Conceptual confusing similarity and pictorial trade marks

Several high-profile rebrands, including those by Twitter and Starbucks, have involved removing text from logos. This move towards wordless, pictorial trade marks raises a difficult question about how the scope of protection of a registered trade mark should be determined. This article examines the particular issue of how much weight should be given to the idea or concept underlying a pictorial mark when assessing whether a defendant’s junior mark is ‘confusingly similar’. Drawing on legal principles and case examples from Europe, the United Kingdom, Singapore and New Zealand, it is claimed that courts and adjudicators should be careful not to overweight conceptual similarity. It is argued that a lack of care in assessing conceptual similarity risks awarding one trader overbroad protection, which may be tantamount to conferring on one trader a monopoly in an idea. A lack of care may also undermine the logic of a registration system by untethering protection from what is recorded on the Register, and may make trade mark law less predictable and certain. * The author declares that he was junior counsel in a case discussed in this article, Carabao Tawandang Co Ltd v Red Bull GmbH HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-1975, 31 August 2006. The views represented in this article are the author’s own, and do not reflect the views of his employer at the time, or the views of the client represented in that particular case.

EXTENSION OF LABOR LAW PROTECTION STANDARDS IN THE ASPECT OF FIXED-TERM CONTRACTS OF ACADEMIC TEACHERS. COMMENTS DE LEGE LATA AND DE LEGE FERENDA

This paper attempts to determine the scope of protection of academic teachers in the context of repeated concluding fixed-term contracts and the partial exclusion by the Act on higher education of the application of Art. 25(1) of the KP to employment contracts of this group of employees. The author does not intend to duplicate the extensive literature in this area presented by labor law doctrine. In this publication, the author defends the thesis that the employment relationship of an academic teacher should be subject to a broader impact of the protective provisions of the Labor Code, including the protective function of labor law, in a situation where there are no normative obstacles to extending such impact.

ASSESSING THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE’S GENERAL COMMENT NO. 37: IS THE INTERPRETATION SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY IN TIMES OF PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY?

Implementing the right of peaceful assembly in the midst of a pandemic seems dangerous, especially when the disease is highly infectious. The United Nations Human Rights Committee then adopted General Comment No. 37 which explains the scope of protection of Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. This writing is normative research on the interpretation made by the Human Rights Committee and assessing the sufficiency of the said interpretation in protecting the freedom of assembly in the midst of public health emergencies. It is found that the Human Rights Committee has conducted a thorough method in interpreting the protective scope of Article 21 of the ICCPR, whereas the General Comment No. 37 provides a vast protective scope, including a thorough guideline on how to conduct the freedom of assembly in times of public health emergency.

Protecting the Freedom of Corporate Commercial Expression and Advertising

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has consistently recognized corporationsas entities falling within the scope of protection of the European Convention on Human Rights.The ECHR’s perception of corporations as “beneficiaries” of human rights is subject to criticism forconceptual incompatibility (human rights can only apply to people) and accusations that as long ascompanies refuse to commit to human rights, they should not be able to benefit from their protection).There is a discussion in the scientific literature about the philosophical and legal rationale forgranting corporations human rights. It is clear that human rights are for man. Therefore, they needa philosophical understanding and theoretical substantiation of the issue of extrapolation of humanrights protection to corporations; because corporations have a certain impact on the economic andsocial life of people, people in this context are the weaker sides. What are the consequences?This article will consider the European Court of Human Rights’ approaches to protecting corporationsfor freedom of expression and advertising under Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights.The main principles of protection of freedom of corporate expression and advertising are: 1) thecorporation has the right not only to protect freedom of expression and advertising, which appliesnot only to “information” or “ideas” that are favorably (positively) perceived by society, but alsothose that are considered offensive or shocking. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance andbroad-mindedness, without which there is no “democratic society;” 2) the protection of freedomof expression of corporations is subject to exceptions, which, however, must be interpreted strictly,and the need for any restrictions must be sufficiently convincing; 3) exceptions to the protectionof freedom of expression presuppose the existence of an “urgent social need” which determineswhether a “restriction” is compatible with freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 10 ofthe ECHR; 4) The task of the European Court of Human Rights in the administration of justice is todetermine whether the restrictions were “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued” and whetherthe grounds given by the national authorities to justify them were “relevant and sufficient.” In doingso, the Court must satisfy itself that the domestic authorities applied standards which complied withthe principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention and, in addition, relied on an acceptableassessment of the relevant facts.According to the author, the criteria developed by the ECHR for assessing the protection of theright to freedom of corporate commercial expression and advertising are fair and effective. Given thefact that the European Convention on Human Rights is a living mechanism that should be interpretedin the “light” of modern conditions, the emergence of new improved approaches to determiningthe extent and existence of violations in this area should not be ruled out. It is true that in today’smarketplace, corporations have the right to defend their rights, including freedom of expression andadvertising, and to protect themselves, for example, from unfair competition, when a corporationis “attacked” by unfair accusations or baseless accusations that damage its business reputation. Inaddition, corporations must also respect and respect human rights. According to the author, thecreation of a truly effective mechanism for monitoring the observance of human rights by corporations can balance the weights of “opponents” and “supporters” of recognizing the right of corporations toprotection by referring to the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights’ Engagement with International Human Rights Instruments: Looking at the Cases of Domestic Violence

