Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 28 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted by number of followers
Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship     Open Access   (Followers: 29)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
The Journal of World Intellectual Property     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 22)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 17)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
International Journal of Innovation Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law     Free   (Followers: 8)
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Journal of Data Protection & Privacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Invention Disclosure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
GRUR International     Full-text available via subscription  
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access  
Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial     Open Access  
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  [2469 journals]
  • “Nordzucker and Others”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding an undertaking from having proceedings brought against it by the competition authority of a Member State and, as the case may be, fined for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and the corresponding provisions of the national competition law, on the basis of conduct which has had an anticompetitive object or effect in the territory of that Member State, even though that conduct has already been referred to by a competition authority of another Member State, in a final decision adopted by that authority in respect of that undertaking following infringement proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and the corresponding provisions of the competition law of that other Member State, provided that that decision is not based on a finding of an anticompetitive object or effect in the territory of the first Member State. Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings for the enforcement of competition law, in which, owing to the participation of the party concerned in the national leniency programme, only a declaration of the infringement of that law can be made, are liable to be covered by the non bis in idem principle.
      PubDate: 2022-08-10
       
  • Finding Your Identity and Partner in a Trade Mark' Consumption,
           Innovation and the Law

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Abstract Trade marks are not traditionally considered to be central to innovation because they do not need to be innovative to be protected. Instead, trade marks are used to indicate the source of products and services. Of course, if consumers could not determine the source, this would reduce the incentive for traders to compete through innovative products and services. Here, we argue that trade marks implicate innovation in yet another way. Namely, because consumption can be based on identity characteristics and personality traits of trade marks, which can result in consumer-brand relationships that are either or both identity-related and/or partner-like, companies have incentives to innovate in accordance with the identity characteristics and personality traits. Failure to do so can result in negative reactions from consumers and relationship break-ups, which impacts innovation selection and hence societal good. We explore the implications of this for trade mark law theory and practice.
      PubDate: 2022-08-10
       
  • “If She Dances, I Dance”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The use of literary, artistic or scientific works by third parties depends on the express and prior authorization of the author according to Art. 29 of Law No. 9.610/98 (Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, LDA). This authorization cannot be presumed. Thus, no tacit authorization results from the lack of response to an e-mail. The melody, the harmony and the rhythm are constitutive elements of a song and are therefore encompassed by the subject matter of protection. The name and, in the case of literary-musical composition, the lyrics can also be protected as long as the originality requirement is fulfilled. The author has the right to prevent his work from being associated with certain people, or – as in this case – with a broadcasting company, in order to protect its commercial use and to take economic advantage of it in the way the he considers best. The use of an integral part of a song’s chorus (here: the expression “If she dances, I dance”) is not accessory, and thus does not fall under the scope of Art. 46, VIII, LDA. The unauthorized use of a musical work, which consists of both the use of the phonogram and of an excerpt from the lyrics (here: the expression “If she dances, I dance”), as the name of a TV show, constitutes an infringement of the author’s property rights.
      PubDate: 2022-08-08
       
  • “Commissioner of Patents v. Thaler (DABUS)”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Although not defined in the Patents Act, the term “inventor” in 15(1) plainly enough is a reference to the inventor of the invention the subject of the patent application. “Inventor” has long been held to bear its ordinary English meaning, being the person(s) responsible for making the invention, namely, “the person who makes or devises the process or product”. The inventor for the purposes of Sec. 15(1)(a) is the person who is responsible for the “inventive concept”. Such an inventor is the person, or one of the people, who materially contributes to the inventive concept as described in the specification and the subject of the claims. The law relating to the entitlement of a person to the grant of a patent is premised upon an invention for the purposes of the Patents Act arising from the mind of a natural person or persons. Those who contribute to, or supply, the inventive concept are entitled to the grant. The grant of a patent for an invention rewards their ingenuity. Where Sec. 15(1)(a) provides that a patent for an invention may only be granted to “a person who is an inventor”, the reference to “a person” emphasises, in context, that this is a natural person. Each of Secs. 15(1)(b), (c) and (d) provide for circumstances where a person becomes entitled to the grant of a patent by ultimately receiving that entitlement from the inventor in Sec. 15(1)(a). For this there must be a legal relationship between the actual inventor and the person first entitled to the grant. Under Sec. 15(1)(b), the person claims through the inventor of Sec. 15(1)(a) by way of assignment. Something without a legal identity cannot give effect to an assignment.
      PubDate: 2022-08-06
       
