12. Licensing Agreements and Other Agreements Involving Intellectual Property Rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 809-871
Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
Brenda Sufrin ◽  
Niamh Dunne
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Transfer Block ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Settlement Agreements ◽  
Eu Competition Policy ◽  
Licensing Agreements ◽  
Movement Rules

This chapter examines some of the different types of intellectual property rights (IPRs) before outlining the relationship between intellectual property and both EU competition law and the EU free movement rules. It focuses, however, on IP licensing agreements and their treatment under Article 101. The chapter traces the development of EU competition policy to IP licensing agreements and examine the current Technology Transfer Block Exemption and the Guidelines in detail. It also examines patent settlement agreements (including pay for delay agreements), patnet pools, trade mark licences, trade mark delimitation agreements, and copyright (other than software) licences not covered by the TTBER and Guidelines.

12. Licensing Agreements and other Agreements Involving Intellectual Property Rights

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
Brenda Sufrin
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Transfer Block ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Eu Competition Policy ◽  
Licensing Agreements ◽  
Movement Rules ◽  
The Relationship

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter examines some of the different types of intellectual property rights (IPRs) before outlining the relationship between intellectual property and both EU competition law and the EU free movement rules. It focuses, however, on IP licensing agreements and their treatment under Article 101. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 3 traces the development of EU competition policy to IP licensing agreements. Sections 4 and 5 examine the current Technology Transfer Block Exemption, Regulation 772/2004 (TTBER) and the Guidelines in detail (noting where significant changes might occur in 2014). Sections 6, 7, and 8 deal with trade mark licences, trade mark delimitation agreements, and copyright (other than software) licences not covered by the TTBER and Guidelines. Section 9 outlines issues arising in cases involving IPRs under Article 102, while Section 10 concludes.

scholarly journals Right To Property: From Magna Carta To The European Convention On Human Rights

SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Ristik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Magna Carta ◽  
The Right

Abstract Property rights are integral part of the freedom and prosperity of every person, although their centrality has often been misprized and their provenance was doubted. Yet, traces of their origin can be found in Magna Carta, signed by the King of England in 1215. It was a turning point in human rights. Namely, it enumerates what later came to be thought of as human rights. Among them was also the right of all free citizens to own and inherit property. The European Convention on Human Rights was heavily influenced by British legal traditions, including Magna Carta. Among other rights, it also guaranties the right to property as a human right. Moreover, the protection of property rights has been extended to intellectual property rights as well. Namely, the European Court of Human Rights has provided protection of intellectual property rights through the adoption of decisions that interpret the right to property, in relation to intellectual property protection claims. It has extended the human rights protection of property to the mere application for registration of the trade mark. This paper has placed its focus on the development and treatment of the right to property starting from Magna Carta to the European Convention on Human Rights, as modern version of Magna Carta. In this sense, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and its role and approach in the protection of the right to property will be examined as well.

When Property Does Not Mean Property: An Analysis of the Existence of International Intellectual Property†

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-345
Author(s):  
Jonathan M.W.W. Chu
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Logical Conclusion ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractThis paper endeavours to dispel the logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights and aims to show that the term “international intellectual property” may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort.To suggest that “there is no such thing as international intellectual property” may have been particularly reasonable prior to the end of the 19thcentury when there was little or no international obligations to protect intellectual property. Nowadays, however, the term “international intellectual property” is, at the very least, misunderstood, if not a clear term that has worked its way into the international legal lexicon with each international intellectual property agreement entered into since the beginning of the beginning of the international period.It is quite plain that individual intellectual property rights such as copyright, patents, registered designs, and registered and unregistered trade mark rights are not international in scope or nature. It is also quite clear that intellectual property rights are territorial in nature as they are derived from national law and are governed exclusively within jurisdictions of such law. This principle is trite and was better observed in a World Intellectual Property Organization survey:Each country determines, for its own territory and independently from any other country, what it is to be protected as intellectual property, who should benefit from such protection, for how long and how protection should be enforced.Despite an apparently logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights, the term “international intellectual property” may infer something more than this. Rather than confining the term to basic interpretation of the words which make the term, international intellectual property may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort. While the standards of recognition and rights granted in relation to such products of intellect may vary between nations, the source of such products remains the same and it is such property which various international agreements seek to govern. It is given through developments in international intellectual property agreements, that a definition of the term may be implied, if not derived.In this paper, I endeavour to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property. As such, I will first establish that there is such a thing as „intellectual property,” despite arguments against the term. I will then move on to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property, particularly in light of the developments in international intellectual property agreements.

scholarly journals Digital Consumer Contract Law without Prejudice to Copyright: EU Digital Content Directive, Reasonable Consumer Expectations and Competition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliia Oprysk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Network Effects ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Digital Content ◽  
Consumer Contract ◽  
Consumer Expectations ◽  
Licensing Agreements ◽  
High Level

Abstract The EU Digital Content Directive sets out to facilitate the cross-border distribution of digital content and ensure a high level of consumer protection by harmonising certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content. The Directive acknowledges the variety of licensing agreements involved in the distribution of digital content, such as between the holders of intellectual property rights, intermediaries and end-users. It is recognised that the consumer’s use of digital content could be restricted under end-user licensing agreements pursuant to intellectual property rights; at the same time, the Directive is without prejudice to other EU law, including copyright. Rather, under Art. 10, the consumer is entitled to remedies from the trader of digital content for lack of conformity where restrictions resulting from a violation of intellectual property rights prevent or limit the use of the content. As the traders of digital content frequently are not the owners of intellectual property rights but rely themselves on a licence, the question arises as to the potential implications of Art. 10 for digital content markets. This paper discusses two such potential implications. The first is whether the efforts to safeguard reasonable consumer expectations could be undermined by the Directive leaving the arrangements between traders and intellectual property right holders out of scope. The second is whether Art. 10 could reinforce the network effects and dominant position of the established players on the market.

28. Tortious protection of intellectual property rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 515-550
Author(s):  
Paul Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the ways in which the common law, in the form of the law of tort, creates rights of action. It focuses on the torts of passing off and malicious falsehood, although attention is also paid to the ways in which defamation can assist. These rights are supplementary, and complementary, to the statutory formal rights. In particular, trade mark law and passing off closely overlap, although s. 2(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 preserves passing off as a separate cause of action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document