Pub Date : 2020-09-30DOI: 10.1017/9781108399456.033
Stacey L. Dogan
{"title":"Approaches to Secondary Liability for Trademark Infringement","authors":"Stacey L. Dogan","doi":"10.1017/9781108399456.033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.033","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371891,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128692554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-30DOI: 10.1017/9781108399456.016
Jens Schovsbo, T. Riis
{"title":"Public Policy Limitations on Trademark Subject Matter","authors":"Jens Schovsbo, T. Riis","doi":"10.1017/9781108399456.016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371891,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121755733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-30DOI: 10.1017/9781108399456.041
{"title":"Index","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/9781108399456.041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.041","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371891,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127545363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-30DOI: 10.1017/9781108399456.034
M. Peguera
{"title":"Approaches to Secondary Liability for Trademark Infringement","authors":"M. Peguera","doi":"10.1017/9781108399456.034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.034","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371891,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law","volume":"206 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121619571","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-30DOI: 10.1017/9781108399456.015
C. Farley
This chapter provides an overview of the public policy limitations on trademark subject matter under U.S. law. This is an area of law that had been fairly stable until recently. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision striking down the prohibition on registering disparaging marks and its 2019 decision striking down the prohibition on registering immoral and scandalous marks may prompt a larger reexamination of the policy justifications for denying trademark registration.
{"title":"Public Policy Limitations on Trademark Subject Matter","authors":"C. Farley","doi":"10.1017/9781108399456.015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.015","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter provides an overview of the public policy limitations on trademark subject matter under U.S. law. This is an area of law that had been fairly stable until recently. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision striking down the prohibition on registering disparaging marks and its 2019 decision striking down the prohibition on registering immoral and scandalous marks may prompt a larger reexamination of the policy justifications for denying trademark registration.","PeriodicalId":371891,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117135848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-30DOI: 10.1017/9781108399456.037
A. Chronopoulos, Spyros M. Maniatis
{"title":"Common Law and Civil Law Approaches to Trademark Exhaustion in Europe","authors":"A. Chronopoulos, Spyros M. Maniatis","doi":"10.1017/9781108399456.037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.037","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371891,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131191712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Valuing the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom to Compete in Defenses to Trademark and Related Claims in the United States","authors":"J. Rothman","doi":"10.1017/9781108399456.035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.035","url":null,"abstract":"Service: Faculty Workshops (Chair, 2008–present); Entertainment Director Search Committee (2019– 2020); Intellectual Property & Entertainment Curriculum & LL.M Committees/Study Groups (2008– present); Disability Review Committee (2014–present); Research & Sabbatical Grants Committee (2018–2020); Appointments (2009–2013); Distance Learning Study Group (2013–2014); IP Moot Court Advisor (2009–2010); Clerkships (2008–2009)","PeriodicalId":371891,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124372421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1017/9781108399456.039
Robert Burrell, M. Handler
Historically, common law countries took a restrictive approach to transactions involving trademarks. This restrictive approach was said to flow from the reasons for granting protection for trademarks in the first place. If a trademark communicates information to consumers as to the origin and quality of a particular trader’s goods or services, it was thought that any dealing with a trademark, such as an assignment of the mark or the grant of a licence to a third party to use the mark, would disrupt the source and quality guarantee functions of the mark and potentially cause confusion among consumers. In other words, the very reasons that a trademark receives legal protection were thought to justify constraining an owner’s ability to deal with the mark. Initially, these sorts of concerns were highly influential, and the law either proscribed or imposed strict limitations on the exploitation of trademarks. However, over the course of the last century there was a gradual liberalisation of these rules. Consequently, in most common law countries we have now reached a position where the law recognises registered trademarks to be personal property, which can be exploited with fewer restrictions than in the past. This liberalisation has to a large extent reflected changes in business practices, as brands have come to be recognised as valuable commodities in their own right and as trademark licensing, merchandising and franchising have become large and lucrative industries. Notwithstanding this, the tension between the idea of the mark as “property” and the mark as a badge of origin remains. This chapter, published in an edited collection on international and comparative trade mark law, explores how this tension is reflected in common law countries in the retention of restrictions on trademark transactions in cases where marks have been or might be used in such a way as to deceive consumers. Working out when a badge of origin can be transferred to an unrelated third party whilst not falling into the category of a “deceptive transaction” remains more difficult than is often appreciated, as our analysis of key doctrines in Australian, UK and US trademark law reveals.
{"title":"Trademark Transactions in Common Law Countries","authors":"Robert Burrell, M. Handler","doi":"10.1017/9781108399456.039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.039","url":null,"abstract":"Historically, common law countries took a restrictive approach to transactions involving trademarks. This restrictive approach was said to flow from the reasons for granting protection for trademarks in the first place. If a trademark communicates information to consumers as to the origin and quality of a particular trader’s goods or services, it was thought that any dealing with a trademark, such as an assignment of the mark or the grant of a licence to a third party to use the mark, would disrupt the source and quality guarantee functions of the mark and potentially cause confusion among consumers. In other words, the very reasons that a trademark receives legal protection were thought to justify constraining an owner’s ability to deal with the mark. Initially, these sorts of concerns were highly influential, and the law either proscribed or imposed strict limitations on the exploitation of trademarks. However, over the course of the last century there was a gradual liberalisation of these rules. Consequently, in most common law countries we have now reached a position where the law recognises registered trademarks to be personal property, which can be exploited with fewer restrictions than in the past. This liberalisation has to a large extent reflected changes in business practices, as brands have come to be recognised as valuable commodities in their own right and as trademark licensing, merchandising and franchising have become large and lucrative industries. Notwithstanding this, the tension between the idea of the mark as “property” and the mark as a badge of origin remains. This chapter, published in an edited collection on international and comparative trade mark law, explores how this tension is reflected in common law countries in the retention of restrictions on trademark transactions in cases where marks have been or might be used in such a way as to deceive consumers. Working out when a badge of origin can be transferred to an unrelated third party whilst not falling into the category of a “deceptive transaction” remains more difficult than is often appreciated, as our analysis of key doctrines in Australian, UK and US trademark law reveals.","PeriodicalId":371891,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125829765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Geographical indications (GIs) signal provenance for regional products and function as valuable collective brands. They are increasingly protected by 'sui generis' or independent protection systems, which require the registration of a product specification. Over several decades the functions and features of these independent regimes have stabilized, forming recognizable patterns. This chapter unpacks what we mean by sui generis protection for GIs. It argues that sui generis GI registration and protection systems are important sites where GI theory meets GI practice. Traces of the distinctive, foundational normative commitments of GI protection can be seen in the architecture of sui generis GI protection.
{"title":"Sui Generis or Independent Geographical Indications Protection","authors":"D. Gangjee","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3677873","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3677873","url":null,"abstract":"Geographical indications (GIs) signal provenance for regional products and function as valuable collective brands. They are increasingly protected by 'sui generis' or independent protection systems, which require the registration of a product specification. Over several decades the functions and features of these independent regimes have stabilized, forming recognizable patterns. This chapter unpacks what we mean by sui generis protection for GIs. It argues that sui generis GI registration and protection systems are important sites where GI theory meets GI practice. Traces of the distinctive, foundational normative commitments of GI protection can be seen in the architecture of sui generis GI protection.","PeriodicalId":371891,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128409665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：