scholarly journals The Notion of the European Union Trademark

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-31
Author(s):  
Jarmila Lazíková
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe EU trademark law has recorded the important changes in the last years. The Community trademark in the past and the EU trademark at the present have become very popular legal measures not only in the EU Member States but also in the third countries. Its preferences are increasing year to year. The EU trademark may consist of a sign that fulfils two main attributes. Firstly, there is a distinctive character. Secondly, there is a capability of being represented on the Register of the EU trademarks. The second attribute is new and replaced the previous attribute - capability of being represented graphically. The interpretation of the above mentioned attributes is not possible without the judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is necessary to take into account the kind of trademark, list of the goods and services, which should be signed by the trademark, and its perception by the public. The paper includes the main judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union related to the interpretation of the sign that may be registered as the EU trademark. They are very helpful in the application practice of the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the national offices of the intellectual property as well.

COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC AND ACCESSORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-499
Author(s):  
Christina Angelopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Explicit Definition ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Gradual Accumulation ◽  
The Eu

In recent judgments, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been developing its interpretation of the notion of “communication to the public”. This forms one of the exclusive rights of copyright holders that have been harmonised by the InfoSoc Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC (OJ 2001 L 167 p.1)). As was established in 2006 (Case C-306/05, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles, ECLI:EU:C:2006:764, at [31]), despite the lack of an explicit definition in that directive, the notion of a “communication to the public” must be given “an autonomous and uniform interpretation” throughout the EU. This finding initially resulted in the creation of a considerable amount of uncertainty for national courts. The gradual accumulation of information through subsequent CJEU judgments has begun to bring some clarity, while also raising new questions.

scholarly journals Immunity of States and International Organizations in the Court of Justice of the European Union Practice and its Significance in the Implementation of Megascience Projects

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 112-129
Author(s):  
A. O. Chetverikov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Hadron Collider ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Attorneys General ◽  
The Eu

In recent years, Russia has invested significant assets in unique scientific facility of the “Megascience” class that are being built or are already operating on the territory of foreign countries, mainly member states of the European Union: the International Thermonuclear Research Reactor-ITER (France), the European X-ray Free Electron Laser-European XFEL, the Large Hadron Collider (Switzerland and France), etc.How reliable and safe are such investments in the context of the sanctions policy of the West, including the EU, against our country? To what extent are they protected by the principle of immunity of states and international organizations, which is generally recognized, but is not interpreted and applied in different legal systems? The paper considers these issues in the context of the development of the judicial practice of the supranational institution of the judicial power of the EU, namely the Court of Justice of the European Union and the concept of relative immunity (immunité relative) formulated herein.Having conducted a comparative legal review of the current state of the sources of law and doctrine on the issues of immunity of states and international organizations, the author analyses and evaluates the decisions of the EU Court of Justice and the legal positions of its attorneys General: — Mahamdia v. Algeria, 2012: for the first time ECJ formulates the concept of relative immunity in relation to states;— "Rina" and "Suprim" cases, 2020: EU Court clarifies the interpretation of the concept of acta iure imperii (acts of public authority), in respect of which states retain immunity in the EU, and extends its concept of relative immunity to international intergovernmental organizations.The final section deals with legal issues that yet to get a clear answer in the practice of the EU Court of Justice. In this regard, the author highlights possible directions of its evolution, and studies other recent decisions of the EU Court of Justice that may affect Russia’s national interests in the context of cooperation with EU member states in the scientific and technical sphere, including megascience, and in other areas.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The Other ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Copyright Policy ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Past ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Compared to other areas of intervention at the European Union (EU) level, copyright harmonization is a relatively recent phenomenon. Compared to other areas of intellectual property law, copyright harmonization has not been as complete as with other rights. Yet, two phenomena may be observed: one the one hand, copyright policy and legislative initiatives have intensified over the past few years; on the other hand, the large number of references to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has substantially shaped the EU copyright framework and, with it, also the copyright framework of individual EU Member States....

scholarly journals THE CONCEPT AND CONTENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavlo V. Makushev ◽  
◽  
Andriy V. Khrid�chkin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Court Of Justice

