scholarly journals Atbildība par preču zīmes tiesību pārkāpumu

2021 ◽  
pp. 121-127
Author(s):  
Jānis Rozenfelds ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
The Eu

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.

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.

31. Character merchandising

2019 ◽  
pp. 629-639
Author(s):  
Paul Torremans
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Specific Recognition ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
The Way

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.

While the Treaty does not affect the existence of intellectual property rights, there are nonetheless circumstances in which the exercise of such rights may be restricted by the prohibitions laid down in the treaty. 2. Article 36 permits exceptions to the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the rights that constitute the specific subject-matter of the type of intellectual property in question. Perhaps the main advantage of this formula, apart from the fact that it narrows the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 36, is that it allows subtle distinctions to be made depending on the type of intellectual property in issue. 3. The exclusive right conferred on the owner of intellectual property is exhausted in relation to the products in question when he puts them into circulation anywhere within the Common Market. Spelt out more fully, ‘the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the legislation of a Member State may not rely on that legislation in order to oppose the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another Member State by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right himself or person legally or economically dependent on him’. The expression ‘industrial and commercial property’ clearly embraces patents and trademarks. It also extends to such specialised areas as plant breeders’ rights. The court has held that copyright can also be a form of industrial or commercial property because it ‘includes the protection conferred by copyright, especially when exploited commercially in the form of licences capable of affecting distribution in the various Member States of goods incorporating the protected literary or artistic work’. The principle that the Treaty does not affect the existence of industrial and commercial property rights is derived from Article 222 of the treaty. This provides that ‘the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Consequently intellectual property rights are unaffected by the provisions of the treaty unless they hinder free movement or offend the rules of competition. In Keurkoop v Nancy Kean (see below) the design of a handbag which was manufactured in Taiwan was registered in the Benelux countries but without the authority of the actual author. In Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro-SB Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487, [1971] CMLR 631, the European Court stated:

1997 ◽  
pp. 110-114
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

scholarly journals Transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) and the spill overs effects on the Gulf – cooperation council

2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-51
Author(s):  
Nadia Naim
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Global Trade ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). The EU and the USA are negotiating the TTIP, a trade agreement that aims to remove trade barriers across different economic sectors to increase trade between the EU and the USA. The TTIP will have spill over effects on the MENA region, the GCC, Australia and the Asian sub-continent, as it raises key questions for intellectual property and international trade agreements. For instance, will the USA and EU be on an equal footing or will one triumph over the other, will third party countries like the GCC states be expected to adopt new standards. Design/methodology/approach The research design is a paper and online data collection method to find literature to date on intellectual property law development in the GCC states in relation to the three research objectives as set out above. The literature is the population, and this could prove problematic. Different databases have been used to cover all sources where data can be found. Findings As the EU-USA TTIP is aiming to conclude by the end of 2015, the GCC has an opportunity to reassess its relationship with both the EU and GCC. Up until now, the GCC was able to enter into negotiations with the EU and USA relatively independently. However, where the EU and USA can agree, there will be a harmonisation of regulations. This therefore has repercussions for the GCC. The TTIP has three main aims: to increase trade and investment through market access, increase employment and competitiveness and create a harmonised approach to global trade. To harmonise global trade, the EU and USA aim to harmonise their intellectual property rights through an intellectual property rights chapter that deals specifically with enhancing protection and recognition for geographical indications, build on TRIPS and patentability. Research limitations/implications This study is non-empirical. Originality/value The TTIP will have spill over effects for the GCC, as it has yet to finalise the EU-GCC free trade agreement and USA-GCC framework agreement. The power dynamics between the USA and EU will be a deciding factor on the intellectual property chapter in the TTIP in terms of what the provisions for intellectual property will look like and what powers will be available to investors to bring investor-state-dispute settlement claims against foreign countries.

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 HAK KEKAYAAN INTELEKTUAL SEBAGAI BENDA: PENELUSURAN DASAR PERLINDUNGAN HKI DI INDONESIA

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Indirani Wauran-Wicaksono
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Intellectual Work

<p><strong>Abstrak</strong><br />Hak Kekayaan Intelektual memberikan kewenangan hukum kepada seseorang untuk<br />mendapat keuntungan dari karya intelektual yang diciptakan. Hal ini berimplikasi pihak<br />lain, yang tanpa persetujuan, tidak diperbolehkan untuk mengambil keuntungan dari<br />sebuah karya intelektual. Pengambilan keuntungan berarti mengambil sesuatu, di mana<br />sesuatu tersebut berada dalam hukum sipil yang dikenal dengan properti. Artikel ini<br />menyelidiki kembali perlindungan dasar hak kekayaan intelektual untuk memberikan<br />justifikasi bahwa hak kekayaan intelektual adalah ‘properti’ yang memiliki sifat dasar<br />properti dan faktanya obyek properti memiliki hak milik.<br /><br /></p><p><em><strong>Abstract</strong></em><br />Intellectual Property Rights provides legal authority for a person to reap the rewards of<br />the intellectual work produced. This has a consequence that the other party without consent<br />must not take advantage of an intellectual work. Reap the rewards of means to take<br />something, which in civil law is known as the property. This article retraces the basic<br />protection of intellectual property rights to provide justification that intellectual property<br />rights are ‘a property’ that has the nature of properties and in fact, is the object of property<br />that has proprietary rights.</p>

scholarly journals Goods in Transit and Intellectual Property Under the EU Law and Caselaw of the Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Radim Charvát
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
In Transit ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The paper addresses the issue whether customs authorities of Member States are entitled to suspend or detain goods in transit (i.e., products directing from one non- Member State to another non-Member State through the EU) and the evolving case-law of the Court of Justice related to this matter. Prior to the judgment in Philips and Nokia cases, a so-called manufacturing fiction theory was applied by some Member State courts (especially Dutch courts). According to this theory, goods suspended or detained by customs authorities within the EU were considered to be manufactured in the Member State where the custom action took place. In the Philips and Nokia judgments, the Court of Justice rejected this manufacturing fiction theory. But the proposal for amendment to the Regulation on Community trade mark and the proposal of the new Trademark directive, as a part of the trademark reform within the EU, go directly against the ruling in the Philips and Nokia cases and against the Understanding between the EU and India.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document