DOCSLIB.ORG

Anti-Counterfeiting 2009 World Trademark Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anti-Counterfeiting 2009 World Trademark Review Supported by SECURITY Anti-counterfeiting 2009 Anti-counterfeiting World Trademark Review – A Global Guide – A Global Anti-counterfeiting 2009 Brand Protection turning technology into reality Real or fake? Consumers can’t always tell. Brand Protection Payne Security has turned technology into a successful solution to make sure that real or fake is no longer something to worry about. With our extensive experience, we can offer you a wide range of effective security solutions to protect your products and your brand, preventing loss of sales and damage to your image. Document Authentication From inks, lacquers, labels, tapes and threads, our overt, covert and forensic technologies can be successfully applied to a huge range of consumer goods. Indeed our track and trace, anti-theft, tamper evidence and authentication solutions are already being used by leading international brands across the food, tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical and medical supplies markets. WTR A Global Guide Contact us at [email protected] for some real answers. Personal ID European Union Contributing firm Casalonga Avocats Authors pose a serious threat to the health of the designs, patents for biotechnological Caroline Casalonga and general population. Clothing and accessories inventions and certain aspects of copyright Karina Dimidjian-Lecomte have also shown a significant increase. and related rights have been harmonized. It In terms of overall quantities seized, China has also created the Community trademark remains the principal source of counterfeit (CTM), the Community design, the The latest figures published by the European products, with 79% of all articles seized Community-protected plant variety right Commission show that counterfeiting is a originating in China. In the pharmaceutical and Community-protected designations of growing phenomenon in the EU market. In sector, India and the United Arab Emirates origin and geographical indications. 2007 EU Customs seized more than 79 were the principal sources of counterfeit Discussions are also underway with regard million counterfeit and pirated goods and products (31% each), followed by China. to creating a Community patent. handled more anti-counterfeiting cases than Together, these three countries are the source The EU IP Rights Enforcement Directive ever before. A total of more than 43,000 cases of 80% of all counterfeit medicines seized. (2004/48/EC) harmonized the means of were dealt with in 2007, up nearly 17% from This chapter explains the simple steps enforcing IP rights in all EU member states. 2006. Compared to 2006, counterfeiting that all owners of IP rights in the European The objective of the directive is to ensure a increased in almost all product sectors. In Union should take in order to defend their high equivalent level of protection for IP addition to medicines, where counterfeiting rights effectively against counterfeiting and rights in all EU member states. increased by 51% compared to 2006, the piracy, in particular the filing of an Counterfeiting and piracy should be 264% increase in intercepted counterfeit application for action by customs punished effectively. The directive articles for personal care is a worrying trend. authorities in the 27 EU member states. approximates national laws with regard to: The statistics for 2006 showed an increase • evidence; of 70% over 2005 (to 128 million counterfeit Legal framework • provisional measures; and pirated articles seized) across most The legal framework for anti-counterfeiting • the calculation of damages; and industry sectors. This was particularly consists of both IP and customs statutes. • the reimbursement of legal fees. worrying for pharmaceutical products (up The European Union has harmonized 384% over 2005) and perfumes and cosmetics most national IP laws and created some The EU Customs Regulation (1383/2003) (up 141% over 2005), as these products can unitary rights at EU level. Trademarks, addresses customs action against goods www.WorldTrademarkReview.com Anti-counterfeiting 2009 – A Global Guide 27 Casalonga Avocats suspected of infringing certain IP rights and • Community-protected geographical Measures and actions by national the measures to be taken against goods designations for spirit drinks; or customs authorities found to have infringed such rights. This • Community-protected plant regulation introduced common rules to variety rights. Measures prior to an application for action prohibit the free circulation, import, export, Unfortunately, not all companies will protect re-export or entry of counterfeit and pirated For non-Community rights – that is, their intellectual property adequately by goods in the European Union. national, European or international rights systematically filing an application for The Customs Regulation is implemented (including national and international intervention with Customs. Nevertheless, the by Regulation 1891/2004, which provides: trademarks, European and national customs authorities can intervene on their • application forms for EU-wide and patents, copyright and related rights) – own initiative by suspending the release of national customs action; and the rights holder must file national suspected goods or detaining them for three • instructions on how to use the forms. customs applications for action with the working days, during which the rights holder relevant national customs may file a customs application in the relevant Both the national and EU-wide customs administration. country. If a declaration is not filed within applications and the procedure for the that period, the products will be released. detention of counterfeit goods by customs Filing an EU application have been harmonized in all the EU The second stage involves the rights holder Customs detention procedure pursuant to member states. There is no unified EU lodging a written EU application for action by an EU application customs entity, however. Rather, the Customs, asking the latter to seize the Customs may suspend the release of and national customs administrations of the 27 suspected goods. The advantage of the EU detain