The article considers the features of public administration in the field of intellectual property and the conceptual basis for the formation of its procedures in the European Union. The conceptual bases of formation and development of procedures of public administration in the field of intellectual property in the countries of the European Union are opened. The pluralism of approaches to the definition of public administration procedures in the field of intellectual property in the countries of the European Union is analyzed. The normative-legal base of procedures of public administration in the field of intellectual property in the countries of the European Union is given. The acts of the Court of Justice of the European Communities on public administration in the field of intellectual property are analyzed. It is proved that the formation of European private law is due to the purpose of creating and functioning of a common market. It is established that in the national legal systems of European countries the regulation of public relations in the field of intellectual property is given considerable attention. The process of improving the procedures of public administration in the field of intellectual property in the European Union is analyzed and the legal framework of this process is given. A feature of European Union law is to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights through two main mechanisms: harmonization of legislation of member states of the European Union and the introduction of European Union protection documents for various intellectual property. Thus, other partner countries of the European Union, in addition to measures to approximate legislation, may decide on the signing of agreements on entry into the regional European system of protection of certain intellectual property. The member states of the European Union pursue a coherent policy in the field of legal protection and use of intellectual property. Guided by the principle of free movement of goods and services, they focus their efforts primarily on the unification and harmonization of legislation in the field of intellectual property and prevention of the use of intellectual property rights in unfair competition. Within the European Union, a system of direct regulation of the processes of unification and harmonization of legislation in the field of intellectual property, which is especially characteristic of the field of copyright and related rights. The Court of Justice of the European Communities plays a significant role in the unification and harmonization of the legal regulation of relations in the field of intellectual property. In the absence of appropriate harmonization of national legislation in the field of intellectual property with the principles of free movement of goods and services, as well as freedom of competition, proclaimed by the European Union, the importance of the case law of the European Court of Justice is difficult to overestimate. The beginning of unification and harmonization activities in the field of intellectual property protection is preceded by a stage of case law enforcement practice, which allows to identify existing gaps in legal regulation and solve relevant problems. At present, it is a question of the existence of a special system of intellectual property rights of the European Union, formed in its general features, built on principles different from the traditional national ones, with a special subject of regulation. At the same time, this system is a new legal phenomenon that is developing quite dynamically and rapidly along with national and international legal systems. The legal regulation of intellectual property relations in the European Union aims to ensure a high level of protection of these rights, as they are the legal basis for the protection of the results of creative activity. The conclusion about the urgency of research of problems of public administration in the field of intellectual property in the countries of the European Union is made.

scholarly journals Self-Government at the Court of Justice of the European Union: A Bedrock for Institutional Success

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 2007-2030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Krenn
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Scant Attention ◽  
Characteristic Features ◽  
Administrative Governance ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis contribution deals with a topic that has so far received scant attention: the administrative governance of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Over the course of the last 65 years, the CJEU has developed its own particular version of judicial self-government. This article analyzes its genesis, its characteristic features and provides a comprehensive assessment. Three arguments are put forward: First, self-government at the CJEU can be associated with a number of positive effects for the Court as an institution. It contributes to keeping the Court out of the public limelight, to fostering its judicial authority vis-à-vis key compliance constituencies and to securing its judicial independence. Second, while strong forms of judicial self-government can lead to a lack of transparency and accountability, these problematic side effects have been largely avoided at the CJEU. This is, in many respects, due to the dialogic accountability relationship that has been established with the European Parliament in the context of the EU budgetary process. Nevertheless, third, as regards more recent developments, such as the establishment of an expert panel for selecting new CJEU members and the Court's legislative role in amending its own Statute, from the perspective of transparency, room for improvement exists.

Broad Specifications and Intent to Use: Is the EU Trade Mark System Credible?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Arnold
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Intent To Use ◽  
The Eu

Abstract An assessment of the credibility of the EU trade mark system in the light of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-371/18 Sky v SkyKick leads to the following conclusions: the decisions that lack of clarity and precision of specifications of goods and services is not a ground of invalidity and that partial bad faith when applying to register a trade mark leads to partial invalidity are unsurprising; the decision that applying to register a trade mark without intending to use it can amount to bad faith, at least in some circumstances, is an important step forward that gives national courts a tool with which to combat unjustifiably broad specifications of goods and services; but the jury is still out with regard to the EU trade mark system’s acceptance of broad terms such as ‘computer software’ in specifications.

scholarly journals Types of constitutional responsibilities of man and citizen in Ukraine and in the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 46-49
Author(s):  
S.M. Hretsa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Military Service ◽  
Compulsory Education ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Marriage And Family ◽  
World Community ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of the range of responsibilities of man and citizen in Ukraine and the European Union, the formation of an approach to their classification. The following range of human responsibilities in the EU have been identified: equality between women and men in terms of pay; non-discrimination; respect for human dignity; receiving compulsory education; completion of compulsory school education. The following range of responsibilities of an EU citizen has been identified: to perform military service in relation to one of the EU member states; to be registered as conscripts in one of the EU member states. Such a range of human responsibilities has been established in Ukraine (strict observance of the Constitution of Ukraine and laws of Ukraine; non-encroachment on the rights and freedoms, honor and dignity of others; responsibilities in marriage and family; parents are obliged to maintain children until they reach adulthood adult children are obliged to take care of their disabled parents; to obtain a complete general secondary education; not to harm nature, cultural heritage; to compensate for damages; to pay taxes and fees in the manner and amount prescribed by law) and the duties of a citizen of Ukraine (protection of the Fatherland, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine; respect for the state symbols of Ukraine). According to these criteria, the responsibilities of man and citizen are classified into the following groups: criterion "subject": 1) human responsibilities; 2) responsibilities of a citizen; by the criterion of "form of implementation": 1) individual; 2) collective; by the criterion of "content": 1) economic; 2) social; 3) cultural; 4) political; 5) others; according to the criterion of "source" of consolidation: 1) enshrined in the founding treaties of the EU; 2) enshrined in international (additional) EU agreements with international organizations and other countries; 3) enshrined in regulations, directives, recommendations; conclusions; 4) contained in the decision of the Court of Justice, the conclusions of the Court of Justice; 5) contained in the national legislation of the EU member states, third countries; 6) according to the criterion of the circle of subjects in relation to which they are assigned: 1) in relation to other people; 2) in relation to the world community; 3) in relation to future generations.

