Trade mark protection: the art of styling intellectual property rights

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-50
Author(s):  
Jan Klink
Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
Brenda Sufrin

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.


SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Ristik

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.


2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-345
Author(s):  
Jonathan M.W.W. Chu

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.


Author(s):  
Paul Torremans

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.


Author(s):  
Annette Kur ◽  
Martin Senftleben

Different from other intellectual property rights, rights vested in a trade mark do not have a finite duration; they can last ‘forever’. Under systemic aspects this is due to the fact that as long as the message conveyed by the sign is correct it would be contrary to the interest of consumers to let it lapse and fall back into the public domain. Also, from a competition point of view there is no need to terminate protection as long as the right holder keeps using the sign and the designated goods and services themselves are not subject to market exclusivity.


Author(s):  
Paul Torremans

Character merchandising does not have much in the way of specific recognition in UK law. In response, the character merchandising industry has sought legal protection via the adaptation of other intellectual property rights and their application to the merchandising field. This chapter discusses how copyright, trade mark law, and various torts combine to confer legal protection on character merchandising.


Authentica ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hertanti Pindayani

Many cases of trademark disputes that occur due to the use of brands by parties who are not actually entitled to a trademark, even though the party has a certificate issued by the DG IPR. Therefore, it is necessary to know the responsibility of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights in the event of a decision to cancel trademark registration and to know the criteria used by the Director General of Intellectual Property Rights in providing protection against Trade-mark Rights. This legal issue will be discussed through legal research with a conceptual approach and legislative approach and then analyzed qualitatively. In common, Ditjen HKI often issues certificates of trademark rights, even though the trademarks have already been registered before.  Therefore, they are double owners of similar trademarks. The professionalism of Ditjen HKI officers does not support the implementation of preventing people from breaking the trademark laws. The elements of methods and working techniques of Ditjen HKI officers have not been sufficient in satisfying their customers when they register their trademarks since there has been no computerized information and data management.Keywords: trademark, certificate, violation, trademark cancellation


Author(s):  
Jānis Rozenfelds ◽  

The liability for violation of trade mark rights until 2020 was regulated by the law “On Trade Marks and Indications of Geographical Origin” (Trade Mark Law) of 1999, which was in force until 2020. However, during the time period between 2002, when Latvia joined EU, and as late as 2016, the Trade Mark Law referred to the Latvian Civil Law (Civil Law) as the main source of law. The problem was that the traditional methods of damage calculation as established by Civil Law significantly differ from specific methods of calculation of damages caused by violation of IP rights as provided by the Directive No. 2004/48/EK. Latvia as a member state provided for the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of the intellectual property rights covered by the Directive No. 2004/48/EK only in 2007, i.e., three years after the accession to the EU. Those measures, procedures and remedies were only gradually introduced.


Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
Brenda Sufrin ◽  
Niamh Dunne

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document