scholarly journals Nesąžiningos konkurencijos teisė: koncepcijų ir doktrinos įvairovė užsienio valstybėse

Teisė ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 44-58
Author(s):  
Marius Jakutavičius
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Unfair Competition Law ◽  
The Us

Straipsnyje pateikiama nesąžiningos konkurencijos teisės raidos Prancūzijoje, Vokietijoje, Jungtinėje Karalystėje ir JAV apžvalga. Lyginamuoju aspektu nagrinėjamos teisinės apsaugos nuo nesąžiningos konkurencijos koncepcijos, teisiniai pagrindai, taip pat doktrinos ir reglamentavimo šioje valstybėse ypatumai. The article presents an overview of development of unfair competition law in France, Germany, the Uni­ted Kingdom and the US. Herein is provided a comparative analysis of concepts of, and legal basis for legal protection against acts ofunfair competition, as well as doctrinal and regulatory peculiarities of unfair competition law in these countries.

Influencer Marketing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Maatz
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Unfair Competition Law ◽  
Modern Form

Influencers are omnipresent in various appearances in today's media landscape. Nevertheless, there is a lack of uniform handling of media and unfair competition law standards. In fact, divergences in decisions by regional and higher regional courts have led to uncertainties in answering the question of whether and how publications by influencers must comply with any advertising labelling obligations. The author takes this as an opportunity to clarify the key problem areas and, at the same time, to determine whether the existing legal regulatory framework is sufficient and capable of producing appropriate and interest-oriented results for a modern form of advertising such as influencer marketing.

Das Verhältnis zwischen Marken- und Lauterkeitsrecht beim Schutz von Unternehmenskennzeichen

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaotian Chai
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Hard Rock ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Application Domain ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Unfair Competition Law ◽  
Federal Court Of Justice

Company signs can be protected by trademark law and unfair competition law. However, can the two legal instruments be applied cumulatively? If the results obtained under the two laws conflict with each other, how can the conflict be resolved? The German Federal Court of Justice has confirmed the principle of cumulative application in the Hard-Rock-Café judgement in 2013. However, in this case, the result under unfair competition law was aligned with that under trademark law. This approach seems doubtful. This comparative study seeks to delimit the application domain of unfair competition law besides trademark law by protection of company signs and to find the appropriate approach by contradictory results.

The right of publicity in Chinese Law? A comment on the Michael Jeffrey Jordan case and comparative analysis with the US, UK, Germany, and the Asia Pacific

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-460
Author(s):  
Chenguo Zhang ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
Right Of Publicity ◽  
Unfair Competition Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trademark Registration ◽  
The Right

In Michael Jeffery Jordan v Chinese Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) set a precedent for foreign companies and celebrities enforcing their rights of publicity against malicious trademark registration in China. This article introduces the legal grounds of the SPC's deliberations on Jordan's claims and responds to the critiques of most Chinese commentators in the field of civil law. Deeply influenced by German law, mainland China's legal system strictly distinguishes between personality rights and property rights. Comparative analysis with the US, Germany, Japan, and Hong Kong indicates that different legal civilizations have developed different approaches to position the right of publicity logically in their legal systems. The Jordan decision indicates that the ‘right of the name’ is a prior right provided in Article 32 of the Trademark Law of the PRC. This article contends that the ‘right of the name’ as provided in the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law differs from the ‘right of the name’ articulated in Article 110 of the General Principles of Civil Law (2017). The former concerns the commercial interest and property aspects of a celebrity's name, which is fairly similar to the right of publicity, while the latter regards the personality right. The further development of the right of publicity protection relies in mainland China on a consistent judicial practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document