scholarly journals Digitizing Scent and Flavor: A Copyright Perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 347
Author(s):  
Amara Lopez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
New Technology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Space ◽  
Recent Developments

Should the flavor of a cheese fall under copyright protection? The Court of Justice of the European Union recently confronted this question in Levola Hengelo BV v. Smilde Foods. Although the court ultimately denied protection, its reasoning opened many doors for those seeking intellectual property protection for scents and flavors. The court implied that it was the subjective nature of a cheese flavor that bars it from enjoying the protection copyright affords, which begs the question of what would happen if there were a sufficiently objective way to describe a flavor. Recent developments in technology have led to the digitization of scent and flavor. In the intellectual property space, digitization provides a superior means of fixation for scents and flavors but it also threatens to make reverse engineering much easier. This would take away the protection trade secret law affords to scents and flavors. This will undoubtedly push industry leaders to seek more protection from the law. This Note explores how copyright law in the United States and the European Union might handle this new technology and argues that protection should not come in the United States until Congress weighs all considerations and adds a new subject matter category for scents and flavors to the U.S. Copyright Act.

scholarly journals An Autonomous EU Functionality Doctrine for Shape Exclusions

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 567-577
Author(s):  
Uma Suthersanen ◽  
Marc D Mimler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Functionality Doctrine

Abstract Exclusionary subject matter are often underpinned by public interest considerations. In the case of shapes of products, the Court of Justice of the European Union has aligned the interpretation of the relevant exclusionary provisions within design and trade mark laws. More recently, European jurisprudence within copyright law in relation to conditions of protection has imported the same considerations so as to regulate the protection of shapes of products. This article explores the multitude of doctrinal and policy reasons underpinning shape exclusions and argues that the Court is consciously creating an EU autonomous functionality doctrine within intellectual property law. We also argue that the Court is building a European macro-rationale within these laws namely to ensure that protection does not unduly restrict market freedom and competition.

scholarly journals The EU Copyright Directive as Compared to US Copyright Law and its Implication for Libraries

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-266
Author(s):  
Marco Marandola
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Directive ◽  
Union Directive ◽  
Copyright Directive ◽  
The Eu

This article aims at analyzing the relations and differences between the United States of America Copyright Law and the European Union Directive 2001/29/CE and how they affect the management of protected work in the libraries.

Overview of Climate Change Litigation

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 194-197
Author(s):  
Michael Gerrard
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Tribunals

Climate change litigation is a global phenomenon. According to a database maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, as of February 4, 2019 a total of 1,297 climate cases had been filed in courts or other tribunals worldwide. Of these, 1,009—78 percent—were from the United States, Australia was a distant second, with ninety-eight, followed by the United Kingdom with forty-seven. No other country had as many as twenty. The cases were filed in twenty-nine countries and six international tribunals, led by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which had forty-one.

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 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.

scholarly journals Beyond Refusal to Deal: A Cross-Atlantic View of Copyright, Competition and Innovation Policies

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Katz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Antitrust Regulation ◽  
External Check

Conventional wisdom holds that the European Union has opted to apply its competition law to the exercise of intellectual property rights to a much greater extent than has the United States. We argue that, at least in the context of copyright protection, this conventional wisdom is false. While European antitrust regulation of refusal to license one's intellectual property does seem much more robust and activist than U.S. antitrust regulation of similar conduct, focusing solely on one narrow aspect of antitrust doctrine — the treatment of a unilateral refusal to deal — tells less than half the story.Once various doctrines of copyright law are taken into account, the substantive difference between the European and American approaches not only narrows, but in some key respects is reversed. While European jurisdictions have relatively expansive copyright protection which may require antitrust intervention to check anti-competitive uses of copyrighted works, American copyright law provides stronger internal limits on copyright protection, which thereby lessens the need for resort to antitrust law as an external check on anti-competitive uses of copyrighted works. Furthermore, when the broader impact that antitrust law might have on the exercise of IPRs in the United States is considered (not only in substance, but also in antitrust process), it becomes apparent that in key respects, when innovative-competition is at stake, U.S. law grants overall weaker copyright protection than that available in Europe. We also explain why the two jurisdictions have adopted distinct approaches to resolving similar problems and evaluate those approaches.

scholarly journals Access to Essential Facilities under the Commerce Act in the Light of Experience in Australia, the European Union and the United States

2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 231
Author(s):  
Valentine Korah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Effects ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Recent Developments

Drawing on recent developments in Australian, United Kingdom and United States jurisprudence, Professor Korah casts doubt on the approach recently taken by New Zealand courts in one of the most controversial areas of competition law: the access to its facilities that a corporation in a dominant position must give to its would-be competitors.  She argues that before imposing such obligations courts ought to be more sophisticated in assessing the economic effects of such obligations and especially the need to preserve an incentive to make the considerable investment required to create such facilities.  Professor Korah was the 1999 Chapman Tripp Fellow. This article is an edited version of a paper presented at the offices of Chapman Tripp during the tenure of the Fellowship.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document