DOCSLIB.ORG

Download PDF (71.5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download PDF (71.5 JOBNAME: Seville PAGE: 1 SESS: 3 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 22 12:18:24 2016 Index abuse of dominant position Community Trade Mark 374–5 collecting societies 467–8 design proprietor’s rights 247–8 exhaustion of rights 453 domain names 373–4 IPR and competition conflicts 457–8 audiovisual performances prohibitions Beijing Treaty 20–22 within internal market 483–4 free transferability 20–21 pharmaceutical products 495–501 Australia 155, 157, 210, 264–5, 380, 382 refusal to supply or license on reasonable authors terms 484–93 joint authorship 45 standard essential patents 493–5 resale rights 89–91 advertising comparative or misleading Belgium 8, 10, 44 definition 368–9 Berne Convention harmonisation 367–71 background 9–10 parallel imports 402–4 challenges 15 trade marks, use of another’s in 436–40 databases 47–8 aircraft, design right exclusions 252 exclusive rights 11 animals independence of protection 10–11 geographical indications 387 moral rights 11–12, 15 patent exclusions national treatment 9–10 biological resources 165–71, 201, 204–6 resale rights 88 Onco-mouse 165–6, 176–7, 182–3 term of protection 12, 16, 18, 44–5 supplementary protection certificates three step test 11, 16, 20, 30, 38, 49 (SPCs) 193–9 biological diversity active ingredients 194–9 Convention 114–15, 118–23, 202–3 infringement vs. disclosure test 196–7 definition 118 product, definition 196–8 biological resources term 199 access and benefit-sharing 120–22 anti-competitive practices patents 1, 104, 118–23 assignments 459–60 discoveries vs. inventions 154–7 block exemptions 462–3, 477–83 DNA/human biological material 155–7, co-promotion agreements 477 178–83, 201, 204 collecting societies 467–71 exclusions 109–10 dual pricing 472–6 geographical origins 115, 201 licensing agreements 460–67 germ line therapy 182, 204 passing off 217, 339, 342, 372, 377, 504 human cloning 180–81, 204 pharmaceutical industry 472–83 human embryos and stem cells 179–82, reverse-payment patent settlements 476–7 204 technology transfer block exemptions isolated biological material 155–7, 202–3 462–3, 477–83 morality exclusions 175–83, 201–4 unilateral action 472 Onco-mouse 165–6, 176–7, 182–3 appellations of origin 340, 377–9 plants and animals 165–71, 201, 204–6 artists biopiracy 114–15 resale rights 89–91 Biosafety Clearing-House 120–21 assignment Biotechnology anti-competitive practices 459–60 Cartagena Protocol 120 521 Catherine Seville - 9781781003480 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/26/2021 03:02:14AM via free access Columns Design XML Ltd / Job: Seville-EU_Intellectual_Property_Law_and_Policyxxx / Division: Index /Pg. Position: 1 / Date: 22/9 JOBNAME: Seville PAGE: 2 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 22 12:18:24 2016 522 EU intellectual property law and policy Directive 102, 200–207 European Licensing Passport 93–5 CBD and TRIPS, interaction with 202–3 exhaustion of rights 421–2 compulsory licensing 206 freedom to provide services 96 exclusions 201–6 multi-territorial licensing 95 farm saved seed 205–6 purpose 93–5 human cloning 204 colours, as trade marks 276–7, 285 human embryos and stem cells 204 common law systems 7, 23 morality exclusions 201–4 common origin doctrine 413–17 plants and animals 167–9, 204–6 Community Plant Variety Right 211–16 reporting requirements 207 effects of 215–16 block exemptions 462–3, 477–83 procedures 212–13 bootlegging 13–14, 19–20 validity criteria 213–15 border measures 512–13 Community Trade Mark Customs Action Plan 507–8 applications 269–73 destruction of goods 514–15 assignment 374–5 exclusions 514 background 268–9 Regulation 513–15 cancellation 342–53 small consignments procedures 515 absolute grounds 343–5 brands bad faith 342–5 trade marks, compared 259–60 generic marks 351–2 Brazil 116, 445 invalidity 342–6 broadcasting misleading marks 352–3 copyright non-use 346–51 1984 Green Paper 39 relative grounds 346 cable retransmission 40–42 revocation 346–53 digital technology 42–3 classification of goods and services 270, licensing 39, 464–7 376 rental rights 37–8, 40 defences Rome Convention 13–14 descriptive uses 363–4 Satellite and Cable Directive 39–43 exhaustion of right 366–7 TRIPS Agreement 16 national law to prevent use of WIPO Treaties 15 Community Trade Mark 366 Brussels Regulation 515–19 use of own name and address 362–3 business identifier trade marks 339–42 use to indicate intended purpose 364–6 business methods patents 161–2 Directive 268–9 examinations 271 Canada 380 free movement 416 car spare parts, design protection 4 geographical indications 295–6, 340–41 Certificates of Complementary Protection 193 harmonisation China 380, 507 comparative or misleading advertising cinematographic works see films 367–71, 376 civil law systems 7, 23 domain names 372–4 civil proceedings unfair commercial practices 371–2 