Article 10—Publicity Measures

2021 ◽  
pp. 208-214
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Collective Management ◽  
Online Portal

This chapter refers to Article 10 of Directive 2019/790 regarding copyright in Europe, which outlines provisions on publicity measures. It talks about Member States that are tasked to ensure that information from cultural heritage institutions, collective management organisations, or relevant public authorities is made permanently, easily, and effectively accessible on a public single online portal. It also clarifies that the portal will be established and managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 386/2012. The chapter discusses additional appropriate publicity measures that should be taken by Member States regarding the ability of collective management organisations to license works or other subject matter. It suggests that the awareness of rightholders could be raised in other Member States or third countries and covered by publicity measures.

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.

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 La eficacia entre particulares de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea a la luz de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia

2017 ◽  
pp. 361
Author(s):  
Juan Ignacio Ugartemendia Eceizabarrena
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Binding Capacity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Knowing That ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights

La finalidad principal de este trabajo es analizar la eficacia vinculante de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea en las relaciones entre particulares. Una vez apuntada brevemente la capacidad vinculante de la misma en relación al poder público (eficacia vertical), sea de la Unión o de los Estados miembros (cuando aplican Derecho de la Unión), el artículo se centra en la descripción de las diversas posiciones y argumentos en torno a la eficacia inter privatos de la Carta, esto es, a su capacidad para vincular (directa o indirectamente) a los particulares (eficacia horizontal). Puestos a ello, estas líneas se adentran, asimismo, en señalar una de las principales cuestiones a las que se enfrenta en la actualidad la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia en esta materia. Esto es, si la conexión de un derecho de la Carta con una Directiva, o su concreción en la misma, viene a fortalecer su eficacia vinculante horizontal (sabiendo que, por definición, éstas carecen de tal eficacia en las relaciones entre particulares) o invocabilidad, una cuestión que se está planteando en relación con los derechos de igualdad (particularmente, con la no discriminación) y con los derechos de solidaridad de la Carta.The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the binding effectiveness of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in relationships between individuals. After explaining briefly its binding capacity in relation to public authorities (vertical efficacy), either in the Union or in the Member States (when applying Union law), the article focuses on the description of the various positions and arguments about the inter privatos effectiveness of the Charter, that is, its ability to bind or constrain (directly or indirectly) individuals (horizontal effectiveness). In that respect, these lines also aim at one of the main issues the Court’s case-law is currently facing in this area: whether the connection of a Charter right with a Directive, or its realization in it, strengthens its horizontal binding effectiveness (knowing that, by definition, these rights lack of efficacy in the relationships between individuals), or its invocability, an issue that is being raised in relation to the Charter’s rights of equality (particularly, non-discrimination) and of solidarity.

Article 11—Stakeholder Dialogue

2021 ◽  
pp. 215-218
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Stakeholder Dialogue ◽  
Member States ◽  
Collective Management ◽  
Relevant Stakeholder ◽  
And Function

This chapter highlights Article 11 of the European copyright order, Directive 2019/790, concerning stakeholder dialogue. It obliges Member States to consult rightholders, collective management organisations, and cultural heritage institutions in each sector before establishing specific requirements. It also encourages regular dialogue between representative users' and rightholders' organisations, collective management organisations, and any other relevant stakeholder organisations on a sector-specific basis to foster the relevance and usability of licensing mechanisms. The chapter discusses the appropriate safeguards for all rightholders that are introduced by Directive 2019/790 for the use of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter. It also considers the licensing mechanisms established by this Directive in making sure that out-of-commerce works, or other subject matter are relevant and function properly.

MAIN DIRECTIONS OF ADAPTATION OF UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION TO EU LAW

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryna Kosinova ◽  
◽  
Daryna Tkach ◽  
Vladyslav Melnychenko ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Status ◽  
Annual Reporting ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
Energy Community

The article is devoted to defining the essence and main directions of adaptation of the legislation of Ukraine to the law of the European Union. The meaning of the term "adaptation" and the peculiarities of its legislative consolidation are established. In addition, the peculiarities of the process of adaptation of the legislation of Ukraine to the acquis communautaire (acquis) are determined. The article analyzes the history of the idea of adapting the legislation of Ukraine to the law of the European Union through the prism of concluded international agreements, according to which Ukraine has undertaken to reform its own legislation. The essence and significance of the most important of them are clarified: Partnership and Cooperation Agreements between Ukraine and the European Communities and their Member States (PCA) of June 14, 1994, which became one of the main elements of creating an institutional mechanism for adaptation and regulatory framework. for the consistent and effective implementation of this important vector of legal reform; Association Agreements between Ukraine, on the one hand, and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, on the other, which has become the largest international legal instrument in the history of Ukraine and the largest international treaty with a third country ever concluded by the European Union. The article analyzes the main legal acts of national legislation on the implementation of the provisions of international agreements to bring the legislation of Ukraine in line with the EU acquis. The annual reporting is detailed, which details the activities of public authorities in each of the areas of adaptation. Based on this reporting, the article analyzes the fulfillment of Ukraine’s commitments and the status of their fulfillment in percentage terms. In addition, an assessment is made of the effectiveness of the activities of public authorities in taking measures to implement Ukraine’s commitments and identifies the main areas for improving their activities.

