EUOBSERVER: Italy joins EU single patent

La propriété intellectuelle au Luxembourg

Jean-Philippe Bill, Bernard David, Pierre Kihn, Olivier Laidebeur, La propriété intellectuelle au Luxembourg, Larcier, 2012, 9782879741611

Sommaire

Préface

  • CHAPITRE 1 – Audit rapide de la propriété intellectuelle existante
  • CHAPITRE 2 – Outils de protection – L’intérêt pratique du Luxembourg
  • CHAPITRE 3 – Bonnes pratiques
  • CHAPITRE 4 – Application à des situations pratiques
  • CHAPITRE 5 – Valorisation de la propriété intellectuelle
  • CHAPITRE 6 – Traitement fiscal de la propriété intellectuelle au Luxembourg
  • CHAPITRE 7 – Traitement comptable de la propriété intellectuelle au Luxembourg

Principles for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property

Principles for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property

Second Preliminary Draft June 6, 2009

Prepared by the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property

Aici

 

Codificarea directivei referitoare la mărci.

Glaize: Questions referred to the ECJ regarding use of trade marks to trigger sponsored links

Frédéric Glaize, Questions referred to the ECJ regarding use of trade marks to trigger sponsored links, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, November 2008; Vol. 3, No. 11.[*]

Google Inc. and Google France v Louis Vuitton Malletier, Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court), 20 May 2008


The French Cour de Cassation has referred some questions to the ECJ on the responsibility of hypertext advertisement providers, such as Google, in connection with the notion of use of a mark in the course of trade and with the qualification of the link provider as to the limited responsibility principle set by the Directive on electronic commerce.

Actiune in revendicare pentru nume de domeniu

O interesanta constructie juridica.

Christine Kelly récupère son nom de domaine grâce à une requête en revendication, LEGALIS.NET, 15.05.2008

La journaliste de LCI, Christine Kelly, a utilisé une procédure peu commune pour récupérer un nom de domaine: la requête en revendication fondée sur l’article L 624-9 du code de commerce. Celle-ci s’inscrit dans le cadre d’une liquidation judiciaire. En effet, lors de l’ouverture d’une procédure collective, les détenteurs de biens mobiliers (équipements, fonds de commerce, logiciels, etc.) ont la possibilité de revendiquer leur propriété dans des conditions précises de forme et de délai, faute de quoi ces biens tombent dans l’actif de la société en liquidation.
Dans cette affaire, la société Kapado qui avait enregistré christine-kelly.fr en son nom alors qu’elle devait le faire pour le compte de la présentatrice a justement été mise en liquidation judiciaire. Avant la procédure collective, la journaliste avait pourtant entrepris des démarches pour récupérer son identité sur internet. Mais Kapado, qui a reconnu avoir commis une erreur, n’avait pas montré une ferme volonté de la corriger. Face à son inertie et sa négligence, Christine Kelly l’a mise en demeure de remplir un formulaire Afnic pour un transfert volontaire du nom de domaine. Kapado s’est engagée à le faire mais le transfert n’a pas été opéré. Les pourparlers se poursuivent cependant jusqu’au moment où la présentatrice découvre que la société qui détient son nom de domaine est en liquidation judiciaire. Comme le liquidateur refuse d’autoriser le transfert, Christine Kelly se tourne vers le juge.
Dans une décision du 4 avril 2008, le tribunal de commerce de Pontoise a ordonné le transfert du nom de domaine christine-kelly.fr à la présentatrice dont il juge la revendication bien fondée. Selon le tribunal consulaire, «seule Christine Kelly peut être propriétaire du nom de domaine christine-kelly.fr, dont elle revendique la propriété».

(*)

Hotararea Promusicae/Telefonica

Aici (*); concluziile dnei. avocat general Kokott aici (*). In presa aici (*) si (*).