  • “Providus”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: In matters of industrial property rights, the owner of an exclusive right who complains of its infringement has the right to demand, instead of compensation for loss of profit, the restitution (so-called “retroversion”) of the profits accrued by the infringer, with a specific demand made pursuant to Art. 125 Industrial Property Code (IPC), without it being necessary to specifically allege and prove that the injured party suffered a loss of profit equal to the profits made by the infringer. In matters of industrial property rights, the owner of an exclusive right who complains of its infringement has the right to demand, instead of compensation for loss of profit, the restitution (so-called “retroversion”) of the profits accrued by the infringer, with a specific demand pursuant to Art. 125 IPC, without it being necessary to specifically allege and prove that the infringer acted with fault or intention.
      PubDate: 2022-08-05
       
  • “HEITEC”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Article 9 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 and Articles 54, 110 and 111 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that an act, such as a warning letter, by which the proprietor of an earlier mark or other earlier right opposes the use of a later mark without taking the necessary steps to obtain a legally binding solution does not stop acquiescence and, consequently, does not interrupt the period of limitation. Article 9 of Directive 2008/95 and Articles 54, 110 and 111 of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted to mean that the limitation in consequence of acquiescence referred to in those provisions may not be prevented by the bringing of a court action in which the proprietor of an earlier mark or other earlier right sought a declaration of invalidity of a later mark or opposed the use of that mark, where the application initiating proceedings, although filed before the date of expiry of the period of limitation, did not, owing to a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant, satisfy the requirements of the applicable national law for service and was rectified only after that date for reasons attributable to the applicant. Article 9 of Directive 2008/95 and Articles 54, 110 and 111 of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the proprietor of an earlier mark or other earlier right, within the meaning of those provisions, is time-barred from seeking a declaration of invalidity of a later mark and from opposing the use of that mark, that proprietor is also time-barred from bringing ancillary or related claims, such as claims for damages, the provision of information or the destruction of goods.
      PubDate: 2022-08-04
       
  • “Ales v. HP ESI”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Article 64quater(2)(c) of Law No. 633/1941 prohibits licensees from using information obtained by reproducing the source code “for developing, producing or marketing a computer program that is substantially similar in its expressive form, or for any other activity that infringes copyright”. However, once the creativity of a reproduced work has been established, the protection afforded by the above rule can be invoked only if the licensee’s reproduction results in a product that is “similar in its expressive form”.
      PubDate: 2022-08-04
       
  • The Divisional Game: Using Procedural Rights to Impede Generic/Biosimilar
           Market Entry

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Abstract Despite being used frequently by practitioners in a wide array of technical fields, divisional patent applications (“divisionals”) seldom attract scholarly attention. The lack of scholarly attention is an error, particularly in the pharmaceutical field. Recent case law in the UK reveals that after generic/biosimilar manufacturers successfully revoke patents standing in the way of market entry, divisionals claiming protection for similar subject-matter as the patent that has just been revoked can crop up, hindering generic/biosimilar medicines from entering the market. Moreover, right before or after proceedings start, rightsholders de-designate countries to avoid a negative judgment that may affect a court elsewhere, meaning generic/biosimilar manufacturers initiated legal proceedings for nothing. Such practices demonstrate that divisionals deserve our attention. This article thus fills the scholarly gap by showing how divisionals are (mis)used in practice, before arguing that patent reform is necessary to prevent this from occurring.
      PubDate: 2022-08-04
       
  • “Food Container (DABUS Germany)”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Only a natural person can be an inventor within the meaning of Sec. 37(1) of the Patent Act. There is no room for a further development of the law by judges with the aim of being able to designate an artificial intelligence (AI) as inventor as well, because there is no gap in the legal framework. The rule in Sec. 37(1) of the Patent Act is aimed at the recognition of the “inventor doctrine”, which precisely does not apply to an AI.
      PubDate: 2022-08-01
       
  • Overview of Compliance with the Requirements of Directive (EU) 2019/1 with
           Regard to the Independence and Resources of National Competition
           Authorities: The Examples of France and Poland

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Abstract The aim of this article is to critically reflect on how two EU Member States – France and Poland – meet the requirements of the ECN+ Directive with regard to the independence and resources of national competition authorities (NCAs). The article provides an overview of the ECN+ Directive in this respect. It also provides an overview of the French and Polish legal frameworks for the independence and resources of their NCAs – pre and post implementation of the ECN+ Directive. To this end, the article firstly sheds light on the legal status of the French and Polish NCAs and their independence; the distinctive features of the procedures for appointing and dismissing their decision-making bodies/staff; and a concise comparison of their powers to set priorities and their resources, also against the background of examples from other EU Member States. Secondly, the article identifies some inconsistencies and shortcomings in both the ECN+ Directive and (post-ECN+ Directive) national laws. Thirdly, it suggests some amendments to the legal frameworks, bearing in mind that the European Commission is bound to review the ECN+ Directive before 12 December 2024. The point of the analysis in this article is both descriptive and normative.
      PubDate: 2022-07-26
       
  • Will Technology-Aided Creativity Force Us to Rethink Copyright’s
           Fundamentals' Highlights from the Platform Economy and Artificial
           Intelligence

