scholarly journals 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

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-282
Author(s):  
Krystyna Szczepanowska-Kozłowska
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Literal Meaning ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law ◽  
Trademark Use

AbstractOne 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.

Third Party Effects in Private Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-136
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Andreas Televantos
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Practical Operation ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This chapter identifies and explores a core task of private law: to determine “third party effects” of transactions. We ask to what extent an A–B transaction may affect C, a party who enters into a subsequent transaction with A, or otherwise interferes with the right claimed by B. We show first that such third party effects are controlled not only by rules relating to legal property rights and equitable interests, but also by parts of the law of agency, of partnerships, and of tort. Secondly, whilst a range of doctrines thus share this function of controlling third party effects, it is important to distinguish between the precise legal form used by each doctrine. Thirdly, we argue that even when considering one particular form, such as that of a legal property right, third party effect is determined by the interaction of different types of rules, with the practical operation of one type of rule modified by the application of a different type. For this reason, attention must be paid to the interaction between the different forms used to govern third party effect. There is a question as to whether the law in this area is unduly complex, but we suggest that, so long as the range of forms tracks the diversity of ordinary transactions, private law usefully enhances party autonomy by offering parties these different means of casting their legal relations.

Property Rights, Fiduciary Duties, and the Control of Assets

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aruna Nair
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Formal Structure ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
Legal Power ◽  
The Law ◽  
Fiduciary Relationships ◽  
Relationship Of

This chapter examines the law governing the availability of claims to traceable proceeds. It argues that the language used in the case law—which uses the terminology of property rights and of fiduciary relationships—cannot fully explain the law, since such claims are often available in the absence of fiduciary duties and are not available to holders of many types of property right. It argues that such claims instead presuppose a relationship of ‘control of assets’: where the defendant has a legal power to deal with some asset, correlating to a vulnerability to a loss of rights in that asset on the part of the claimant, and coupled with a duty not to exercise the power. It argues that relationships that have this formal structure also share normative characteristics that justify the subordination of defendant autonomy that has been shown to be at the heart of the tracing concept.

The Proprium of Property Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Jan Felix Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Static Field ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Property Law ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Absolute Property ◽  
Classical Property ◽  
Comparative Property

Abstract Classical property law is not only losing economic relevance with the progressing dephysicalization of economic processes but is also increasingly perceived as a static field of private law, pursued by specialized lawyers working with rather inaccessible national concepts and dogmas that seem to have no significant relevance for the development of a digital economy. The mostly codification-driven comparative research on property law continues in the tradition of national property law codifications primarily addressing tangible objects. The research on property law should not restrict itself to this rather pragmatic approach, because in the end this arbitrarily delimits the concept of property law and reinforces the impression of classical property law only dealing with tangibles. Comparative property law should look beyond issues of codification and address the question of what is the essence of property law. Property law deals with the erga omnes effects of rights. It therefore not only addresses full-fledged property rights over movables or immovables but also covers partially absolute rights over these assets on the threshold to contract law. Property law also addresses absolute rights with regard to intangibles. This awareness should on one hand demand from any discussion on creating new (partially) absolute property rights to take notice of the state of the art of current (comparative) property law. It should on the other hand incite classical property lawyers to take part in these debates and to question the traditional concepts and principles in light of the new developments. Classical institutions of property law should be reconsidered from this point of view.

Transferability and sale of goods

Legal Studies ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iwan Davies
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The World ◽  
Property Title ◽  
Complete Specification

In any system of property law a complete specification of rights and duties raises at least two questions. First, allocation of rights and duties inter se between the parties to the transaction; secondly, the rights and duties of the parties to the original transaction against the rest of the world. The traditional common law analysis where a third party wishes to acquire an indefeasible interest in a chattel is to direct the latter to the ‘owner’ and indeed the prerequisite for the enjoyment of most property rights depends upon our ability to acquire it from someone else. Furthermore, inherent in the idea of acquiring an absolute right in property (title) is exclusivity of possession ie superiority over the transferor and third parties.

Theoretical Grounds of the Challenging of the Transactions under the Bankruptcy Legislation

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Аюна Аюрова ◽  
Ayuna Ayurova
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
The Law

A lot of national and foreign researchers attempted to examine the theoretical grounds of the challenging of the transactions under the bankruptcy legislation. Thus, tort and quasi-delictual theory, the theory of executive power of the judgment, the theory of the judicial lien and legal theory have been developed. However, until now there hasn’t been developed a unified approach to understanding of the question of what is the basis of the creditor’s right to demand recognition of the debtor’s invalid transaction committed by itself with a third party, in respect of which insolvency (bankruptcy) case has been initiated. This paper analyzes the main concepts developed in support of the rights of the creditor and assesses their strengths and weaknesses. The study and its findings formulated on the basis of the former have allowed the author to offer his own opinion based on challenging the debtor´s transactions. The author reveals the purpose of legal regulation of invalidity of transactions the debtor committed to them on the eve of bankruptcy. This purpose is to protect the rights and property interests of both the debtor and the creditors, as well as is the formal (violation of the law) and material (violation of the property rights of the debtor and its creditors) base to contest the transactions.

scholarly journals Constructive trusts over the family home: lessons to be learned from other commonwealth jurisdictions?