Dispozitivul hotararii:

„Directiva 2000/31/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 8 iunie 2000 privind anumite aspecte juridice ale serviciilor societătii informationale, în special ale comertului electronic, pe piata internă (directiva privind comertul electronic), Directiva 2001/29/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 22 mai 2001 privind armonizarea anumitor aspecte ale dreptului de autor si drepturilor conexe în societatea informatională, Directiva 2004/48/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 29 aprilie 2004 privind respectarea drepturilor de proprietate intelectuală si Directiva 2002/58/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 12 iulie 2002 privind prelucrarea datelor personale si protejarea confidentialitătii în sectorul comunicatiilor publice (Directiva asupra confidentialitătii si comunicatiilor electronice) nu impun statelor membre să prevadă, într‑o situatie precum aceea din actiunea principală, obligatia de a comunica date cu caracter personal în vederea asigurării protectiei efective a dreptului de autor în cadrul unei proceduri civile. Totusi, dreptul comunitar impune acestor state ca, la transpunerea directivelor mentionate, să se asigure că se întemeiază pe o interpretare a acestora care permite asigurarea unui echilibru just între diferitele drepturi fundamentale protejate de ordinea juridică comunitară. Pe lângă aceasta, la punerea în aplicare a măsurilor de transpunere a acestor directive, incumbă autoritătilor si instantelor din statele membre nu numai să interpreteze dreptul lor national într‑un mod conform directivelor mentionate, ci si să nu se întemeieze pe o interpretare a acestora care ar intra în conflict cu drepturile fundamentale respective sau cu alte principii generale ale dreptului comunitar precum principiul proportionalitătii”.

Publicitatea comparativa in Uniunea Europeana

Jurisprudenta

CJCE, C 112/99, hotărârea din 25 octombrie 2001, Aff. Toshiba Europe.

CJCE, C-44/01, decizia din 8 aprilie 2003, Aff. Pippig Augenoptik.

CJCE, C-356/04, hotărârea din 19 septembrie 2006, Aff. Lidl Belgium.

CJCE, C-381/05, De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA c. Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne, Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA., Hotărârea Curţii (Camera întâi) din 19 aprilie 2007 [„Directivele 84/450/CEE şi 97/55/CE – Publicitate comparativă – Identificare a unui concurent sau a unor bunuri ori servicii oferite de un concurent – Bunuri sau servicii care răspund aceloraşi nevoi sau sunt destinate aceluiaşi scop – Referire la denumiri de origine” în cauza C-381/05, având ca obiect o cerere de pronunţare a unei hotărâri preliminare, în temeiul articolului 234 CE, introdusă de cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgia), prin decizia din 13 octombrie 2005, primită de Curte la data de 19 octombrie 2005]. 

Comentariu pe ECJBlog.

„Dreptul de copyright”, stangul de copy-right-paste…

Asta e o cautare tare!

Cea mai tare cautare ar fi fost „incalcarea dreptului de copyright”.

Ati zambit? Zambiti degeaba ca daca dati o cautare stricta (cu ghilimele) pe „dreptul de copyright”, google iti ofera fix 13.000 de raspunsuri (unele s-or referi la penibil si pleonasm?) iar „dreptului de copyright” i se raspunde cu 7.500 de itemi.

Interplay between IP rights and competition law

The interplay between IP rights and competition law in the context of standardization

Piotr Staniszewski
Legal context: This article attempts to analyse the patent ambush scenario in the context of both competition law and IP rights under US and EC law. The regulators such as the US FTC and European Commission attempt to combat the abuses, however the legal tools available require a very difficult balancing act between patent law (which protects innovation) and competition law (which attempts to hamper abuse of the free market rules).

Key points: The patent ambush scenario employed within a standard-setting organization poses an important threat of jeopardizing the goals of achieving a common standard. The response to the problem concentrates on ensuring that the rules applicable to standard-setting organizations’ members prevent abuse and/or reaching reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms to stop deriving undue benefits from proprietary technologies embedded in the standard.

