 Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 28 journals)
|
|
|
- Private Rights and Public Autonomy in a Fragmented World: Why an
Institutional Perspective on Intellectual Property and Competition Laws
Matters-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 207 - 208
Abstract: There has been much discussion lately about global challenges involving intellectual property law. Even a brief look at recent editorials published in this journal shows where these challenges lie. Peter K. Yu addressed ‘Intellectual Property Paradoxes in Pandemic Times’ (GRUR International 2022, 203). Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan asked: ‘Is IP Good for Our Planet'’ (GRUR International 2022, 683). Alberto de Franceschi discussed the issues posed by the need to build a ‘New Infrastructure for the Digital Economy’ (GRUR International 2022, 907). These problems arise in similar ways in the sphere of competition law. Just like any other exogenous shock, the pandemic led to the perennial question of whether a relaxation of competition rules is called for in order to allow firms under severe economic pressure to coordinate their struggle for survival. Even more urgently, competition authorities and legislatures are searching for concepts that bring competition law in line with the requirements of environmental and, in particular, climate protection. As part of the new infrastructure for the digital economy, competition law remains under construction, with traditional instruments such as merger control slowly adapting to the digital world and new additions such as the EU Digital Markets Act still awaiting their practical test.
PubDate: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikad008
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- Defining Relevant Markets in the Digital Era: Lessons from Merger Control
in Brazil, Chile and Mexico-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 209 - 230
Abstract: AbstractRelevant market definition methodology has been a thorny issue over the years for antitrust doctrine and practice. This is especially true when it comes to digital markets, in which prices may not be a significant variable for defining relevant markets. Traditional or static views of competition may result in improper market definitions, which might result in the clearance of mergers in digital markets because antitrust authorities define market shares according to traditional methods of measurement. However, this seems like a chicken-and-egg problem, because it is only by appropriately defining relevant markets that it is possible to establish if market shares are high or low. This article discusses practical implications for antitrust enforcement derived from the relevant market definitions adopted in high-profile digital market mergers in Brazil, Chile and Mexico. Many of these cases have elements of conglomerate or vertical integration that go beyond traditional demand substitution measurement and test the authorities’ ability to foresee future competitive scenarios in which digital competition and brick-and-mortar competition have become increasingly complementary. These cases also show an increasingly large role of data concentration as a driver in the attractiveness of the acquisitions.
PubDate: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikad002
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- Are Italian Rules on Copyright Collective Management in Line with EU
Law'-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 231 - 236
Abstract: Directive (EU) 2014/26 liberalised the market for collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe. In doing so it distinguished collecting societies into two categories. ‘Collective Management Organisations’ (CMOs) are entities that are either controlled (or owned) by rightholders or organised on a ‘non-profit’ basis. Conversely, ‘Independent Management Entities’ (IMEs) operate ‘for profit’ and are not controlled by rightholders. Prior to the adoption of this Directive, Italian law entrusted SIAE (Italian Society of
Authors and Publishers) with a legal monopoly for the collective management of copyright. In 2017 a reform put an end to this system by opening the market to new entrants. However, according to the new rules, an entity can only manage copyright in Italy if it qualifies as a CMO. IMEs are therefore still not allowed to manage copyright in the Italian market. Such a restriction has raised a lively debate in Italy and its compatibility with EU law has recently been the object of a request for a preliminary ruling of the CJEU by the Tribunal of Rome. This work deals with the question of whether the choice of preventing IMEs from entering the Italian market is compatible with the principles of Directive 2014/26 and with general principles of EU law on the Internal Market.
PubDate: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikac148
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- Industrial Property Arbitration in Turkey: An Analysis in Comparison with
Swiss Law-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 237 - 249
Abstract: AbstractGiven the difficulties in international intellectual property litigation, such as jurisdictional issues, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, arbitration and other dispute resolution mechanisms may be better tailored to resolve intellectual property disputes. Under Swiss law, these disputes are arbitrable to such an extent that arbitral tribunals seated in Switzerland and state courts are equally competent to rule on the validity of industrial property rights. This paper assesses the arbitrability of industrial property disputes under Turkish law, under which there is neither a specific statutory provision nor an official decision regarding their arbitrability. The paper concludes that disputes arising from industrial property rights should be considered arbitrable under Turkish law, provided that for disputes over the validity of industrial property rights, the arbitral tribunal decides on the industrial property rights’ enforceability and the arbitral award has an inter partes effect. Although submitting industrial property disputes, especially those on employee inventions, to arbitration may in certain cases not be accepted due to the intention to protect the weaker party, employees are obliged to resort to arbitration for the resolution of their employee invention disputes under Turkish law. This paper also examines the resolution of employee invention disputes by way of arbitration from a comparative perspective.
PubDate: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikac151
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- The Unified Patent Court’s Opt-Out Option – A General
Introduction-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 250 - 256
Abstract: AbstractWith the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) on 1 June 2023, a common patent court will be created for 17 Member States of the European Union. It will be competent for disputes concerning the infringement and revocation of Unitary Patents and classic European patents. At the request of the users, a so-called opt-out mechanism was introduced, which allows the jurisdiction of the Court to be excluded by a corresponding notification. Such opt-outs can be filed via the Court’s case management system as of the start of the ‘sunrise period’ on 1 March 2023. This article provides a first general practical overview concerning the recording of such notifications.******
PubDate: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikac139
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- Right Holders’ Special Action Against an Application for Marketing
Authorisation-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 260 - 267
Abstract: Richter Geodon Vegyeszeti Gyar RT v Laboratórios Leon Farma S.A.
PubDate: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikad001
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- Facebookâs Claim of Free Services Ruled not Misleading even if Users
Provide Their Personal Data-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 268 - 280
Abstract: Facebook Advertising Services; with case note by Flórián Bárány
PubDate: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikac150
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- Parody Exceptions in Copyright Laws
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 284 - 292
Abstract: Swedish Tiger; with case note by Branka Marusic
PubDate: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikac149
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- Copyright Exception to Convert Works into Formats Accessible to People
with Visual and Print Disabilities-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 300 - 316
Abstract: Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others; with case note Samtani
PubDate: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikad007
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- Protection of Intellectual Property Rights per Protocol No. 1 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 317 - 324
Abstract: Tokel v Turkey; with case note by Elena Izyumenko
PubDate: Thu, 02 Feb 2023 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikac144
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2023)
- The Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Infringement
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 257 - 259
Abstract: Detachable handle for cooking vessels
PubDate: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikac129
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2022)
- Rights Assigned by Publishing Agreement
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 281 - 283
Abstract: A, B, C and D v EMI Music Publishing Denmark A/S
PubDate: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikac140
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2022)
- Prohibition for Authorised Dealers to Sell to Tuning Companies Is
Anticompetitive-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 293 - 299
Abstract: Porsche-Tuning II
PubDate: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 00:00:00 GMT
DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikac080
Issue No: Vol. 72, No. 3 (2022)
|
Subscription journal