enforcement of IPR 503–4 infringement 353–5, 361–2 jurisdiction, Brussels Regulation 515–19 guarantee of origin function 358–61 cloning 180–81, 204 use in course of trade 356–8 collecting societies 467–71 intention to use mark 271 collective management organisations (CMOs) invalidity, grounds for 312 93–6 languages 269–70 collective rights management licensing 374–5 competition conflicts 468–71 objects of property 374–5 conflicts 95–6 Office for Harmonization in the Internal Directive 93–7 Market (OHIM) 262, 269 Catherine Seville - 9781781003480 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/26/2021 03:02:14AM via free access Columns Design XML Ltd / Job: Seville-EU_Intellectual_Property_Law_and_Policyxxx / Division: Index /Pg. Position: 2 / Date: 15/9 JOBNAME: Seville PAGE: 3 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 22 12:18:24 2016 Index 523 opposition proceedings 272–3 sounds 273, 275, 277–8 overview 268–9 registration criteria 273–81 publication 272 renaming 376 purpose 268–9, 361–2, 416 renewal 268 reform proposals 375–7 searches 271–2 refusal, absolute grounds 271, 281–312, service marks 280–81 376 term of protection 268 acquired distinctiveness 297–300 transactions involving 374–5 bad faith 312 comparative advertising see advertising customary and generic marks 296–7 competition deceptive marks 310–11 abuse of dominant position descriptive marks 291–6 collecting societies 467–8 geographical names 295–6 exhaustion of rights 453 non-distinctiveness 271, 279, 282–90 within internal market 483–4 non-verbal marks 299–300 IPR conflicts 457–8 public interest 287–8 pharmaceutical products 495–501 public policy and morality 308–10 refusal to supply or license on reasonable shape exclusions 300–307 terms 484–93 special emblems prohibited by law standard essential patents 493–5 311–12 anti-competitive practices refusal, relative grounds 271, 312–42, assignments 459–60 376 block exemptions 462–3, 477–83 business identifiers and earlier rights co-promotion agreements 477 339–42 collecting societies 467–71 detriment to earlier mark 331–3 dual pricing 472–6 detriment to reputation of earlier mark licensing agreements 460–67 333–4 pharmaceutical industry 472–83 geographical indications 340–41 reverse-payment patent settlements global appreciation 315–16 476–7 identical goods and services 314–15 technology transfer block exemptions identical trade marks 313–15 462–3, 477–83 likelihood of confusion 314–27 unilateral action 472 marks with a reputation 327–31 copyright licensing practices 463–7 similar goods and services 315–16, IPR, conflicts between 323–4 exhaustion of rights 453 similar trade marks 315–23 existence vs. exercise of rights 407–8, unfair advantage of earlier mark 334–9 458 registrable marks 3, 273–81 pharmaceutical products cases 398–404, capable of distinguishing 279, 282–90 406–7 colours 276–7, 285 reasons for 457–9 compound marks 283–4 parallel imports 398–404, 425–6 decorative elements 283 repackaging/relabelling 398–402 descriptive marks 291–6 artificial market partitioning 426–7 geographical names 295–6 competition conflicts 398–402 graphic representation 274–9, 287 condition of product, impacts on 427 letters and numbers 284 damage to reputation 428 names 288–9 necessity 430–34 positional marks 288 pharmaceutical products 398–402, service marks 280–81 424–36 shapes 279, 284–8, 300–307 prior notice 428–9 signs 273–4 responsibility indications 427–8 slogans 289–90 Trade Marks Directive 425–32 smells and tastes 275–6 see also free movement Catherine Seville - 9781781003480 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/26/2021 03:02:14AM via free access Columns Design XML Ltd / Job: Seville-EU_Intellectual_Property_Law_and_Policyxxx / Division: Index /Pg. Position: 3 / Date: 15/9 JOBNAME: Seville PAGE: 4 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 22 12:18:24 2016 524 EU intellectual property law and policy computer programs secondary infringement 29 copyright WIPO Treaties 18 adequate protection measures 18–19 databases anti-tampering remedies 19 Berne Convention 47–8 decompilation 30 controversies 50–51 Directive 27–33 Directive 47–57 EU Green Paper 1988 25–6 information monopolies 50–51 exceptions 29–30 information re-utilisation 55–6 exhaustion of rights 30–32, 420 intellectual creation criteria 49 resale rights 31–3 substantial investment criteria 48–9, 52–5 secondary infringement 29 sui generis right 49–57 WIPO Treaties 18 TRIPS Agreement 16–17 international exhaustion of rights 454 Digital Agenda 17–19, 98–9 patents 152, 157–65 Digital Single Market 2, 5, 43, 98–101 European Patent Convention 129 digital technology 6, 8, 17–19 confidence, breach of 217, 236, 248 E-Commerce Directive 57–61 trade secrets (proposed Directive) 519 distribution rights 18 Convention on Biological Diversity 118–23 Information Society Directive 62, 70–74 access and benefit-sharing 120–22 EU regime advance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Review of the EU Copyright Framework