Practical significance: As the information exchange technologies become increasingly popular, the need to ensure interoperability between products of different manufacturers employing these technologies becomes crucial for market success. This consequently increases the danger of malignant abuse of co-operation within the standard setting-organizations. The law may need to step in to secure technological progress free of risks such as the patent ambush.

Piotr Staniszewski, The interplay between IP rights and competition law in the context of standardization, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access, 25 september 2007

Licences in OHIM practice

Licences in OHIM practice

Verena von Bomhard, Hugh O’Neill and Anat Paz *

Legal context: Despite the commercial importance of licences, the Regulation 40/94 contains relatively few provisions on licences. As far as these refer to licences granted to CTMs or their recordal at OHIM, they are beyond the scope of the article, which deals with the case law emanating from OHIM in inter partes proceedings, where licences have played a role.

Key points: This article considers the legal requirements licensees must meet when filing opposition and cancellation proceedings before OHIM. It reviews when use under licence is regarded as genuine use, or valid for the purpose of establishing acquired distinctiveness or reputation. It also deals with OHIM decisions regarding licensees filing the licensors’ trade marks in their own names.

Practical significance: With respect to the standing of licensees as opponents or applicants for invalidity, this article explains the procedural requirements, mentioning also points to be considered when drafting trade mark licences. The article also explains to what extent a licence need be proven where the opponent or cancellation applicant has not used the earlier mark himself but wishes to rely on use made by someone else. On the issue of a licensee filing the licensed mark in his own name, the article gives an introduction to the criteria applied by OHIM and deals with his fiduciary position, resulting in a greater likelihood of his having acted in bad faith.

Verena von Bomhard, Hugh O’Neill, Anat Paz, Licences in OHIM practice, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access, 25 september 2007

 

CE a semnat Conventia de Haga privind desenele si modelele industriale (OMPI)

Un nou pas spre globalizare

Genève, 25 septembre 2007
PR/2007/517

 Le directeur général de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OMPI), M. Kamil Idris, s’est félicité de l’adhésion de la Communauté européenne (CE) à l’Acte de Genève de l’Arrangement de La Haye concernant l’enregistrement international des dessins et modèles industriels, qui constitue pour les entreprises de tous les pays participants un moyen simple, financièrement abordable et efficace d’obtenir et maintenir l’enregistrement de leurs dessins et modèles industriels.

“Cette adhésion de la Communauté européenne représente un tournant décisif dans le développement du système de La Haye pour l’enregistrement international des dessins et modèles industriels. Il s’agit d’une étape majeure vers l’élargissement du champ d’application géographique du système d’enregistrement international des dessins et modèles”, a déclaré M. Idris, qui a ajouté que “l’adhésion de la CE crée une interface entre les opérations de l’OMPI en matière d’enregistrement international des dessins et modèles industriels et celles du système des dessins et modèles industriels de la CE, permettant ainsi aux usagers d’obtenir une protection dans l’ensemble de la CE et aux autres membres de l’Acte de Genève de l’Arrangement de La Haye d’être eux aussi protégés en remplissant une seule et unique demande pour l’enregistrement de leurs dessins et modèles industriels.”

Cet enregistrement international prendra effet dans autant de pays membres de l’Acte de Genève que cela sera indiqué dans la demande d’enregistrement, à l’exception de ceux qui refusent d’accorder la protection dans les délais impartis pour ce faire. Si la protection n’est pas refusée par l’office des dessins et modèles industriels de la CE – l’“l’Office de l’harmonisation dans le marché intérieur (marques, dessins et modèles) (OHMI)” – la protection des dessins et modèles en question devient effective dans les 27 États membres de la CE comme si le demandeur avait déposé une demande d’enregistrement ou était enregistré directement auprès de l’OHMI. 

L’instrument d’adhésion de la CE a été déposé auprès du directeur général le 24 septembre 2007 et l’adhésion sera effective à dater du 1er janvier 2008.