all products that appear to infringe member states: application for action is that a single the IP rights cited in the EU application. The • work together; application provides all designated EU customs authorities will inform the rights • are subject to common regulations; and customs authorities with: holder or its representative of the products • exchange information through a • a sufficiently detailed description of the detained. From the date on which the goods centralized information system. goods to which the IP right applies; and are detained, the rights holder has a non- • the particulars needed to contact the extendable 10-working-day period either to: However, EU customs practices still have rights holder at any time. • obtain an order, where applicable, that certain particularities in each member state. such goods be destroyed; or In addition, civil and criminal procedures In the application, the rights holder • initiate an infringement action before are different in each member state. indicates the Community IP rights the national court with jurisdiction. concerned and provides information on EU application for action by Customs the authentic goods, as well as any Customs will give the rights holder the The EU national customs administrations information that may help Customs to opportunity to inspect the suspected goods. have broad investigative and policing anti- determine whether the goods are genuine, When examining the goods, Customs may take counterfeiting powers, including the right to including: samples and, according to the rules in force in suspend release and to detain goods • a report on the differences between the member state concerned, hand them over suspected of infringing IP rights. They act authentic and infringing goods; or send them to the rights holder, at its express not only at the EU borders, but also across • information on the type of fraud; and request, for the purposes of analysis and to each member state. Any person transporting • the routes used by traffickers. facilitate the subsequent procedure. The products into or through the European samples should be returned on completion of Union must have documents evidencing the The rights holder must also agree: the technical analysis. In practice, in most genuine origin of such products. • to assume liability towards the persons cases, in order to save costs and accelerate the Before Customs can take any action subject to the seizure or destruction of procedure, customs officers take photos of the against alleged infringing products, the alleged infringing goods in the event suspected goods and forward them to the rights holder must have: that the procedure is discontinued rights holder for confirmation as to whether • obtained a Community IP right; and owing to an act or omission on its part, the products are counterfeit. • filed a written application for or if the products are subsequently Depending on national provisions on intervention by the customs authorities. found not to infringe IP rights; and the protection of personal data, the rights • to pay all costs incurred by keeping holder may request additional information IP registration goods under customs control, including on the origin, provenance and destination of The first condition for filing an EU application destruction costs. the suspected infringing goods. for action by the customs authorities is the If the rights holder takes no
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Integration of International and Domestic Intellectual Property Lawmaking
    Essay: The Integration of International and Domestic Intellectual Property Lawmaking by Graeme B. Dinwoodie* It is increasingly impossible to analyze intellectual property law and policy without reference to international lawmaking. That is not, however, merely because several recent domestic reforms have been prompted by international developments.1 Indeed, because of significant U.S. influence in the formation of contemporary intellectual property treaties, U.S. law has undergone less change than most in order to comply with newly-assumed international obligations. Nor is it simply because, in an era of global trade and technological advances, a state is unable effectively to regulate economic activity on its own. Rather, the need for a broader awareness flows most directly from the integration of the international and domestic lawmaking processes. Consider this historical example. As nations met in Berlin in 1908 to revise the Berne Convention, the United States received an invitation to attend with “full free- dom of action.”2 Instead, the Register of Copyrights attended only as an observer.3 The reason might now seem unduly quaint. Thorvald Solberg, the Register of Copyrights explained to the Conference that the United States found it impracticable to send a delegate authorized to commit it to actual adhesion to the Berne Convention since some of the questions to be discussed there were pending before the Congress and premature action at the Convention might embarrass the legislative branch of the Government.4 Today, in contrast, there is a conscious blending of domestic and international lawmaking. International lawmaking demands attention to Washington; and domestic lawmaking cannot be conducted without regard for what is going on in Brussels, * Associate Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; LL.B., Glasgow University, 1987; LL.M., Harvard Law School, 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Design and Design Frameworks: Investing in KBC and Economic Performance