    Review of the EU copyright framework European Implementation Assessment Review of the EU copyright framework: The implementation, application and effects of the "InfoSoc" Directive (2001/29/EC) and of its related instruments European Implementation Assessment Study In October 2014, the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) requested from the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS) an Ex Post Impact Assessment on Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (InfoSoc). This EPRS publication was originally commissioned in the context of JURI's own- initiative implementation report, which was adopted in Plenary in July 2015, Rapporteur Julia Reda MEP. However, it is also relevant to the work of JURI Committees' Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright (CWG), chaired by Jean Marie Cavada MEP. Furthermore, this request was made in the wider context of the Commission's review of the EU legislative framework on copyright, and the ensuing legislative proposals, which have been a long time in the planning and which are now expected for the 4th quarter of 2015. The objective of these proposals is to modernise the EU copyright framework, and in particular the InfoSoc Directive, in light of the digital transformation. Accordingly, in response to the JURI request, the Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit of the European Parliament Research Service decided to produce a "European Implementation Assessment on the review of the EU copyright framework". Implementation reports of EP committees are now routinely accompanied by European Implementation Assessments, drawn up by the Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, within the European Parliament's Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright in Central and Eastern Europe: an Intellectual Property Metamorphosis
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 8 Volume VIII Number 1 Volume VIII Book 1 Article 4 1997 Copyright in Central and Eastern Europe: An Intellectual Property Metamorphosis Silke von Lewinski Head of Department, International Law, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law, Munich, Germany; Adjunct Professor, Franklin Pierce Law Center; Chief Legal Expert in Copyright, European Union Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Silke von Lewinski, Copyright in Central and Eastern Europe: An Intellectual Property Metamorphosis , 8 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 39 (1997). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol8/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEWINSKI.TYP 9/29/2006 4:47 PM Copyright in Central and Eastern Europe: An Intellectual Property Metamorphosis Dr. Silke von Lewinski* INTRODUCTION The intellectual property systems of Central and Eastern Europe are changing rapidly as those nations join the ranks of capitalist countries. As the former Communist bloc countries con- tinue their transition from Socialist to free market systems, they are feeling growing pressure to implement new standards of protection for intellectual property rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules
    Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper No. 17-12 Reto M. Hilty Valentina Moscon Editors Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper Series Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition for Innovation Institute Planck Max Reto M. Hilty • Valentina Moscon (Editors) Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Editors Professor Dr. Reto M. Hilty Director, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich. Dr. Valentina Moscon Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich. Imprint Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, 2017 Marstallplatz 1, 80539 Munich ISBN 978-3-00-057529-7 DOI 10.17617/2.2470998 Published under Creative Commons by-nc.sa 3.0 Germany Licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/de/deed.en Foreword On 14 September 2016 the European Commission published a package of proposals aimed at the modernisation of copyright within the digital single market. The full suite of proposals (hereinafter “copyright package”) as well as the Commission’s background documents can be accessed via ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/modernisation-eu-copyright-rules. This copyright package is of particular interest to the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (hereinafter the Institute), which has been committed since its founding in 1966 to the analysis and development of intellectual property and competition law on the basis of established scientific principles. The Institute regularly advises governmental bodies and other organisations taking an international approach and placing emphasis on the comparative analysis of law as well as economic and technological aspects of legal development.