Aux termes de l’Acte de Genève de l’Arrangement de La Haye, les organisations intergouvernementales disposant d’un office auprès duquel peut être obtenue une protection des dessins et modèles industriels pour les territoires de cette organisation peuvent accéder au système de La Haye. C’est la seconde fois que la CE signe un traité administré par l’OMPI, puisqu’elle avait accédé en 2004 au Protocole relatif à l’arrangement de Madrid concernant l’enregistrement international des marques. À ce jour, la CE est la seule organisation intergouvernementale à avoir accédé, en bloc, à un traité de l’OMPI. La CE est le quarante‑septième membre du système de La Haye.

L’Acte de Genève de l’Arrangement de La Haye renforce le système de La Haye en le rendant davantage compatible avec les procédures d’enregistrement des dessins et modèles industriels dans des pays tels que les États‑Unis d’Amérique et le Japon où la protection des dessins et modèles industriels est subordonnée à un examen visant à déterminer si la demande est acceptable.

M. Ernesto Rubio, sous-directeur général de l’OMPI chargé des affaires relatives aux marques, a lui aussi souligné l’importance de l’adhésion de la CE et s’est référé à un nouveau système de dépôt des demandes d’enregistrement par voie électronique dont le lancement est prévu pour janvier 2008. “L’OMPI”, a-t-il dit, “a mis au point, en coopération avec l’OHMI, un système électronique qui devrait énormément faciliter le dépôt des demandes d’enregistrement des dessins et modèles industriels et qui sera mis en place dans le cadre du système de La Haye le 1er janvier 2008 – la date même à laquelle la CE va acquérir la qualité de membre.” 

Informations générales

Les dessins et modèles sont une précieuse ressource de propriété intellectuelle dont dépend souvent la réussite d’un produit par rapport à un autre produit comparable. C’est par exemple l’aspect extérieur original d’une montre qui va conduire le consommateur à choisir un modèle plutôt qu’un autre. Compte tenu de ce phénomène, les entreprises investissent des ressources financières et humaines importantes dans la mise au point de dessins et modèles susceptibles de l’emporter sur les autres. La protection internationale offerte dans le cadre du système de La Haye est pour les créateurs un moyen de se protéger contre toute imitation illégale. Ce traité administré par l’OMPI constitue pour les usagers un moyen rentable et convivial d’obtenir une protection pour un dessin ou un modèle industriel dans tout pays ayant adhéré au système, en remplissant une seule et unique demande. Si ce système n’existait pas, un concepteur devrait déposer des demandes distinctes dans chacun des pays dans lesquels il souhaiterait obtenir une protection. Cela tient au fait qu’en règle générale, la protection des dessins et modèles industriels est limitée au territoire du pays où elle a été demandée et accordée.

Un dessin ou modèle industriel est un aspect ornemental ou esthétique d’un article utile;  en d’autres termes, c’est cet aspect qui rend l’article attrayant et attirant. Il peut s’agir d’une caractéristique tridimensionnelle, par exemple la forme ou la surface d’un article, ou bidimensionnelle, par exemple la structure, les lignes ou les couleurs. Ces caractéristiques apportent une valeur ajoutée commerciale à l’article et augmentent ses possibilités de commercialisation. Un dessin ou un modèle industriel est avant tout quelque chose de non fonctionnel, qui est d’abord de nature esthétique et n’est pas lié aux caractéristiques techniques de l’article.

Aux termes de l’Acte de Genève de l’Arrangement de La Haye, les parties contractantes ont un délai de six mois pour déterminer si elles peuvent accorder une protection, sur leur territoire, à un nouvel enregistrement international. Ce délai peut être prolongé de six mois supplémentaires pour les parties contractantes dont la législation exige l’examen du caractère novateur du dessin ou modèle enregistré. L’Acte de Genève prévoit également l’introduction d’un système de droits modifié, la possibilité de reporter jusqu’à 30 mois la publication d’un dessin ou d’un modèle et celle de soumettre des échantillons du dessin ou du modèle plutôt que des photographies ou autres reproductions graphiques. Ces deux derniers points sont particulièrement importants pour les industries du textile et de la mode.