    323 | DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6. DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE This chapter addresses the nature and the economic impact of design by looking at design-related intellectual property and how businesses protect their knowledge based capital. The chapter reviews the nature and various definitions of design and how design-related IP, specifically registered designs, relates to other formal IP mechanisms such as patents, trademarks, and copyright. It looks at the primary areas of design activity in a subset of OECD countries and investigates the similarities and differences of the constituent design IP regimes as well as the various treaties governing international design IP regulation. The review continues with an examination of how design-related IP functions in comparison to and in conjunction with other formal and informal IP protection mechanisms and what factors motivate firms to choose and appropriate combinations of protection mechanisms. By examining historical patterns of design registrations in a variety of ways, this chapter identifies trends, at the national level, of how firms perceive the importance of design-related IP. Analysis of national origins of registrations in both the European Community and the United States provides an indicator of the activity of those countries’ businesses relative to their proximities to the markets. It explores the existence of possible alternative indicators for design activity and of industry-specific variations across the sample set. The chapter concludes with a review of input and output measures as stated in the limited set of studies that have endeavoured to establish or quantify the value and/or benefit of design and design-related IP.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection of Industrial Design in the US and in the EU – Different Concepts Or Different Labels
    Protection of industrial design in the US and in the EU - Different concepts or different labels? - Lena Schickl University of Washington, Seattle Abstract Industrial designs matter. It is undisputed that design is crucial for the success of a product. That is why companies are using intellectual property laws in an effort to protect their industrial design. This article will describe how intellectual property laws can protect design and compare the design protection regime in the US and the EU. The comparison will show that design protection is significantly different in the US and the EU. Within the EU, further harmonization is needed in order to provide for a strong coherent design protection. The paper will point out that the ubiquitous requirement of non-functionality outside the realm of utility patent law in the US is no longer appropriate in a world where the most successful designs purposefully combine functional and aesthetic elements. Keywords design protection; community design; design patent; trade dress 2 Table of Contents I. Why design protection matters II. Terminology III. Overview: Design Protection Standards in International Treaties A. The Berne Convention B. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property C. The TRIPS Agreement D. The Hague Agreement IV. Design Protection in the US A. Design Patent 1. Legislative History 2. Threshold for Protection a. Novelty and Non-Obvious Requirement b. Original and Ornamental 3. Problems related to Patent-like Approach B. Trade Dress Protection C. Copyright Protection D. Interrelationship of the Different Forms of Protection V. Design Protection in the EU A. Background 1. Directive on the Legal Protection of Designs (1998) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interdisciplinary Approach Towards Defining the Individual Character of Industrial Design “
    EXPOSE INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION AT THE COURSE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW „ AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TOWARDS DEFINING THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN “ Author: SAŠA KRAJNC, University Graduate in Laws MENTOR: Univ. Prof. Dr. WALTER DILLENZ Ptuj, Slovenia, 16.3.2012 INDEX: 1. Introduction to the Subject Matter................................................................................. 2 2. Main Topics, Issues and Questions................................................................................. 2 3. Aims and Implications of the Dissertation..................................................................... 4 4. Boundaries, Problems and Challenges........................................................................... 5 5. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 6 6. Time-line and Study Stages ............................................................................................. 7 7. Structural Outline ............................................................................................................ 8 8. Literature and Sources .................................................................................................... 9 1 1. Introduction to the Subject Matter Since the European Council regulation on Community Designs (EC 6/2002, dated 12.12.2001) came into force in 2002 it pretty much unified the legislative systematic of design as an intellectual property right across all
    [Show full text]
  • Limitations in the Field of Designs
    IIC (2018) 49:41–62 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0660-4 ARTICLE Limitations in the Field of Designs Natalia Kapyrina Published online: 21 December 2017 Ó Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017 Abstract Considering the weight given to exceptions and limitations in current intellectual property research, this paper endeavours to explore sui generis design rights from the standpoint of limitations to their scope of protection. This paper focuses on the current EU framework with insights from its travaux pre´paratoires, comparing it to several other legislations and international instruments. A primary assessment shows that these limitations have a reduced interference with the scope of protection, and stem from a copyright or patent approach to the hybrid subject matter of designs. This paper further explores situations where the interaction between the scope of design protection and its limitations to design rights triggers conflicts. It examines in particular the recent autonomous interpretation by the ECJ of the limitation authorising reproduction for the purpose of citation. Keywords Design Á EU law Á Limitations Á Exceptions Á Scope of protection This research was partially undertaken during the author’s stay at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (MPI), with a generous scholarship granted by the MPI. The author expresses gratitude to Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Annette Kur and Professor Dr. Christophe Geiger for enlightening discussions. This paper was completed within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’.
