Injury, Inequality, and Remedies: Developments in Injunctive Relief and Damages in Intellectual Property Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannibal Travis
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Injunctive Relief

scholarly journals Exploring the Outer Limits: The Anton Piller Order in Canada

1969 ◽  
pp. 310
Author(s):  
George Takach
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Canadian Context

A study of the Anton Piller order, an exceptional form of injunctive relief, in the Canadian context and an assessment of its effectiveness as a remedy for the violation of an intellectual property right.

Old wine in a new bottle? Assessing the injunction remedy for intellectual property disputes in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-313
Author(s):  
Peicheng Wu ◽  
Charlie Xiao-chuan Weng
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intellectual Property Infringement ◽  
Judicial Interpretations

The landmark eBay case in the US has noticeably influenced Chinese judicial practices concerning intellectual property injunctions. The injunctive relief in intellectual property infringement cases in China has witnessed a change from a traditional automatic-granting approach to a more equitable approach. However, there are still some issues, namely: the standards of awarding injunctive relief in intellectual property cases are unclear; the civil law tradition and procedure can create issues when applying for injunctions; and the scope of the injunction could be disproportionate in certain cases. In order to address these concerns, China needs to publish judicial interpretations to clarify that the eBay test can be applied to both preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions. China should further polish up its civil procedure legislation to enable a permanent injunction to be effective immediately, even at the first instance, and to allow the parties to an intellectual property contract to have agreements on conditions of applying for injunctive relief. Additionally, Chinese courts should adopt a proportionate method in determining cases regarding intellectual property injunctions.

De-Indexing and Freezing Orders

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaani Riordan
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Search Engine ◽  
Service Provider ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Injunctive Relief

This chapter considers the availability of two new forms of injunctive relief against internet intermediaries. The first is a mandatory injunction, likely to be directed at a search engine operator or other aggregator of information, to remove a reference to tortious or unlawful material. Similar relief is already available for the purpose of erasing or blocking access to personal data in the circumstances considered in chapter 10. Equivalent relief may also be available to remove links to copyright infringing material in the form of service provider injunctions under section 97A. In addition to these statutory remedies, wider de-indexing orders are theoretically within the courts’ jurisdiction for at least the purposes of giving effect to fundamental rights or preventing infringements of intellectual property.

Injunctions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaani Riordan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Safe Harbours

This chapter considers several limitations upon the availability, nature, and scope of injunctive remedies available against internet intermediaries. These limitations derive from four main sources: general principles of injunctive relief, European Union law, human rights law, and specific doctrinal rules. Some are of universal application; others apply in more limited fields, such as the grant of interim injunctions, the enforcement of intellectual property rights, or to particular classes of defendants. With some exceptions, they are not specific to the internet, or even to intermediaries, and so apply in other domains and to other parties as well. This chapter divides these rules into general limitations and those specific to intellectual property. Safe harbours are addressed separately in chapter 12.

Intellectual Property and Commercialization of the University

2002 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-9
Author(s):  
Ralph Shelton
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The University
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document