Pour plus de renseignements, on peut s’adresser à la Section des relations avec les médias et avec le public (OMPI) :

  • tél. :   (+41 22) 338 81 61 ou 338 95 47
  • tlcp. : (+41 22) 338 82 80
  • mél. : publicinf@wipo.int

Gasiti aici stirea in romaneste (Raluca Gainusa, Uniunea Europeana adera la Tratatul privind inregistrarea internationala a desenelor industriale, avocatnet.ro).

Protectia desenelor si a modelelor industriale in UE: Comisia.

Riscul de confuzie. Confuzia sau vinul Leelenau?

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 20, 2007

Leelanau Wine Cellars, Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc., No. 06-2391

In a case arising out of a trademark dispute between two Michigan wine producers over the use of the word „Leelenau” as part of the name for their wines, a judgment for defendants is affirmed as, considering the applicable factors, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant’s use of the mark „Chateau de Leelanau Vineyard and Winery” was likely to create an actionable likelihood of confusion.

Decizia integrala on findlaw.com

Bibliografia Microsoft la CEJ

Rezultatul procesului la TPI a fost oarecum pevizibil. Comisia a aplicat corect sanctiunea amenzii.

Gasiti hotararea aici.

Un rezumat gasiti pe ECJBlog, si o prezentare cu trimitere la documentele aferente si declaratii pe EurActiv.com.

Bibliografia:

Pierre Arhel, L’affaire Microsoft (À propos de la décision du TPICE du 17 septembre 2007), Petites Affiches, nr. 233/2007.
L’arrêt Microsoft du 17 septembre 2007 est sans doute l’un des plus importants rendus par le Tribunal de première instance en matière de concurrence. Sur le fond, il approuve entièrement la décision de la Commission ayant condamné l’entreprise pour deux comportements distincts à savoir le refus de fournir les informations relatives à l’interopérabilité du système d’exploitation Windows avec des produits concurrents et la vente liée du système d’exploitation Windows et de Windows Media Player. Il annule cependant la décision en ce qu’elle a ordonné la désignation d’un mandataire indépendant chargé d’évaluer et de vérifier la mise en oeuvre par Microsoft des mesures correctives ordonnées par la Commission.

Thomas O. Barnett, Interoperability Between Antitrust And Intellectual Property, George Mason Law Review, Volume 14, Number 4, Summer 2007

Ugo Patroni Griffi, Alfonso Papa Malatesta, L’interoperabilità del software: una essential facility? Implicazioni del „caso Microsoft”, Studi in onore di Gerhard Schricker, Giuffre Editore, 2005, p.469-507.

Olivia Dufour, Microsoft, une victoire éclatante pour la Commission européenne!, Petites Affiches, No 190, 21 septembre 2007.

Jean-Claude Zarka, Microsoft et la justice européenne, Gazette du Palais, nr. 127/2007.

Harry First, Strong Spine, Weak Underbelly: The CFI Microsoft Decision, New York University School of Law. New York University Law and Economics Working Papers, April 23, 2008, Paper 129.

On September 17, 2007, the European Court of First Instance decided Microsoft’s appeal of the European Commission’s 2004 decision finding that Microsoft had violated Article 82 of the EC Treaty by failing to provide certain interoperability information to Sun Microsystems and by refusing to dis-integrate Windows and the Windows Media Player. In this short comment I review the CFI’s decision, focusing on three ways in which the decision properly stiffens the strong spine of European competition law – its treatment of intellectual property, tying, and leveraging. The comment also discusses the EC’s remedy orders in Microsoft, which I argue reveal the soft underbelly of European competition law, a soft underbelly that the European Microsoft case shares with the U.S. Microsoft settlement.