    [Show full text]
  • 264 Final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of EU Legislation on D
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.11.2020 SWD(2020) 264 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of EU legislation on design protection {SWD(2020) 265 final} EN EN Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ................................................................................. 5 2.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ............................................... 5 2.2. BASELINE AND POINTS OF COMPARISON .................................................................................. 6 3. IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 9 3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION ............................................................................ 9 3.2. USE OF THE DESIGN PROTECTION SYSTEM ............................................................................ 10 3.3. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND AWARENESS OF DESIGN PROTECTION ........... 16 4. METHOD .......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1. SHORT DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 18 4.2. LIMITATIONS AND ROBUSTNESS OF FINDINGS ..................................................................... 18 5. ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • World Intellectual Property Indicators 2018
    Additional information 213 Data description Spanish at www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/data_collection/ questionnaire. In 2016, WIPO initiated a pilot survey to collect data on Data sources GIs in force. In 2017, for the first time, WIPO published statistics on GIs in force covering data for 54 jurisdic- Intellectual property (IP) data are taken from the WIPO tions. Data were collected from national and regional IP Statistics Database and are based primarily on WIPO’s offices and other competent authorities through three annual IP statistics survey (see below) and on data questionnaires. For the 2018 survey, WIPO reduced compiled by WIPO in processing international appli- the number of GI questionnaires from three to one and cations/registrations through the Patent Cooperation invited national/regional authorities to share their 2017 Treaty (PCT) and the Madrid and Hague Systems. data on GIs in force with WIPO. In total, 82 authorities responded, which is a considerable improvement on Data are available from WIPO’s Statistics Data Center the 54 responses that WIPO received in 2016. at www.wipo.int/ipstats. In 2017, in collaboration with the International Publishers Patent family and technology data are extracted Association (IPA), WIPO launched a new survey of the from the WIPO Statistics Database and from the global publishing industry. A total of 35 national pub- 2018 spring edition of the European Patent Office’s lishers’ associations and copyright authorities shared PATSTAT database. their 2016 data with the IPA and WIPO. The survey only includes published materials (i.e., books, journals, etc.) Gross domestic product and population data that have an International Standard Book Number (ISBN), are from the World Bank’s World Development International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or Digital Indicators database.
    [Show full text]
  • Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs, Article 8
    COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ EC No L 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 1) amended by Council Regulation No 1891/2006 of 18 December 2006 amending Regulations (EC) No 6/2002 and (EC) No 40/94 to give effect to the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs (OJ EC No L 386 of 29.12.2006, p. 14) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission1, Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament2, Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee3, Whereas: (1) A unified system for obtaining a Community design to which uniform protection is given with uniform effect throughout the entire territory of the Community would further the objectives of the Community as laid down in the Treaty. (2) Only the Benelux countries have introduced a uniform design protection law. In all the other Member States the protection of designs is a matter for the relevant national law and is confined to the territory of the Member State concerned. Identical designs may be therefore protected differently in different Member States and for the benefit of different owners. This inevitably leads to conflicts in the course of trade between Member States. (3) The substantial differences between Member States' design laws prevent and distort Community-wide competition. In comparison with domestic trade in, and competition between, products incorporating a design, trade and competition within the Community are prevented and distorted by the large number of applications, offices, procedures, laws, nationally circumscribed exclusive rights and the combined administrative expense with correspondingly high costs and fees for the applicant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Community Design: European Union-Wide Protection for Your Design Portfolio, 1 Nw
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 1 Article 2 Issue 1 Spring Spring 2003 The ommC unity Design: European Union-Wide Protection for Your Design Portfolio Christopher M. Aide Recommended Citation Christopher M. Aide, The Community Design: European Union-Wide Protection for Your Design Portfolio, 1 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 35 (2003). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol1/iss1/2 This Perspective is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2003 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 1, Issue 1 (Spring 2003) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property The Community Design: European Union-Wide Protection for Your Design Portfolio Christopher M. Aide∗ I. INTRODUCTION ¶1 There is a new and cost-effective form of intellectual property protection available for design portfolios (including those belonging to American and Canadian companies and individuals) that cover the entire European Union (“EU”) – the Community Design.1 The Community Design system arose from the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of December 12, 2001 on Community Designs (hereinafter “Regulation”). It is designed to create a uniform legal regime to protect industrial designs and creations across the EU. Such protection is vital for numerous key sectors of the economy, including -but not limited to- clothing, textiles, shoes, cars, jewelry, furniture, tableware, and ceramics. ¶2 Previously, gaining design protection across the EU involved navigating a patchwork of different types of national legislation for each of the current fifteen EU member states.
