scholarly journals Provisions on establishing rights to scent trademark of the US and European Union law - Experience for Vietnam

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1392-1397
Author(s):  
Tín Minh Ngô ◽  
Thảo Thị Thu Trần
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Us

Based on the perspective of analyzing the provisions of the laws of the United States and the laws of the European Union, as well as the practice of protecting non-traditional trademarks in the United States and the European Union, in particular intellectual property rights to the Scent trademark, proposals are made for Vietnam in the process of completing legal provisions, processes, methods of assessment and establishing the rights of Scent trademark rights to meet the global trend and domestic law requirements under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership's commitments. Accordingly, in the negotiation rounds of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (the precursor of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership), the parties participating in the negotiation often disagree on the scope of protection of intellectual property rights, and non-traditional trademarks, sound trademarks, scent trademarks in particular. This is also one of the important reasons for the failure of negotiations and the withdrawal from the US Agreement. Besides, in the future, intellectual property rights and trademark rights, non-traditional trademarks in particular, will continue to be important negotiating topics that determine the success of the new generation of the free trade agreement. Therefore, the early improvement of the legal system in the establishment and protection of the rights to this object contributes to helping Vietnam be more active in negotiation.

1. Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Uk

This introduction provides an overview of topics covered in this book which relate to all areas of intellectual property law, including the justifications that have been put forward for granting intellectual property rights. It also considers the key international and regional developments that have influenced intellectual property law in the UK, such as the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) negotiations, and European Union law. The chapter also discusses the ways in which the European Union is involved in intellectual property law, such as its involvement in negotiating and signing treaties. Finally, it looks at the European Economic Area and non-EU regional initiatives on intellectual property, as well as the implications of Brexit.

The Intersection Between Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 121-134
Author(s):  
Mariateresa Maggiolino ◽  
Laura Zoboli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Alternative Scenarios

The interface between intellectual property rights (IPR) and the rules to protect the correct functioning of the market can be canvassed by looking at when these two sets of provisions converge and collide. This chapter analyses four alternative scenarios, by stressing that policy decisions become crucial to solve the cases of conflict and, in particular, the case where antitrust law forbids practices that intellectual property (IP) laws allow. Moreover, the chapter illustrates that it is in relation to these policy decisions that scholars and practitioners can appreciate how different jurisdictions, as in the United States (US) and European Union (EU), conceptualize the role that property rights and competition are called to play in spurring innovation.

scholarly journals Influence of the Regulatory Framework for Pharmaceuticals in Public Health. Analysis from Colombia's ratification of the Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Trade-Related (TRIPS) and the Free Trade Agreements with the United States and the European Union

Aquichan ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-127
Author(s):  
Fernando Augusto Jiménez-Valderrama ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union

Este artículo tiene por objetivo estudiar la relación entre la disponibilidad, los precios de los medicamentos y los intereses de salud pública. Para ello hemos utilizado una metodología de análisis de los intereses económicos implicados y también un método sistemático de tratamiento de la legislación nacional, comunitaria andina e internacional vigente. Igualmente hemos acudido a metodologías de derecho comparado entre nuestro ordenamiento jurídico nacional con los de otros países de mundo occidental. Existe un estrecho vínculo entre la disponibilidad y los precios de los medicamentos y los intereses de salud pública. Nuestro actual sistema legal reconoce a los inventores de nuevos medicamentos como un “monopolio” para negociar en el mercado farmacéutico. Para proteger los intereses públicos nuestra regulación establece algunos límites a los derechos de los inventores. Los derechos de propiedad se limitan en el tiempo y bajo algunas circunstancias es obligatorio autorizar a otros a usar la patente bajo un contrato de licenciamiento. La Organización Mundial del Comercio ha establecido (Decisión del Consejo de la OMC, Ronda Doha 2003) otros límites a estos derechos en caso de condiciones excepcionales. Nuestra Constitución Nacional otorga prevalencia a los intereses públicos sobre los privados. Es un deber de los gobiernos establecer un sistema justo en el cual los inventores puedan obtener una recompensa económica por sus creaciones y la sociedad pueda satisfacer sus necesidades de salud.

scholarly journals The Trend of Scientific Productivity of Chinese, EuropeanUnion, and United States Universities and Private Companies: Does the Future Belong to E-Technology Companies?

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
American Universities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Parametric Statistics ◽  
The Eu

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.

Germany's relations with the United States and China from a strategic triangle perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Biba
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Puzzle Piece ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Angela Merkel

Abstract As the Sino-American Great Power competition continues to intensify, newly-elected US President Joe Biden's administration now seeks to enlist the support of its allies and partners around the world. As Europe's largest economy and a, if not the, leading voice within the European Union, Germany represents an important puzzle-piece for Biden. But Germany, at least under outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel, has been reluctant to take sides. It is against this backdrop that this article looks into Germany's past and present trilateral relationships with the US and China through the theoretical lens of the so-called strategic triangle approach. Applying this approach, the article seeks to trace and explain German behaviour, as well as to elucidate the opportunities and pitfalls that have come with it. The article demonstrates that Germany's recently gained position as a ‘pivot’ (two positive bilateral relationships) between the US and Chinese ‘wings’ (positive bilateral relations with Germany and negative bilateral relations with each other) is desirable from the perspective of the strategic triangle. At the same time, being pivot is also challenging and hard to maintain. Alternative options, such as entering a US–German ‘marriage’ directed against China, are also problematic. The article therefore concludes that Germany has tough decisions to take going forward.

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.

Precaution, Proportionality, and Cost/Benefit Analysis: False Analogies

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Rose–Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Proportionality Principle

The Politics of Precaution by David Vogel, and the edited volume, The Reality of Precaution each compare the United States with Europe over a range of regulatory areas. Vogel claims that the US and Europe changed places in recent years with Europe becoming more precautionary than the US. The edited volume covers a wider range of topics and finds that the results are mixed. The evidence of diversity in the edited volume appears convincing, but this essay argues that both volumes too narrowly focus on the precautionary principle. Rather it argues for a broader context that confronts precaution both with the proportionality principle, which is a mainstay of European Union law, and with the limitations of cost/benefit analysis and Impact Assessment. It unpacks the normative underpinnings of these concepts to suggest a broader frame for policy analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document