T.T. Nguyen, Competition Rules in the TRIPS Agreement – The CFI’s Ruling in Microsoft v. Commission and Implications for Developing Countries, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (Germany, Volume 39, Number 5, 2008 [*]

The ruling of the European Court of First Instance (CFI) in Microsoft v. Commission[1] in 2007 was a pivotal judgment in the area of interaction between competition law and intellectual property rights (IPRs). It has been, and continues to be, a subject of many controversial discussions from both legal and economic perspectives not only in the European Union (EU) but also all over the world. It also illustrated that the application of IPR-related competition law is a complex and controversial issue in both developed and developing countries. One can say that, in this legal process, competition authorities in developing countries face even greater and more serious problems. Developing countries, therefore, rarely use flexibilities concerning competition rules under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO)[2] to address IPR-related anti-competitive practices in reality.

[1] CFI, Case T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission, 17 September 2007, 39 IIC (2008), http://curia.europa.eu/en/

[2] The TRIPS Agreement is Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO signed in Marrakesh, Morocco on 15 April 1994, www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm

Martine Behar-Touchais, «Etre interopérable ou ne pas être: telle est la question!», au sujet de l’arrêt Microsoft du Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européennes du 17 septembre 2007, aff. T-201/04, in Communication, commerce électronique, mars 2008, no 3, p. 8-12. [*]

 Christian Ahlborn, David S. Evans, The Microsoft Judgment and its Implications for Competition Policy Towards Dominant Firms in Europe(April 2008).

Abstract SSRN:
The European Court of First Instance (CFI) rejected Microsoft’s grounds for annulling the Commission’s Decision that the software maker had abused its dominant position in computer operating systems by refusing to supply certain protocols for interoperating with rivals’ computers and by tying Windows Media Player to its Windows operating system. This article argues that the Court’s judgment continues the form-based approach it has followed for four decades to abuse of dominance cases and is inconsistent with the Court’s emphasis on coherent economic reasoning in merger clearance reviews, thereby reinforcing a divide between these two critical parts of European competition policy. The CFI’s approach also continues its historical adherence to focusing on market structure and putting aside direct evidence of adverse effects on consumer welfare. In particular, the CFI did not embrace parts of the Commission’s Decision against Microsoft that advocated an effects-based approach. At the same time the CFI’s judgment expands the possibilities for finding an abuse of dominance by weakening key prongs of the Bronner/Magill/IMS exceptional circumstances test for refusal to supply and adopts a separate products test for tying that has illogical implications for many standard cases.

 William H. Page, Seldon J.Childers, Bargaining in the Shadow of the European Microsoft Decision: The Microsoft-Samba Protocol License(May 2008). Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, Vol. 102, No. p. 332, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1117641

Abstract:
In 2004, the European Commission held that Microsoft had abused its dominant position under Article 82 of the European Treaty by, among other actions, refusing Sun Microsystems’ request for information Sun needed to interoperate with Windows workgroup server products. The EC ordered Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate specifications for the protocols used by Windows work group servers in order to provide file, print, and group and user administration services to Windows work group networks. In September 2007, the European Court of First Instance affirmed the EC’s liability ruling and its remedial order. Last December, with the active encouragement of the EC, Microsoft reached a licensing agreement for the covered protocols with Samba, an open-source development project that produces server software that emulates the behavior of Microsoft’s server operating systems. The Microsoft-Samba license agreement is by far the most important tangible outcome of the European Microsoft case. The EC’s other remedial order in the case, which required Microsoft to create a version of Windows without Windows Media Player, was an embarrassing failure. The Samba agreement, however, is both significant and perilous for global antitrust policy. It provides critical protocols and documentation to Microsoft’s most important rival in the server market, a rival, moreover, whose development methods are focused on the analysis of those very protocols. Samba is thus more likely to put the disclosures to effective competitive use than any other licensee. It is also possible that Microsoft will derive technical and competitive benefits from the interaction with the Samba team. The long-run peril is that the disclosures will go beyond the specifications that the CFI contemplated, and will allow Samba to clone Microsoft’s proprietary algorithms. That result, although reducing prices in the short run, would inhibit dynamic competition by undermining the incentives of leading firms to innovate.

