scholarly journals An Autonomous EU Functionality Doctrine for Shape Exclusions

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 567-577
Author(s):  
Uma Suthersanen ◽  
Marc D Mimler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Functionality Doctrine

Abstract Exclusionary subject matter are often underpinned by public interest considerations. In the case of shapes of products, the Court of Justice of the European Union has aligned the interpretation of the relevant exclusionary provisions within design and trade mark laws. More recently, European jurisprudence within copyright law in relation to conditions of protection has imported the same considerations so as to regulate the protection of shapes of products. This article explores the multitude of doctrinal and policy reasons underpinning shape exclusions and argues that the Court is consciously creating an EU autonomous functionality doctrine within intellectual property law. We also argue that the Court is building a European macro-rationale within these laws namely to ensure that protection does not unduly restrict market freedom and competition.

scholarly journals Digitizing Scent and Flavor: A Copyright Perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 347
Author(s):  
Amara Lopez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
New Technology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Space ◽  
Recent Developments

Should the flavor of a cheese fall under copyright protection? The Court of Justice of the European Union recently confronted this question in Levola Hengelo BV v. Smilde Foods. Although the court ultimately denied protection, its reasoning opened many doors for those seeking intellectual property protection for scents and flavors. The court implied that it was the subjective nature of a cheese flavor that bars it from enjoying the protection copyright affords, which begs the question of what would happen if there were a sufficiently objective way to describe a flavor. Recent developments in technology have led to the digitization of scent and flavor. In the intellectual property space, digitization provides a superior means of fixation for scents and flavors but it also threatens to make reverse engineering much easier. This would take away the protection trade secret law affords to scents and flavors. This will undoubtedly push industry leaders to seek more protection from the law. This Note explores how copyright law in the United States and the European Union might handle this new technology and argues that protection should not come in the United States until Congress weighs all considerations and adds a new subject matter category for scents and flavors to the U.S. Copyright Act.

Eliminating ‘Aesthetics’ from Copyright Law: The Aftermath of Cofemel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koray Güven
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Applied Art ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
The One ◽  
Works Of Applied Art ◽  
Functionality Doctrine ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The recent Cofemel judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union extended the European Union’s (EU) originality criterion (i.e. the author’s own intellectual creation) to the realm of works of applied art. The Court excluded ‘aesthetically significant visual effect’ as a condition of copyright protection. It was condemned as subjective and incompatible with the EU originality criterion. The decision may signal a shift in several national copyright laws, under which requirements relating to ‘aesthetics’ are laid down as a condition to acquire protection. This article will demonstrate that the ‘aesthetics criterion’, as it emerged historically and has been employed in national copyright laws, is associated with a different meaning than it conveys at first glance. The aesthetics criterion designates the elbow room remaining to the author after functional constraints have been taken into account, and thus represents a form of the functionality doctrine in the domain of copyright law. However, to some extent it also excludes – though not uniformly – commonplace designs from the scope of copyright protection. Against this background, this article suggests that the aesthetics criterion can arguably be reconciled with the EU originality criterion. The aesthetics criterion represents a balance struck between the need for copyright protection in the field of applied arts, on the one hand, and competition, on the other. In order not to upset this careful balance, a robust application of the EU originality criterion is advocated, precluding protection not only to functionality, but also to commonplace creations.

scholarly journals Grading AG Szpunar's Opinion in Case C-18/18 – A Caution against Worldwide Content Blocking as Default

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Geographical Scope ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 4th of June 2019, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C-18/18 between Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek (an Austrian politician) and Facebook Ireland Limited. The politician had sought to have certain current and future content – argued to be defamatory – blocked by Facebook with worldwide effect. This is arguably the most important Internet speech-related case currently before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and will doubtlessly influence court reasoning far beyond Europe.This Comment analyses AG Szpunar’s interesting, but problematic, Opinion with particular emphasis on his reasoning in relation to the question of scope of jurisdiction; that is, what is the appropriate geographical scope of orders in these circumstances, rendered by a court that has personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2 Direct Actions and Judicial Review before the Union Courts

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject

This chapter addresses access to justice in the context of centralized enforcement of EU State aid law and judicial review before the Union courts. The subject matter of litigation is State aid measures adopted in particular by the European Commission as the main supervisory body in this field pursuant to Article 108 TFEU. The term ‘access to justice’ is meant to comprise both the various conditions of standing for bringing direct actions against such measures before the General Court (GC), which essentially comprise actions for annulment (Article 263 TFEU), actions for failure to act (Article 265 TFEU), and actions for damages (Article 268 in combination with Article 340(2) TFEU). The chapter also looks at the nature and the types of acts that are possibly subject to judicial review before the GC.

Article 262 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Procedure

Article 229a EC Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to confer jurisdiction, to the extent that it shall determine, on the Court of Justice of the European Union in disputes relating to the application of acts adopted on the basis of the Treaties which create European intellectual property rights. These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

1. Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Uk

This introduction provides an overview of topics covered in this book which relate to all areas of intellectual property law, including the justifications that have been put forward for granting intellectual property rights. It also considers the key international and regional developments that have influenced intellectual property law in the UK, such as the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) negotiations, and European Union law. The chapter also discusses the ways in which the European Union is involved in intellectual property law, such as its involvement in negotiating and signing treaties. Finally, it looks at the European Economic Area and non-EU regional initiatives on intellectual property, as well as the implications of Brexit.

2. Copyright

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Press
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dramatic Works ◽  
Sound Recordings ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Musical Works

This chapter defines copyright as arising whenever a work is created under qualifying conditions. The Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) defines eight types of work that fall under two categories: works that must be original or ‘authorial works’, including literary works, dramatic works, musical works, and artistic works; and works that need not be original or ‘entrepreneurial works’: films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and the typographical arrangement of published editions. Copyright is infringed by copying or communicating the whole or a substantial part of a work—referred to as primary infringement—or by dealing in infringing copies of a work-referred to as secondary infringement. There are some major and many minor defences to copyright infringement including the ‘fair dealing’ defences and the public interest. Many aspects of copyright law have been harmonized by the European Union.

Part I General and Introductory, 4 Subject-Matter Scope: Civil and Commercial Matters

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Civil Matter

This chapter discusses the ‘subject-matter scope’ of Brussels 2012, Lugano 2007, and the Hague Convention. ‘Subject-matter scope’ refers to the scope covered by a measure as regards its subject matter, that is to say the branches and areas of the law to which it applies. For the three legal instruments under consideration, the relevant provisions are contained in Article 1 of Brussels 2012 and Lugano, and Articles 1 and 2 of Hague. A review of case law shows that the distinction between a civil matter and public matter is far from straightforward. There is a significant grey area in which the Court of Justice of the European Union could legitimately go either way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document