individuals.
      PubDate: 2021-02-08
       
  • Taking Nature Seriously: An Implied “Natural Contract” to
           Patents'
    • PubDate: 2021-02-02
      DOI: 10.1007/s40319-021-01019-z
       
  • “Photo Retweet”
    • Abstract: The process wherein "the work is made available or presented to the public" as referred to in Article 19, paragraph (1) of the Copyright Act is not required to be carried out through the exploitation of the work regarding which any of the rights prescribed in Articles 21 to 27 of the same Act exists. Where a person made a post, via an information network on the internet, with an image of a photograph, which is another person's work, and this image was displayed, with its part containing the indication of the author's name having been cut off, on the terminals of the viewers of the webpage of that post, the person who made the post cannot be deemed to have indicated the author's name, even if the viewers could have viewed the original image accompanied by the indication of the author's name, under the following circumstances (1) and (2) described in the judgment: The original image accompanied by the indication of the author's name can be viewed only on the webpage that is different from the abovementioned webpage; and There are no such circumstances where it can be said that the abovementioned viewers would normally click the displayed image. Where a person who seeks the disclosure of identification information of the senders under Article 4, paragraph (1) of the Act on the Limitation of Liability for Damages of Specified Telecommunications Service Providers and the Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Senders suffered infringement of his/her right of attribution regarding a photograph which is the person's work, due to a post containing an image of the photograph made via an information network on the internet, it can be said under the following circumstances that the person who made that post falls within the category of "senders of infringing information" referred to in that paragraph, and has infringed the right of the person who seeks the disclosure of identification information of the senders, "by the distribution of infringing information" referred to in item (i) of that paragraph: when that post was made, data including HTML (a language for describing the structure, etc. of a webpage) data concerning the link to the file of that image and the designation of the manner of displaying the image was recorded on the recording medium in a specified telecommunications facility and transmitted to the terminals of the viewers of the webpage of the post, causing the data of that image to be transmitted from the server of the linked page to those terminals, thereby causing the image to be displayed on the terminals with its parts having been cut off as designated, due to which the indication of the author's name attached to the image was not displayed and the author's right of attribution was infringed.
      PubDate: 2021-01-28
      DOI: 10.1007/s40319-021-01021-5
       
 
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: 3.235.25.169
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-