Nicholas Economides, Ioannis Lianos, The Elusive Antitrust Standard on Bundling in Europe and in the United States at the Aftermath of the Microsoft Cases (*)

Abstract:
We analyze and contrast the US and EU antitrust standards on mixed bundling and tying. We apply our analysis to the US and EU cases against Microsoft on the issue of tying new products (Internet Explorer in the US, and Windows Media Player in the EU) with Windows as well as to cases brought in Europe and in the United States on bundling discounts. We conclude that there are differences between the EC and US antitrust law on the choice of the relevant analogy for bundled rebates (predatory price standard or foreclosure standard) and the implementation of the distinct product and coercion test for tying practices. The second important difference between the two jurisdictions concerns the interpretation of the requirement of anticompetitive foreclosure. It seems to us that in Europe, consumer detriment is found easily and it is not always a requirement for the application of Article 82, or at least that the standard of proof of a consumer detriment for tying cases is lower than in the US.

Importanta marcilor in fuziuni (achizitii)

Un articol interesant, pe care il puteti citi aici, releva importanta marcilor in luarea deciziilor de fuziune.

Avril Martindale,  Jill Delaney,  Brand focussed M&As (merger & acquisition), Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, May, 2006

.

Proprietate intelectuala-biblio

Ian Ayres,  Gideon Parchomovsky, Tradable Patent Rights: A New Approach to Innovation (September 28, 2007). U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 07-23 Available at SSRN.
Scott Baker, Pak Yee Lee, Claudio Mezzetti, Intellectual Property Disclosure as “Threat”, University of Leicester, august 2007, disponibil aici.
Thomas O. Barnett, Interoperability Between Antitrust And Intellectual Property, George Mason Law Review, Volume 14, Number 4, Summer 2007

Knut Blind, Katrin Cremers, Elisabeth Mueller, The Influence of Strategic Patenting on Companies’ Patent Portfolios, ZEW Discussion Paper, Dis cus si on Paper No. 07-013, disponibil integral aici.

Verena von Bomhard, Hugh O’Neill, Anat Paz, Licences in OHIM practice, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access, 25 september 2007 {rezumat}

Otilia Calmuschi, Aspecte ale exigenţelor procesului de armonizare privind asigurarea respectării drepturilor de proprietate intelectuală, o prioritate a legiuitorului român, Revista romana de drept privat, nr. 2/2007

Nicholas Economides, William N. Hebert, Patents and Antitrust: Application to Adjacent Markets, The Networks, Electronic Commerce, and Telecommunications (“NET”) Institute, Working Paper, 2007.Avril Martindale, Jill Delaney, Brand focussed M&As (merger & acquisition), Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Maz, 2006, disponibil aici.

A. Michael Ferrill, Leslie Sara Hyman, and William „Butch” Hulse, Antitrust and Consumer Protection, SMU Law Review, volume 60, Number 3, Summer 2007.

Jean-Frédéric Morin, Le bilatéralisme américain: la nouvelle frontière du droit international des brevets, Ed. Larcier, 2007, (Fragmente din carte gasiti aici.)

Frédéric-Jérôme Pansier, Matthieu Salvia, L’usage commercial du nom de famille, Gazette du Palais, Gazette de la propriété industrielle, no 2, nr. 266-268, 2007.

Gary Partington, Protection of shapes and colour marks in Canada, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice published 2 November 2007, 10.1093/jiplp/jpm187, http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/jpm187v1


Andrew Sarrol, THE COPYRIGHT IMPLICATIONS OF SEARCHABLE DATABASES: A METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING THE FOURTH FAIR USE FACTOR, Seton Hall Circuit Review, Volume 3, Number 2, Spring 2007.