scholarly journals The road towards the harmonisation of trade secrets law in the European Union

2015 ◽  
pp. 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul L. C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Common Core ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Road ◽  
Starting Point

Trade secrets have traditionally been protected in various ways by national laws in the European Union. The international intellectual property treaties offered only a limited common core. From this starting point this article examines the new EU draft directive on trade secrets. The aim is not to put in place a comprehensive EU regime for the protection of trade secrets. There will only be a partial harmonisation of the national laws of the Member States, focussing on the unlawful acquisition, disclosure and use of trade secrets, and that harmonization will be of a minimalist nature in the sense that Member States may provide, in compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, for more far-reaching protection against the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets than that required in the Directive.

Proceedings Relating to Eutms

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kur ◽  
Martin Senftleben
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Title Ix ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Commission Regulation ◽  
The Right

Title IX EUTMR—Articles 75 to 93a—is headed ‘Procedure’ and contains general rules regarding proceedings before the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). These range from general principles such as obligation to state reasons, the right to be heard, and the examination of facts by the Office of its own motion to provisions concerning representation before the Office. Article 83 contains a reference to the principles of procedural law generally recognized in the Member States where the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) and the secondary law pertaining thereto do not contain any provisions. The Amending Regulation had a significant impact on this section and led to numerous provisions previously in Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95 (Implementing Regulation—‘CTMIR’) being incorporated into the Basic Regulation; however, the majority of the new provisions only enter into force on 1 October 2017. This allows the Commission to adopt delegated and implementing acts in accordance with the Amending Regulation. In the meantime, the CTMIR remains in force to the extent it has not already been repealed.

Part III Recognition and Enforcement, 16 Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments: Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention

This chapter considers the recognition and enforcement of judgments under Brussels 2012, Lugano 2007, and the Hague Convention. The relevant provisions are in Chapter III of Brussels and Lugano (and for authentic instruments and court settlements, Chapter IV); in Hague the relevant provisions are in Chapter III. These provisions apply only to judgments, authentic instruments, and court settlements from States covered by the instrument in question. Brussels applies only to Member States of the European Union; Lugano applies only to States to which Lugano applies; and Hague applies only to States that are Parties to that convention. The chapter discusses the terminology used in the three instruments, recognition and enforcement, what constitutes a judgment, jurisdiction of the court of origin, subject-matter of the judgment, and review as to substance (<i>révision au fond</i>).

scholarly journals The concept of national treasures under Polish and EU cultural heritage law

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-76
Author(s):  
Andrzej Jakubowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Member State ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Import And Export ◽  
Cultural Interest ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
National Treasures

"National treasure" is one of the key notions of cultural heritage law. It is of particular relevance for the European Union in the context of the free movement of goods in the Single Market and the permitted exceptions to this freedom. In principle, it refers to those objects "possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value" whose preservation is in the vital cultural interest of the Member State concerned. Hence national law constraints on their import and export do not violate treaty obligations in force so long as such constraints are not arbitrary or do not constitute disguised restrictions on trade between Member States. The question arises, however, as to the practical meaning of this notion, i.e. whether Member States can freely determine what constitutes a "national treasure". This article seeks to answer that question by analysing how the notion of national treasures was transposed into the Polish legal system in 2017, and what the consequences of this recent regulatory intervention might be.

Part II Jurisdiction, 12 Exclusive Jurisdiction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Property Companies ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Subject

The special feature of exclusive jurisdiction is that it has two aspects: not only does it confer jurisdiction on the specified court, but it also deprives all other courts of the jurisdiction they might otherwise have had. It may arise because of the intrinsic importance of the subject-matter for the country concerned, or it may be the result of the choice of the parties. The latter is the case with regard to choice-of-court agreements. This chapter considers the situations in which Brussels 2012 and Lugano 2007 lay down rules of exclusive jurisdiction that apply irrespective of the will of the parties. The relevant provisions are contained in Brussels 2012, Article 24 and Lugano 2007, Article 22. They apply even if neither party is domiciled in the European Union (or Lugano area). This chapter covers immovable property, companies and other legal persons, public registers, intellectual property, and enforcement of judgments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document