    [Show full text]
  • Directive 96/9/Ec
    DIRECTIVE 96/9/EC (Database Directive) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases [Introductory remarks] 1. General. The Database Directive has created a two-tier protection regime for electronic and non-electronic databases. Member States are to pro- tect databases by copyright as intellectual creations (Chapter 2), and provide for a sui generis right (database right) to protect the contents of a database in which the producer has substantially invested (Chapter 3). Both rights may apply cumulatively if the prerequisites for both regimes are fulfilled. The introduction of sui generis protection was considered necessary after supreme courts in the Netherlands and the US had held that copyright does not protect databases reflecting merely economic investment or intellectual effort (see Feist (US) and Van Dale (Netherlands)). Prior to implementation, intellectual property protection for non-original compilations existed in just a few Member States (the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden and the Nether- lands). Many Member States provided only for unfair competition remedies, to be applied in special circumstances, or no remedies at all. However, the absence of a harmonized legal framework for unfair competition in Europe necessitated the introduction of a sui generis right to complement copyright protection for databases (recital 6). 2. Harmonization. The Directive is based on arts. 47(2), 55 and 95 of the EC Treaty, and is aimed at harmonizing the legal protection of databases across the European Community. The copyright chapter of the Directive harmonizes the originality standard for databases, which prior to the implementation dif- fered greatly between Member States, especially between countries of the authors’ right tradition where a measure of creativity, personal character or personal imprint was required, and the two Member States (Ireland and the UK) of the British copyright tradition where mere skill and labour sufficed.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Property Law and European Private Law - a Sketch of an Unsurveyed Territory
    Real Property Law and European Private Law - A Sketch of an Unsurveyed Territory - By Oliver Remien, Würzburg I. Introduction Real property law is not, at least not yet, in the focus of developments and discussions on European private law. Rather, it still retains its quite parochial flavour – and, may be, with good reason. Some will even point to art. Art. 295 EC-Treaty which states: “The Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.” However, art. 295 EC-Treaty only looks straightforward but in reality has been very much diluted so that its real bearing is far from being clear1. It may even be that it does not concern private law issues at all but rather expropriation and enterprise ownership. In the context of the Timesharing Directive 94/472 the question of art. 295 EC-Treaty has been raised in legal writing and in the European Parliament3; however, that Directive leaves the definition of the legal character of timesharing to the Member States and only aims at protecting the consumer, property questions thus are not really dealt with by the directive and a possible conflict with art. 295 EC-Treaty would be far fetched. At any rate, real property law is not exempt from European primary law, especially the freedoms and the principle of non-discrimination. This has important consequences: Restrictions on acquisition of real property by foreigners normally are infringements of the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital. The ECJ has had to deal with such situations already in a number of cases4.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Hoeren Intellectual Property and Copyrigkt Law in the EU
    .Serials - Vol.9, no.3, November 1996 Thomas Hoeren Intellectual property and copyrigkt law in the EU Thomas Hoeren Paper prepared for the Third European Serials Conference, Ireland, September 1996 This article traces the ewlution of In 1950, Lord Denning gave a remarkable lecture in Stratford- wpyright law within the upon-Avon on 'theatre and law'. He described the theory that the European Union, and highlights law is like a stage play. In his view, lawyers are similar to actors. some of the problems. Both speak in old-fashioned language in traditional costumes on a stage while the audience never knows whether it is listening to a tragedy or a comedy. In my view, Denning is perfectly right. His comparison between law and theatre can be verified especially by taking a glimpse at the features of European copyright law. Therefore, let us look at the European copyright play. Dramatis personae: The European Commission and the national legislators The description of all plays traditionally begins with a dramatis personae, a list of figures involved in the play. Therefore, let me start with a short illustration of the institutions which take part in the development of a European copyright system. National legislators The essence of our play are legal rules set up by legislators. Up to now, copyright law has been governed by national legislators. Each country has its own copyright acts, with different levels of protection and a bewildering range of divergent exemptions. It is common knowledge that these differences result from two different copyright traditions. The Latin countries follow the concept of the author's personality while the Anglo-Saxon countries have adopted the concept of the economic value of the Prof Dr Thomas Hcreren is kzw copyrightable work.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology, and Electronic Commerce Law (Jipitec) Volume 1, Issue 2
