Developments (and Non-Developments) in the Harmonisation of EU Intellectual Property Law

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 87-121
Author(s):  
Catherine Seville

AbstractThis chapter begins by considering the challenges posed to the harmonisation of intellectual property law at the European level by the very different ways in which the law of intellectual property is viewed across Europe. It then goes on to review the various global and historical initiatives in the arena of intellectual property law harmonisation before running through the different areas of intellectual property law—trade marks, designs, copyright and patents—and examining the ways in which each of these has been dealt with at the European level, both by the European Union and by other Europe-wide bodies. In effect, the way in which intellectual property law has been addressed by the European Union represents a microcosm of the various possible approaches to harmonisation. As regards the prospect of future harmonisation of intellectual property law by the European Union, it is hoped that a wide and wise view of the issues will be taken, in order that public confidence in the Community’s intellectual property regime may be both justified and strengthened.

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 87-121
Author(s):  
Catherine Seville

Abstract This chapter begins by considering the challenges posed to the harmonisation of intellectual property law at the European level by the very different ways in which the law of intellectual property is viewed across Europe. It then goes on to review the various global and historical initiatives in the arena of intellectual property law harmonisation before running through the different areas of intellectual property law—trade marks, designs, copyright and patents—and examining the ways in which each of these has been dealt with at the European level, both by the European Union and by other Europe-wide bodies. In effect, the way in which intellectual property law has been addressed by the European Union represents a microcosm of the various possible approaches to harmonisation. As regards the prospect of future harmonisation of intellectual property law by the European Union, it is hoped that a wide and wise view of the issues will be taken, in order that public confidence in the Community’s intellectual property regime may be both justified and strengthened.


Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-196
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Żok

Free and open source software (FOSS) has undoubtedly become an important element of intellectual property law. It is therefore not surprising that the European Commission developed its own non-proprietary licence, i.e. the European Union Public Licence (EUPL). The article examines the reference to ‘a work of software’ to determine the scope of the licence. For this purpose, the paper discusses the reasons for the creation of the EUPL, the relationship between a work and software as well as the structure of a computer program. The following considerations also include the compatible licences listed in the EUPL Appendix. The article concludes that the reference to a work or software is not accidental because it removes serious doubts arising from the concept of a computer program. Thus, this legal solution may facilitate the wider adoption of the licence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 567-577
Author(s):  
Uma Suthersanen ◽  
Marc D Mimler

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.


Author(s):  
Nataliia Myronenko

Key words: trademark, series of signs, dominant element, originality, resolution The article, based on the analysis of the doctrine of intellectual property law,legislation of Ukraine, law enforcement practice, examines the state and prospects ofproviding legal protection of a series of trademarks. To overcome the existing gap inthe legislation of Ukraine, the need to amend the Law of Ukraine «On Protection ofRights to Marks for Goods and Services» is justified. It is proposed to define «a seriesof marks as a set of trademarks belonging to one owner of interdependent rights, interconnected by the presence of the same dominant verbal, figurative or combined element,having phonetic and semantic similarity, and may also bear minor graphic differencesthat do not change the essence of the trademarks. The lack of definition ofthe term «dominant element» in the legislation is emphasized. Based on the provisionsof the philosophy and doctrine of intellectual property law, the dominant elementmeans the smallest indivisible component of the trademark, which is originaland not descriptive. Based on this, its main features are distinguished: originalityand indivisibility.It is proved that the same position of the dominant element in the structure of allsigns is necessary to create a stable image of consumers in relation to a particularproduct and its manufacturer. Examples of court decisions on recognition or refusal toprovide legal protection to trademarks are given.In the context of reforming the legislation of Ukraine in terms of its approximation toEU legislation and the development of relevant case law, which must meet Europeanstandards, the expediency of using the legal positions of such a leading democratic courtas the European Court of Justice is justified. Attention is drawn to the fact that the decisionof the ECJ is not a source of law for resolving disputes of this category by the courtsof Ukraine. At the same time, they are a source of harmonious interpretation of the nationallegislation of Ukraine in accordance with the established standards of the legalsystem of the European Union. It is proved that this conclusion is consistent with thepurpose and objectives to be solved in the country in the process of implementing the provisionsof the Association Agreement in the legislation of Ukraine. Proposals are formulatedto improve the quality of legislation in the field of IP law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document