In its recent jurisprudence on domestic violence, the European Court of Human Rights started to examine the domestic violence cases in the light of relevant international human rights law developed in this specific area. This article examines the engagement of the European Court of Human Rights with other international and regional human rights instruments in domestic violence cases. Upon examination, the article concludes that by integrating its case law into international human rights law the European Court of Human Rights broadens the scope of protection for domestic violence victims and maintains the unity of international law.

Scope of Protection of Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin for Agricultural Products and Foodstuff

Morbier

Commercial Companies as Applicants before the European Court of Human Rights

The status of commercial companies in international human rights law is controversial. Despite efforts to subject them to legal obligations in this field, they still cannot be held accountable for human rights violations. Companies have a standing before a few international courts, but only one international human rights court – the European Court of Human Rights. Surprisingly though, they can be applicants but never respondents. Even though this has been the reality for several decades now, it still raises a lot of concerns among academics. The Court itself justifies its decisions very sparingly. Meanwhile the scope of protection for companies constantly increases through its jurisprudence. Some rights, originally clearly designed to protect human beings, today apply to corporations as well.

Immigration and Multicultural Citizenship in Europe: Insights from the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

Multicultural citizenship, a set of group-differentiated rights for minority cultural groups, is now a common feature of most domestic legal systems in Europe. The conventional view, widely reflected in practice, suggests that ‘strong’ rights of this sort should be restricted to so-called ‘historical’ minorities. However, the increasingly long-standing presence of distinct cultural groups of immigrant origin raises the question of whether, and to what extent, the latter should also be granted stronger forms of multicultural citizenship. This article addresses this question by reference to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, a central pillar of the international minority rights regime in Europe. The article analyses the application of the treaty to immigrant-origin groups in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom, showing that the scope of protection afforded to such groups is stronger than previously assumed, though less far-reaching as compared to their ‘historical’ counterparts.

Towards a Fair Scope of Protection for Plant Breeders’ Rights in an Era of New Breeding Techniques: Proposals for a Modernization of the Essentially Derived Variety Concept

Plant breeders’ rights (PBRs) are an important IP right, and as plant breeding has a crucial role to play in sustainability, it is vital that innovations in plant breeding receive the appropriate innovation incentives. The full breeders’ exemption ensures that there is always free access to the plant variety protected by a PBR for developing new varieties. The price to pay for this exemption is that PBR holders cannot prevent third parties from taking advantage of their efforts and investments in developing a new variety. This invites free-riding, at the detriment of the PBR holder. The concept of “essentially derived varieties” (EDV), introduced in 1991, provided a “fix” for this problem. It allows PBR holders to extend, at least to some extent, the scope of protection of their PBR to those varieties which use all or most essential characteristics of the initial protection variety. Decades have passed, but no adequate interpretation of the complex EDV concept has been found. The advent of new breeding techniques (NBTs) has made the discussion about a fair scope of protection of PBRs all the more relevant. This necessitates a modernization of the EDV concept, if the PBR system is to remain relevant and continue to be an innovation-incentivizing mechanism. I argue that a broader scope for the EDV concept is essential and fair. Determining what essential derivation is will remain a difficult task also in the future. This is why I have additionally proposed a collaborative reward model, which will facilitate the functioning of the EDV system and is capable of providing more legal certainty in this area.

THE STATUTE OF TRADE UNIONS AS A LIMIT OF ABUSES AGAINST EMPLOYERS – SELECTED ISSUES

The article attempts to answer the question whether the economic freedom of the employer is not blindly limited by the model of trade unions, which do not conform to the modern economic reality, which, in the light of the principle of self-governance, often abuse their dominant position in the labor market. The author points to selected problems in the self-government of trade unions at the level of non-employment, pointing to the importance of the trade union statute, which determines the scope of protection of trade union activists in the sphere of individual labor law. The author puts forward the thesis that the basis for the balance of social partners is the observance of internal regulations by trade unions.