Reverse Engineering im Spannungsfeld der Sonderschutzrechte

In implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/943, Section 3 (1) No. 2 GeschGehG (German Trade Secrets Act) explicitly legalizes reverse engineering for the first time in the history of German trade secrets law. Subject of this thesis is a comprehensive exploration of this new freedom of reverse engineering. To this end, the author develops a definition of reverse engineering that takes into account the reality of economic life. After a practice-oriented interpretation of Section 3 (1) No. 2 GeschGehG, its effects on the entire legal protection of entrepreneurial know-how are examined. The focus is on the effects on copyright, patent and unfair competition law. In this context, the author develops goal-oriented solutions to various unanswered legal questions.

Legal safeguard of trademark is in Ukraine at level of national legislation

In this paper theoretical and practical questions are considered in relation to trademarks, the legislative base of institute of intellectual property is Analysed that touches a trade ark exactly, The legislative base of institute of intellectual property is analysed that touches a trade ark exactly, namely by Constitution of Ukraine, Civil Code of Ukraine; Economic to Code of Ukraine; A law of Ukraine is “On the guard of rights on signs for commodities and services”, Law of Ukraine “On protecting from an unfair competition”, Law of Ukraine “About an advertisement”. Drawn conclusion in relation to the legal adjusting of rights that is given by national legal acts and terms of grant of legal safeguard that research is examined in scientific. During consideration of this research a question is considered, that it is exactly necessary it is necessary to bear in a mind at determination of concept trademark, investigational that is grounds for acquisition of legal safeguard on a trademark and outlined that are grounds at confession of trademark invalid. Problems that appear in the field of the legal adjusting of trademark in Ukraine are investigational. The aspects of legal methods of protection of ownership rights are reflected on trademarks, and also the ways of analysis of situation and most optimal methods and effective mechanisms of defence are certain. In detail paid attention during research of functions, that is executed by a trademark and their maintenance that to our opinion has an important value for understanding of features of her legal defense is considered. By the basic functions of trademark certainly: replacement commodity or services among other partial, that are in civil turnover; replacement on the origin of commodity or services; industry on certain of commodity of services; advertising of this commodity of services.

Protecting Trade Mark Proprietors Against Unfair Competition in EU Trade Mark Law

With aims of protecting trade mark proprietors against commercial practices of third parties that could hinder the use of the trade mark in informing and attracting customers, negatively influence its selling power, or exploit its attractive force, the EU legislator and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) have broadened the protection afforded under trade mark law to cover such acts. At the same time, the CJEU has sought appropriate balance between the exclusive rights of trade mark proprietors and the interests of third parties, in allowing those practices that can be deemed acceptable as part of fair competition. The author argues that, in consequence, EU trade mark law is becoming ever more an EU law of unfair competition with regard to practices that involve the use of trade marks. The article represents an attempt to explain these developments by looking at specific policy choices and decisions of the CJEU on the protection of trade marks, alongside the wider context of EU law dealing with unfair competition. A key conclusion is that, in light of the lack of harmonisation of unfair competition law in the EU (at least pertaining to practices that affect businesses), the widening of the scope of protection under trade mark law helps to ensure the necessary degree of harmonisation while avoiding a parallel system of protection. When compared to pre-existing EU instruments of unfair competition law that prohibit certain uses of trade marks, this approach provides trade mark proprietors with a more efficient mechanism for enforcing their rights. In the course of elucidating this finding, the article gives the reader an understanding of how EU law addresses the protection of the commercial value of trade marks.

The reform of passing off in Chinese Law: effects of the 2017 revision of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law

Confusion, or passing off, is a typical unfair practice recognized internationally, but national laws still differ from each other. Although the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law of 1993 provided a narrow rule on passing off, a rich amount of case law has considerably enlarged its scope of application. The reform of the passing off regime in 2017 was essentially based on case law. This reform consists of four main aspects: expansion of the scope of protectable commercial signs: clarification of the applicability of the passing off rule to registered and unregistered trademarks; the adjustment of fame as a qualifying condition of passing off; and the adoption of a general rule prohibiting confusion. This reform has not only consolidated the case law and approach developed by the courts, but also bestowed an open and flexible spirit in the passing off regime which will enhance its efficiency in the fight against unfair imitation. *PhD (University of Paris I – Pantheon Sorbonne), LLM (Renmin University of China), LLB (Shandong University), Director of the Innovation & Competition Law Center, Former Vice-President of the Trademark & Unfair Competition Committee of the IP Case Law Center (Beijing) of the Chinese Supreme People's Court, Vice President of the Beijing IP Judicial Protection Association, Expert Council Member of China Trademark Association, Co-Chair of American Society of International Law Intellectual Property Interest Group, Visiting Professor or Research Fellow (University of Milan, University of Toulouse I, University of Paris I, University of Paris XI, Max Plank Institute for Procedural Law and Strasbourg University CEIPI). The author is thankful to Miss Kristina DaCosta (LLM graduate of Tsinghua University), Miss Ling Zhang (PhD candidate of Tsinghua University) and Mr Yu Huang (LLM graduate of Tsinghua University) for their valuable assistance in this research. This research is part of the project 20BFX142 of the National Social Science Fund of China.