    1 | 2010 Volume 1 (2010) Issue 2 ISSN 2190-3387 Law and Electronic Commerce Information Technology, Intellectual Property, Journal of Limitations: The Centerpiece of Copyright in Distress – An Introduction by Thomas Dreier Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC by Lucie Guibault The International Three-Step Test: A Model Provision for EC Fair Use Legislation by Martin Senftleben Declaration on the “Three-Step Test“: Where do we go from here? by Reto M. Hilty Unsticking the centre-piece – the liberation of European copyright law? by Jonathan Griffiths Governance of Massive Multiauthor Collaboration – Linux, Wikipedia, and Other Networks: Governed by Bilateral Contracts, Partnerships, or Something in Between? by Dan Wielsch A Primer on ACTA: What Europeans Should Fear about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement by Axel Metzger Stieper, Rechtfertigung, Rechtsnatur und Disponibilität der Schranken des Urheberrechts, 2010 by Achim Förster Declaration: A balanced interpretation of the “three-step test” in copyright law Draft European Copyright Code Editors: Thomas Dreier Axel Metzger Gerald Spindler www.jipitec.eu Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Table Of Contents Electronic Commerce Law Volume 1, Issue 2, July 2010 Articles www.jipitec.eu [email protected] Limitations: The Centerpiece of Copyright A joint publication of: in Distress – An Introduction by Thomas Dreier 50 Prof. Dr. Thomas Dreier, M. C. J., Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: Vincenz-Prießnitz-Str. 3, 76131 Karlsruhe The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC Prof. Dr. Axel Metzger, LL.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blessing of Talent and the Curse of Poverty: Rectifying Copyright Law’S Implementation of Authors’ Material Interests in International Human Rights Law
    Volume 8 | Issue 2 Article 6 5-10-2018 The lesB sing of Talent and the Curse of Poverty: Rectifying Copyright Law's Implementation of Authors' Material Interests in International Human Rights Law Saleh Al-Sharieh University of Groningen, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjicl Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Al-Sharieh, Saleh (2018) "The leB ssing of Talent and the Curse of Poverty: Rectifying Copyright Law's Implementation of Authors' Material Interests in International Human Rights Law," Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law: Vol. 8 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjicl/vol8/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The lesB sing of Talent and the Curse of Poverty: Rectifying Copyright Law's Implementation of Authors' Material Interests in International Human Rights Law Cover Page Footnote Saleh Al-Sharieh (LLB; MA; LLM in Law & Tech; LLD) is a Senior Researcher and member of the Security, Technology and e-Privacy Research Group (STeP) at the University of Groningen Faculty of Law, the Netherlands. This article is available in Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjicl/vol8/iss2/ 6 THE BLESSING OF TALENT AND THE CURSE OF POVERTY: RECTIFYING COPYRIGHT LAW’S IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTHORS’ MATERIAL INTERESTS IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SALEH AL-SHARIEH* INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................62 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Social Council
    UNITED NATIONS E Distr. Economic and Social GENERAL Council TRADE/WP.5/AG.3/2001/4 3 August 2001 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE COMMITTEE FOR TRADE, INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT Working Party on International Legal and Commercial Practice Advisory Group on the Protection and Implementation of Intellectual Rights for Investment (Third session, 1 October 2001) Report of the Consultative Visit to Latvia 13-14 November 2000, Riga, Latvia Introduction 1. The following report presents the conclusions of the Consultative Visit to Latvia by the UNECE Advisory Group on the Protection and Implementation of Intellectual Property Rights for Investment. The objective of the Consultative Visit was to discuss with experts from the Latvian Government and local right holders the situation regarding intellectual property rights in Latvia and to develop jointly recommendations for the improvement of intellectual property protection thus facilitating the preparation of an action plan by the Latvian government. Participation 2. The consultative meeting with the Latvian Government was conducted by members of the Advisory Group (see the list of participants). The meeting was attended by Government representatives from the Ministries of Culture, Foreign Affairs, Interior, Justice, Economy and Welfare as well as by representatives from the Latvian Competition Board, European Integration Bureau, State Customs Administration, Contraband Combating Centre, Economic Police, Latvian Development Agency, National Cinematography Centre and the State Patent Office. Several representatives of the judiciary also attended from the Latvian Supreme Court, Riga and Vidzemes District Courts and the Riga Regional Court. The UNDP Resident Representative in Latvia was also present. The following right holders’ associations attended the meeting: Latvian Performers’ and Producers’ Association, Latvian Copyright Agency and Software Copyright Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Francovich Follow-Up