Legal Studies ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Wong
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The Family ◽  
Family Home ◽  
Ownership Rights ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Determine Property

Ownership of the family home is usually not disputed until either the relationship between the spouses or cohabitants breakdown or there is a competing claim over the property by a third party. In such circumstances, determination of ownership rights becomes imperative. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 gives the courts adjustive powers to deal with disputes between spouses on the breakdown of the marriage. Notwithstanding this, there may be circumstances where it will be necessary or desirable to determine property rights between spouses. Furthermore, the adjustive powers of the courts are not applicable to cohabitants. Thus, in the absence of legal co-ownership in the family home, cohabitants and spouses who cannot rely on the 1973 Act will have to establish an equitable interest in the property. The analyses relied on are primarily based on property law and trusts principles and, more particularly, imputed trusts and proprietary estoppel. Under trusts principles, imputed trusts are usually taken to refer to resulting and constructive trusts.

Rhetorics of Power and Development: Intellectual Property Rights and The Pharmaceutical Industry in Brazil

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 585-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariane McCabe
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
Rights Discourse

AbstractThis paper examines the rise of an intellectual property (IP) rights discourse and highlights how it has been translated into national IP regimes. Recently, IP has become a polarizing concept, and attention has focused on questions that are overly narrow in scope. The characterization of the issue in simplistic dichotomous terms has ignored complex realities of developing countries. The case of Brazil is to highlights the complex ways in which the local pharmaceutical industry has been shaped by and has responded to the regulatory framework that has been established since and including the passage of the 1996 Industrial Property Law.

scholarly journals The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Basic Work ◽  
Freedom Of Action

A number of doctrines in modern copyright and patent law attempt to strikesome balance between the rights of original developers and the rights ofsubsequent improvers. Both patents and copyrights are limited in durationand in scope. Each of these limitations provides some freedom of action tosubsequent improvers. Improvers are free to use material that is in thepublic domain because the copyright or patent has expired. They are free toskirt the edges of existing intellectual property rights, for example bytaking the ideas but not the expression from a copyrighted work or"designing around" the claims of a patent. However, improvers cannot alwaysavoid the intellectual property rights of the basic work on which they wishto improve. Some improvements fall within the scope of the preexistingintellectual property right, either because of an expansive definition ofthat right or because economic or technical necessity requires that theimprover hew closely to the work of the original creator in some basicrespect. Here, the improver is at the mercy of the original intellectualproperty owner, unless there is some separate right that expressly allowscopying for the sake of improvement.

scholarly journals THE MODERN VISION OF THE SYSTEM OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN UKRAINE

2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-59
Author(s):  
Victoria Shekhovtsova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Creative Activity ◽  
The Right ◽  
Intellectual Potential

The article is devoted to the research of the intellectual property rights system in Ukraine. Intellectual property is the result of the creative activity of any person or group of people. The author studied the categories «intellectual property» and «intellectual property right», investigated the principles of intellectual property and the system of intellectual property rights of Ukraine. In Roman law, there was the term «property», because the «property right» in its classical meaning was formed in Rome, and related to private relationships. Intellectual property is the property of a person that arose as a result of her creativity. However, for our Ukrainian legislation, the expression «intellectual property» is «terra incognita». Yes, intellectual property is studied by such branch legal sciences as: civil law, administrative law, international law, and others. Formed the State Service of Intellectual Property, but the organization of the state system of legal protection of intellectual property, in our difficult times, wants a better one. In the legal literature on intellectual property issues various definitions of «intellectual property right» are given. From a subjective point of view – this is a subjective right, and from an objective point of view – a civil law institute, a set of legal norms that regulate relations in the system of creation and protection of intellectual property. Man, his freedom and rights are the most important value of evolutionary development of society, which manifests itself in the growth of the intellectual potential of the population of each country. Only man possesses intelligence, creative potential and creative abilities. In addition to it, on earth, no living creature can create. Creative activity is the most important aspect of human life, which allows you to convey your talent to society. The consequence of this activity is something new, unique, unique and original. The accumulated products of the human mind are the heritage of the nation, which determine its further development.The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees to the citizens of the state freedom of scientific, artistic, literary and technical creativity, protection of intellectual property rights, moral and material interests arising in connection with various types of intellectual activity. Every citizen has the right to the results of his intellectual, creative activity; no one can use or distribute them without his consent, with the exception of the statutory provisions. The intellectual potential of the nation, in the form of improving education, production, culture, science and technology, needs constant support from our state. The Civil Code of Ukraine for the first time in our national legislation was given a formal definition of the right of intellectual property, as the rights of the individual to the result of intellectual, creative activity or other object of intellectual property rights.

scholarly journals AL-IJARAH AL-MUNTAHIYAH BI AL-TAMLIK (IMBT) DALAM PERSPEKTIF ANATOMI KONTRAK BISNIS

ALQALAM ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
Jaih Mubarok
Keyword(s):  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Financial Institution ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Business Unit ◽  
The Third ◽  
Arbitration Board ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party

AI-Ijarah al-Muntahiyyah bi al-Tamlik (IMBT) is conceptually almost the same as leasing which is conducted by world financial institutions, including those of in Indonesia. IMBT is a service product of syari'a financial institution which is transparant and is able to involve the third party whenever it is necessary. In the context of Indonesia, economic syari'a is culturally designed and run by the Coumil of Indonesian Ulama (MUI). In order to regulate the bussiness in the syari'a system, MUI forms the Council of National Syari'a (DSN) issuing the fatwas; in order to give monitoring, DSN places The Board ef Syari'a Controller (DPS) in every business unit which uses syari'a system; in order to solve the syari'a business disputation, MUI forms the Arbitration Board of National Syari'a (Basyarnas). Moreover, The State has structurally accomodated the system of syari'a business in law and regulation. Therefore, The openess characteristics (the principle of free based contract) which is also practiced in the contract of IMBT is restricted by the law and regulation and considered appropriate in syari'a point of view based on DSN-MUI fatwas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document