    [Show full text]
  • Fashion Design's Low-IP Protection
    Department of Impresa e Management Course of Intellectual Property Rights Fashion design’s Low-IP Protection: The relationship between copycats and innovation in the fast fashions’ era. Prof. Massimiliano Granieri Prof. Giuseppe Colangelo SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR Marta Sponsiello - 701761 CANDIDATE Academic Year 2018/2019 Deixo a minha fé guiar, sei que um dia chego lá Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter I: From Traditional Fashion to Fast Fashion 4 1.1 A definition of Fashion 4 1.2 Fashion in the last 30 years: from the ‘90s until today 5 1.3 The raise of Fast Fashion and its implications 8 1.4 Fashion product lifecycle: two models 11 1.4.1 The Traditional fashion production cycle 12 1.4.2 The Fast fashion production cycle 14 1.5 Implications for the industry 15 Chapter II: Legal Protection for Fashion Design 18 2.1 Imitation Practices in the fashion system 18 2.1.1 Fashion’s copying practices 18 2.1.2 Trends vs Copies 20 2.2 Intellectual Property and its protection forms 21 2.2.1 General IP protection forms 22 2.2.2 Fashion design IP protection forms 24 2.3 EU current design protection 25 2.3.1 European Union Design Protection 26 2.3.2 Italian Copyright Protection 32 2.4 Underuse of IP protection for Fashion Design 35 Chapter III: The inverse relationship between innovation and IP protection in the fashion industry 38 3.1 Why fashion houses do not exploit fashion design’s protection? 38 3.1.1 Induced obsolescence 38 3.1.2 Anchoring 41 3.2 Extralegal Solutions 43 3.2.1 Social Shaming and Public Outcry 43 3.2.2 The Power of Designers Collaborations 45 3.3 Lux-meets-mass collaborations 48 3.3.1 H&M’s intuition: an early adopter of the win-win-win strategy 48 3.3.2 Blatant Copying is no Longer Enough 52 Conclusions 55 Bibliography 58 Executive Summary 62 Introduction 62 Chapter I: From Traditional Fashion to Fast Fashion 63 Chapter II: Legal Protection for Fashion Design 64 Chapter III: The inverse relationship between Innovation and IP protection in the Fashion Industry 68 Conclusion 74 Introduction In today’s marketplace fashion knockoffs are everywhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Comments of ECTA, INTA and MARQUES on the European Commission's Inception Impact Assessment on the Review of the Design
    Joint Comments of ECTA, INTA and MARQUES on the European Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment on the review of the Design Directive and Community Design Regulation January 2021 The signatories of this joint contribution would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on its Inception Impact Assessment on the review of the Design Directive (the Directive) and Community Design Regulation (the Regulation). The comments below follow the structure of the Inception Impact Assessment, notably the tentative set of specific objectives and associated solutions/options proposed by the European Commission to frame the reform of European Union (EU) legislation on design protection. Our input builds on the recommendations provided to the Commission over the past two years, in particular our Joint Paper on Legal Review of EU Designs System, submitted in July 2018. As an overarching remark, we strongly welcome the Commission’s intention to revise the EU legislation on design protection. We fully agree that while the dual system of design legal protection in the EU works generally well, there are several shortcomings that need to be addressed to modernize the legal framework, making it more harmonized, user-friendly and in line with the digital and green transitions. We look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the public consultation on the draft legislative amendments, expected on the first quarter of 2021. With regard to the specific objectives and policy options for the legislation reform advanced in the Inception Impact Assessment: A. To modernize, clarify and strengthen design protection We support this objective as we agree that the EU legislation should clarify and strengthen some elements of the protection afforded to designs.
    [Show full text]
  • Tearing Fashion Design Protection Apart at the Seams†
    Tearing Fashion Design Protection Apart at † the Seams Lisa J. Hedrick∗ Table of Contents I. Introduction ..................................................................................216 II. The Current State of Intellectual Property Law ............................221 A. Failure of Intellectual Property Law to Protect Fashion Designs ..................................................................................222 1. Patent Law ......................................................................222 2. Trademark and Trade Dress ............................................224 3. Copyright ........................................................................228 B. Failure of "Conceptual Separability" to Meaningfully Protect Fashion Designs ........................................................229 C. Failure of Courts and Congress to Allow for the Protection of Fashion Designs ...............................................233 III. The Creation of Fashion Design Protection..................................239 A. Proposed Protection Under the Design Piracy Bills...............240 B. Current Fashion Design Protection Offered in Japan and the European Union ........................................................245 1. Japan ...............................................................................246 2. The European Union.......................................................248 IV. The Practical Effects of Enacting Fashion Design Protection.......252 † This Note received the 2007 Washington and Lee University Law Council
    [Show full text]