    Francovich Follow-Up Cases on State Liability for Breach of European Community Law -----------New, New, New--------------- Some 15 ECJ/CFI cases including A.G.M.-COS.MET Srl, Test Claimants I and II, Gestoras & Segi, Robins, Manfredi, Traghetti, Galileo, FIAMM and Beamglow, and Masdar. Various new judgments by national courts from the UK, France, The Netherlands etc.; pending cases updates. -----------New, New, New-------------------------------- This dossier tracks Community and national case law on State liability for breach of Community law, in the wake of the European Court of Justice's landmark Francovich judgment. The site comprehensively monitors pending cases and discusses the ones decided by the ECJ. Selected judgments by the national courts of a number of EU Member States are also covered. The development of a ius commune under 288 EC is discussed. Finally, there is a comparative perspective in terms of EEA law, the European Convention of Human Rights and public international law. Compilers: Dr Marie-Pierre Granger (coordinator), Central European University, Budapest, e-mail: [email protected], Web: http://www.ceu.hu/legal/faculty_perm.html, in co-operation with Professor Gerrit Betlem, University of Southampton, School of Law, e- mail: [email protected], Web: http://www.eulaw.soton.ac.uk, and Dr Carmen Pérez González, Universidad Carlos III (Madrid), e- mail: [email protected]. Last modified: 22 May 2007 © Gerrit Betlem; Carmen Pérez González; Marie-Pierre Granger; Birgit Schoißwohl. Table of contents The Principle of
    [Show full text]
  • A Layman's Guide to EC Law on Digital Preservation
    A layman’s guide to EC law on digital preservation Intellectual Property Rights and Digital Preservation Wills Hall, Bristol 21 st November 2011 David Anderson Future-Proof Computing Group University of Portsmouth Background Memory Organisations: Commercial Organisations: Game Developers: University: Legal Consultants: Background The KEEP project undertook legal studies to ensure: Our understanding of the law as it applies to digital preservation: Generally Media Transfer Multimedia Works Legal Deposit The tools and services we produce fall clearly within the law The Legal Studies were/are not an end in itself, but a means to an end The law is very complex but….. the overall message is relatively clear Health Warning! This is a LAYMAN’S GUIDE to the law To the best of our knowledge the report is legally accurate but….. The conclusions presented are not as subtle or nuanced as the advice which a lawyer would give Courts (not researchers) determine how the law is actually to be interpreted Our findings are not legally definitive A Complicated Legal Landscape National Law Community Law International Law Trade and other conventions The Legal Corpus: A problem of scale Legislation at the National Level (United Kingdom): Keyword Pieces of legislation Copyright >200 Software >200 Database 167 Intellectual Property Rights 163 Trademark 74 The EC Legal Corpus Key Legislation at the Community Level includes: The Information Society Directive Directive 2001/29/ EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the Harmonization of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society
    COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 10.12.1997 COM(97) 628 final 97/0359 (COD) Proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the Information Society (presented by the Commission) EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM Introduction l. The present D1rective aims to provide a harmonized and appropriate legal framework for copyright and related rights in the Information Society It adjusts and complements the existing framework so as to ensure the smooth functioning of the Internal Market and bring about a favourable environment which protects and stimulates creativity and innovative activities within the Community. 2. The Commission has clearly identified intellectual property protection as a key issue given the critical role creative content and innovation will play in the further development of the Information Society1. The Green Paper of 19 July 19952 focused the debate on the challenges to copyright and related rights brought about by the new technologies. Following its publication, the Commission received input through more than 3 50 written submissions. in the context of a hearing in Brussels on 8 and 9 January 19963 and through numerous bilateral contacts with all parties concerned. The consultation process was concluded at a conference organized by the Commission in Florence from 2 to 4 June 19964 3 The consultation confirmed that the existing Community framework on copyright and related rights, although not explicitly shaped for the features of the Information Society, will be of crucial relevance for this new technological environment. However, it needs adaptation: all categories of rightholders and their intermediaries expressed concern over new uses of protected material in ways that are not authorized or not foreseen under existing laws in this area.
    [Show full text]