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Abstract The platform economy, the move towards artificial intelligence (AI) and the growing importance of new creative and transformative technologies such as 3D printing raise questions as to whether copyright law suffices in its present form. Our article argues that copyright law is malleable enough to fulfil some of its traditional functions in this new technology-aided (and technology-dominated) environment. However, certain adjustments and complementary instruments seem to be necessary to revitalise these functions. For example, moral rights could be more effectively harmonised at international level, and made more easily enforceable, to reflect the global reach of social media and to protect their essential reputational value in a digital economy that prioritises online exposure over remuneration opportunities. We also consider that creators’ rights are difficult, if not impossible, to license and enforce in an environment where contractual practices such as social media terms and conditions impose standard agreements that either do not compensate creators at all or compensate them only marginally. In this context, restoring the bargaining power of creators through the right of access to the platforms’ data seems to have become as important as copyright itself. Finally, doubts remain as to whether requirements such as authorship and originality can continue to apply and trigger copyright protection. To this end, we believe that the distinction between fully generative machines and other technologies that merely assist human creators is essential for the proper identification of “authorless” works. For such works we advocate the adoption of a very short right that would support computational creativity without stifling human ingenuity.
      PubDate: 2022-07-26
       
  • “Merck Sharp and Dohme v. Sandoz”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Section 70(5)(a) does not define the first regulatory approval date by reference to “registered goods” but by “first inclusion” in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). Section 78 of the Patents Act provides that if the Commissioner grants an extension of term, the exclusive rights of the patentee during the term of the extension are not infringed by a person who is “exploiting” either (a) a pharmaceutical substance per se within the claimed scope of the extended patent for a purpose other than a therapeutic use; or (b) any form of the invention that is not a pharmaceutical substance per se disclosed in the specification and within the scope of the claims. A first regulatory approval date should not be tied to marketing.
      PubDate: 2022-07-25
       
  • “Bank Norwegian”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The good business practice general clause (Sec. 25 Marketing Control Act) supplements both other provisions in the Marketing Control Act as well as intellectual property legislation. Said provision can be applied even if the case is also regulated by a special provision, it being decisive whether the special provision exhaustively regulates the matter. The practice of using distinguishing marks as paid search words (so-called “scrounging”) has been assessed and balanced in the assessment under trademark law and does not require a supplementary application of the Marketing Control Act. The balancing of interests, which leads to important limitations in the protection under trademark law, cannot be any different when applying Sec. 25 Marketing Control Act. Actions considered as being an expression of healthy and fair competition in the context of trademark law cannot be considered at the same time as being disloyal and thereby be forbidden and judged to contravene good business practice. Scrounging is not in contravention of the requirement of good business practice pursuant to Sec. 25 Marketing Control Act.
      PubDate: 2022-07-19
       
  • “Commissioner of Patents v. Ono Pharmaceutical”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Whilst it may be accepted that the object of the extension of term regime is to compensate a patentee of a pharmaceutical substance for time lost in obtaining regulatory approval before it can exploit its invention, it does not follow that Secs. 70, 71 and 77 should be construed so as to achieve what might be described as a commercial outcome for a patentee. The extension of term regime seeks to balance a range of competing interests, not just the interests of the patentee. Section 70(3) does not involve choice. It speaks only of the state of the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). Nor does the use of “any” in the phrase “any of the pharmaceutical substances” in Sec. 71(2)(b) imply choice. It simply looks to the set of pharmaceutical substances satisfying the conditions of Sec. 70(3) and fixes, as the relevant date, the date of commencement of the first inclusion of goods that contain, or consist of, any of the substances. Section 70(3) imposes no conditions beyond those stipulated in the provision. As Sec. 70(3) simply looks to the state of the ARTG, it does not discriminate between the goods that contain, or consist of, the one or more pharmaceutical substances. Section 71(2)(b) is a timing requirement for seeking an extended patent term. It is directed, unambiguously, to the state of the ARTG concerning registered goods that satisfy the requirements of Sec. 70(3). On the other hand, Sec. 77(1)(a) provides the calculation for the duration of an extended patent term. It is directed, unambiguously, to the pharmaceutical substance or substances referred to in Sec. 70(2), regardless of whether those substances satisfy the additional condition imposed by Sec. 70(3)(b). Section 77(1)(a) recognises that certain substances referred to in Sec. 70(2) might not satisfy Sec. 70(3)(b), because Sec. 77(1)(a) contemplates the possibility that the calculation it mandates might yield a negative result. Recognising this possibility, Sec. 77(1)(a) forbids that outcome. Section 77 fixes the extended term to a period between zero and no longer than five years.
      PubDate: 2022-07-18
       