Did the Court of Justice of the European Union Solve the Puzzle by Declaring the Rubik’s Cube Trademark Invalid?

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (12) ◽  
pp. 1217-1233
Author(s):  
Borbála Lili Kováts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Rubik's Cube ◽  
Rubik’S Cube ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In 1995, the patent protection for the internationally famous Rubik’s Cube expired. Ernő Rubik, the Hungarian inventor of the three-dimensional puzzle, had to find an alternative way to maintain his monopoly on the market and thus had the shape of the Cube registered as a 3D Community trademark in 1996. However, the idea of perpetuating the exclusive rights related to the Rubik’s Cube only proved to be successful for ten years, as in 2006 Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG, a German competitor of Rubik, filed an application for declaration of invalidity against the 3D Rubik’s Cube trademark. The application was based on the lack of distinctive character, descriptiveness and functionality of the 3D trademark. This was rejected by OHIM. The invalidity case ended up before the Court of Justice of the European Union, upon the appeal of the German competitor. The Court found that the Rubik’s Cube trademarks should have been declared invalid, and transferred the case back to OHIM, which then had to bring a new decision that was in line with the interpretation of the CJEU. The study analyses the two rounds of invalidity proceedings, the key issues which emerged throughout the case, the interpretation of functionality by OHIM and the CJEU, and the legal background and the prospect for 3D shape marks in the EU.

Messi vs. Massi, Prior Right vs. Reputation: The Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Its Assessment with Regard to the Turkish Trademark Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Çiğdem Yatağan Özkan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Football Player ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion

Abstract The Messi case,1 which originated with the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in 2011 and was finalized in 2020, surprised the IP world/practitioners with the remarks of the first instance court and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as their findings were contrary to the established case law regarding the implementation of the relative grounds of refusal. Lionel Messi was a party to the court case as the applicant of the later application for the same classes of goods; the first instance court overruled the appeal of the owner of the earlier trademark based on relative grounds, given Lionel Messi’s reputation as a famous football player and thus the reputation of his surname ‘Messi’, even though the two trademarks were considered visually and phonetically similar. It was reiterated in the court decision that the reputation of the owner of the later trademark application neutralized the likelihood of confusion with the earlier trademark. Moreover, the judgment (dated 17 September 2020) of the Tenth Chamber of the CJEU went beyond the ordinary scope of trademark law. In this study we will discuss, in the context of the Messi decision, the influence of the reputation of a later trademark on conceptual differentiation and the possible results of not adducing evidence proving the reputation of a trademark.

scholarly journals LEGAL BASIS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION INFLUENCE ON THE VIRTUAL ASSETS MARKET

2021 ◽  
pp. 71-79
Author(s):  
O.I. Kulyk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Market Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
The Eu

The article analyses the legal basis of the European Union (EU) influence on the virtual assets market. It was found that the current EU legislation on the virtual assets is still full of legal gaps and does not ensure proper market regulation because of the early stage of its development. The absence of a unanimous position regarding the virtual assets market regulation forces the EU Member States to apply their own, sometimes contradictory, approaches to market regulation. It disaffirms the basic principles of the European Singe Market functioning, in particular the free movement of goods and services. It was found that according to the current EU legislation, virtual assets may be qualified as payment tokens, investment tokens and utility tokens. Payment tokens may be considered as electronic money or funds. They are covered by the Directive (EU) 2009/110 and the Directive (EU) 2015/2366. For the purposes of anti-money laundering, virtual assets may also be classified as virtual currencies under the Directive (EU) 2018/843. Investment tokens may be qualified as transferable securities or other financial instruments and will therefore fall within the scope of the Directive (EU) 2014/65. Utility tokens are not covered by EU legislation for now. Instead of merely addressing issues and challenges of virtual assets, the European Commission took a broader approach to the future development of the virtual assets market in the EU, and adopted on 24.09.2020 a new Digital Finance Package. At the core of the mentioned Digital Finance Package are the legislative proposals for an EU regulatory framework on virtual assets. This includes the proposal for a Regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) which is designed to provide a comprehensive bespoke regulatory framework for virtual assets in the EU. It was substantiated that MiCA is an ambitious EU legislative project that responds to an urgent policy need. However, further substantial revision of its detailed provisions will be necessary to provide a comprehensive regulatory framework of the EU influence on the virtual assets market.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document