Artificial Intelligence and Unfair Competition – Unveiling an Underestimated Building Block of the AI Regulation Landscape

The article illustrates the underestimated role unfair competition law (UCL) can play as a building block of the regulatory landscape relating to artificial intelligence (AI). To this end, it examines to what extent overarching, prominent principles of AI regulation such as fairness, transparency, autonomy and innovation are reflected in paradigms of UCL, and on this basis evaluates how the latter can contribute to the realisation of the former. In this way, prominent problems raised by AI that are commonly discussed under different legal regimes are reconsidered from a UCL perspective, showing that this perspective may complement or even substitute traditional regulatory approaches. Finally, the article indicates how AI could inversely give an impulse to the doctrinal advancement of UCL as a still ambiguous and insufficiently understood body of law.

Unfair Competition in the Field of Intellectual Property Rights: Analyzing Concepts, Acts of Unfair Competition and Laws

This study aims to analyze Unfair Competition in the field of Intellectual property rights. This research seeks to explore and show how the concept of unfair Competition interferes in the area of intellectual property rights. Furthermore, we have investigated how competition law and intellectual property rights interfere with each other. The research evaluates unfair competition practices in the scope of intellectual property rights, referring to specific international laws directly related to each course. Finally, it examines the regulatory system that governs these sectors. Reference is made particularly to the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law and other international laws on trademark practices. As far as the study's methodology is concerned, qualitative data analysis is applicable alongside with comparative legal method for analyzing "de lege lata" and "de lege feranda" situations in a range of the concluded topic. The study finds out that Unfair Competition in the domain of Intellectual Property rights involves actions by an operator that infringe the legislation's rules, harm operators' legitimate rights and interest on the market, thereby threatening socio-economic order. The study concluded that Unfair Competition acts in the field of Intellectual Property rights (like Industrial espionage, infringement of trade secrets, trademark infringement) impede innovation, stifle, and affect Competition in the real market. And the occurrence of these Unfair Competition practices is common, even though there are existing legal frameworks that regulate this sector. The research reveals an international regulatory system such as the Paris Convention 1883, the Patent Act 1977, and the Espionage Act 1996 have specific and statutory laws that target unfair competition practices. The Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Act 1993 forbids unfair Competition in intellectual property rights and defends operators and citizens from unfair competition practices. The study also deduces that the existing legal framework regulating this sector is practical to a small extent because these Unfair Competition Practices are still very much detectable in the trade sector. As most legal frameworks dwell on civil liabilities instead of criminal penalties, operators can easily violate the law by relying on whether they can afford the civil penalties. There are recent amendments to adjust and adapt to the evolution of patterns and daily market innovations (Example: Amendment of the Chinese Anti-Unfair Competition Law in 2003). We concluded the study by bringing in suggestions and recommendations. Qualitative research methodology applies to the following article.

Das Verhältnis zwischen Marken- und Lauterkeitsrecht beim Schutz von Unternehmenskennzeichen

Company signs can be protected by trademark law and unfair competition law. However, can the two legal instruments be applied cumulatively? If the results obtained under the two laws conflict with each other, how can the conflict be resolved? The German Federal Court of Justice has confirmed the principle of cumulative application in the Hard-Rock-Café judgement in 2013. However, in this case, the result under unfair competition law was aligned with that under trademark law. This approach seems doubtful. This comparative study seeks to delimit the application domain of unfair competition law besides trademark law by protection of company signs and to find the appropriate approach by contradictory results.

Influencer Marketing

Influencers are omnipresent in various appearances in today's media landscape. Nevertheless, there is a lack of uniform handling of media and unfair competition law standards. In fact, divergences in decisions by regional and higher regional courts have led to uncertainties in answering the question of whether and how publications by influencers must comply with any advertising labelling obligations. The author takes this as an opportunity to clarify the key problem areas and, at the same time, to determine whether the existing legal regulatory framework is sufficient and capable of producing appropriate and interest-oriented results for a modern form of advertising such as influencer marketing.

Werbeblocker im Internet

Ad blockers touch on numerous, as yet unresolved legal issues. While ad blockers have so far been judged primarily on the basis of unfair competition law, this work shows that the decisive factor is rather copyright law. This theme is developed with regard to the current case law jurisdiction of the ECJ. Furthermore, the concept of the ‚competitor‘ in unfair competition law is developed and placed on a new foundation with reference to the transactional decision. The thesis also comprehensively analyzes the legality of the possible alternative actions of the website operators and the response options of the ad blockers from the perspective of unfair competition law, copyright law and takes into account the GDPR.