Edward Smith, ROCKBASS, LOKTHREAD, and EUROPIG, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice published 10 November 2007, 10.1093/jiplp/jpm188, http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jpm188v1

Piotr Staniszewski, The interplay between IP rights and competition law in the context of standardization, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access, 25 September 2007 {rezumat}

Adiraliba Yebdri, Appréciation comparée du risque de confusion des marques dans la jurisprudence française et communautaire, Gazette du Palais, nr. 128/2007.

 

Brian Whitehead, Stuart Jackson, and Richard Kempner, Patents and enantiomers: Genericsv Lundbeck, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice published 2 November 2007, 10.1093/jiplp/jpm191, http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jpm191v1

 

reviste

Australian Intellectual Property Journal
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property
European Intellectual Property Review
The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law [full-text]
Intellectual Property Quarterly

International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice

Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Managing Intellectual Property

Trademark Reporter

Lista Wikipedia de reviste de proprietate intelectuala

Legislatie
Decizie nr. 331 din 08.10.2007 privind desemnarea Asociaţiei pentru Drepturile Producătorilor de Fonograme din România (A.D.P.F.R.) ca organism de gestiune colector al remuneraţiilor stabilite în metodologia publicată în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 382 din 6 iunie 2007 prin Decizia directorului general al Oficiului Român pentru Drepturile de Autor nr. 192/2007, pentru utilizarea repertoriului gestionat de acest organism de gestiune colectivă
Spete 
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. WB Music Corp., No. 06-5546, U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 21, 2007 (*).

Noua lege franceza a drepturilor de proprietate intelectuala

Este o lege din 2006, asadar nu este atat de noua, insa International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law (IIC) a publicat un articol semnat de Christophe Geiger, pe aceasta tema.

In articolul The New French Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights of 1 August 2006 – An Adaptation to the Needs of the Information Society?, autorul se intreaba daca modificarile legii sunt optime, mai ales in privinta acela solicitate de noile tehnologii, in epoca media.

 Rezumatul articolului:

After long parliamentary debates with a significant media presence, France has finally adopted the law of 1 August 2006 aimed at adapting copyright to the digital environment. This law, intended to implement the Directive of 22 May 2001 into national law, goes far beyond the requirements imposed by the Community legislation. Addressing delicate subjects not regulated by the Directive, such as file sharing by means of peer-to-peer software and interoperability, the French legislature had the opportunity to set an example by adopting a particularly modern text. The result, strongly influenced by the activities of lobbies, unfortunately seems to fall far short of the hopes it had generated, and it is highly probable that it will (at best) only set up a very imperfect legal framework for the development of the information society. The aim of this article is to analyse the principle elements of the reform that are aimed at adapting copyright to the challenges posed by the new technologies. 

Christophe Geiger, The New French Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights of 1 August 2006 – An Adaptation to the Needs of the Information Society?, 38 IIC 401 (2007).

(textul legii, in limba franceza): Loi n° 2006-961 du 1er août 2006 relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l’information

Copyright si domeniu public

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 07, 2007
Brown v. Latin Am. Music Co., No. 06-2710
In a declaratory action requesting the declaration that the work of a poet was in the public domain, dismissal of the declaratory defendants’ counterclaim for copyright infringement is affirmed where the district court correctly held that the burden of proof of the existence of a valid copyright is with the infringement claimant, and the defendants did not present any substantive support for their claim of copyright

Nici Crucea (Rosie) nu mai este ce-a fost

Se citeste ca o firma din America ar fi luat Crucea Rosie; nu cu totul, ci doar folosirea emblemei pe anumite produse. Asa cum afirma reprezentantul firmei, aceasta firma va continua sa faca donatii Crucii Rosii. Bineinteles, nu exista nici o intentie de confuzie, poate doar de perfuzie. Stirea a fost publicata, aici, pe internet, dar nimic nu ne mai mira.