  • “Rosado”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The registration as a trade mark of an isolated colour is possible if the colour is delimited by a specific shape and, in addition, when seen as a whole, and in the absence of any other ground for refusing registration, it enjoys distinctiveness. To be distinctive, the colour must not be linked to the nature of the product concerned but rather arbitrary to enable commercial origin to be identified. In order to prevent the registration of a colour mark delimited by a shape from serving as a tool to restrict competition on the market, the national industrial property office must be very cautious and rigorous when registering such marks, bearing in mind the actual market context, the primacy of reality, and that the colours do not occur in isolation in commerce.
      PubDate: 2022-07-14
       
  • “Closed Facebook Group”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Making a copy available to the public excludes the making of a copy for private use under Sec. 42(5) Copyright Act. The exception for the private copy under Sec. 42 Copyright Act can therefore not be considered as a justification for the right to make available under Sec. 18a of the Act. Making available to the public can only be denied if the making available is either limited to specific persons who are connected to each other by a personal relationship and therefore belong to a private group, or if the de minimis threshold to be determined in the individual case is not exceeded in terms of the size of the group (number of members). There can only be a private Facebook group if a personal connecting characteristic between the group members in the sense of a special interest or a special purpose is given from the outset; if a group administrator only allows admission to the group if this characteristic exists; and if participation is only possible as long as the connecting characteristic exists. Furthermore, a certain maximum number of group members – to be determined according to the purpose of the group – must not be exceeded. It cannot be concluded at the outset that the posting of a protected photograph in a “closed” Facebook group does constitute communication to the public simply because said group is “closed”. Rather, it must be assessed in the individual case whether the abovementioned criteria are met.
      PubDate: 2022-07-12
       
  • “Inhalation Capsules”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The “problem-solution approach” (approche problème-solution) describes a structured procedure for assessing inventive step and is based on the premise that every invention consists of a technical problem and its solution. The problem-solution approach is a guideline to ensure that inventive step is assessed as objectively as possible; however, inventive step can also be assessed differently. It is decisive that advantages in the formulation of the problem to be solved can only be taken into account if the skilled person can derive the claimed effect from the originally filed documents against the background of the closest prior art or if this effect is indicated in the originally filed documents. The motivation and expectation of success of the person skilled in the art need not relate to the improvement achieved by the invention according to the patent. Rather, the objective technical problem need not be an improvement but can merely be an alternative.
      PubDate: 2022-07-12
       
  • “Classic Coach Company”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Article 6(2) 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, for the purposes of establishing the existence of an ‘earlier right’ within the meaning of that provision, there is no requirement that the proprietor of that right must be able to prohibit the use of the later mark by the proprietor of that mark. Article 6(2) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘earlier right’ within the meaning of that provision may be granted to a third party in a situation in which the proprietor of the later trade mark has an even earlier right recognised by the laws of the Member State in question over the sign registered as a trade mark to the extent that, under those laws, the proprietor of the trade mark and of the even earlier right may no longer, on the basis of its even earlier right, prohibit the use by the third party of its more recent right.
      PubDate: 2022-07-11
       
  • “CIF v. CJF”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: According to Art. 30(1) para. 12 of the Trademark Act grounds for refusal of registration of a trademark are: 1. trademarks that are identical or similar to those used by others previously; 2. trademarks that are used on the same or similar goods or services; 3. the applicant is aware of the existence of the trademark of another because it has contractual, regional or business connections or any other relationship with the proprietor; 4. applying for registration without the consent of others. In accordance with the initial application doctrine, the initial applicant is given priority protection; however, based on the principle of good faith and the relationship between prevention of consumer confusion and unfair competition, an agent or representative is prohibited from initially registering a trademark and expanding the scope of application and the circumstances of contractual, regional or business connections or any other relationship, knowing the existence of another’s trademark and thereby plagiarising or engaging in trademark theft. The so-called initial trademark use is mainly used to confirm that the disputed trademark had been in continuous use prior to the application for its registration; therefore, it is sufficient to only be an initial trademark use relative to the disputed trademark, regardless of initial use domestically or overseas and regardless of whether it is registered or not. Where there is no business relationship but there is knowledge of the existence of a trademark prior to its use by others due to a relationship between related or competing peers, this relationship shall count, under Art. 30(1) para. 12 of the Trademark Act, as “any other relationship”.
      PubDate: 2022-06-29
       
  • “Autonome Provinz Bozen”

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The authorisation for the aid scheme for the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants resulting from Commission Decision C(2012) 5048 final of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.32113 (2010/N) – Italy: Aid scheme for energy savings, district heating and electrification of remote areas in Alto Adige/South Tyrol was no longer in force when the Autonome Provinz Bozen (Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Italy) granted subsidies to KW and SG. Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the European Commission is not required to request the Member State to recover unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
      PubDate: 2022-06-09
       
 
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: 3.229.117.123
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-