{"title":"Preclusion due to tolerance: conditions for applying the acquiescence rule in trade mark law","authors":"Michal Bohaczewski","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB092","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45324981","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":"Where is the growing conflict between copyright and fundamental rights headed?","authors":"Jake Campbell","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB100","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42935545","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":"German court says that product specification for PDO is exhaustive without room for additional requirements prescribed by national legislation","authors":"Ortrun Günzel, Berenike Dinkel","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"296-297"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB022","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46314238","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}
EU General Court, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), T-328/17, EU: T:2021:16, 20 January 2021
{"title":"EU General Court says that there is no likelihood of confusion between EU collective trade mark ‘HALLOUMI’ and ‘BBQLOUMI’","authors":"Nedim Malovic","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB044","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 EU General Court, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), T-328/17, EU: T:2021:16, 20 January 2021","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"291-292"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43518558","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}
Executive Summary: In standard essential patent (SEP) disputes, situations of overlapping national jurisdictions often arise. These overlaps are occasionally resolved with the issuance of an anti-suit injunction (ASI), i.e., an order barring the initiation or continuation of overlapping proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. In the context of SEP disputes, an ASI has been issued in the US on one occasion (by the 9 th Circuit in Microsoft v. Motorola ), while UK courts have also left open the possibility of an ASI being granted in the SEP context. Courts in China appear, however, increasingly willing to issue ASIs. ASIs may potentially undermine relations of comity between national courts and represent a challenge from a rule of law perspective by interfering with patent owners’ right to property and effective judicial protection. engendered a global market for standard-compliant products and standard patents Because patents are territorial rights and major technology contributors hold SEPs in many jurisdictions, it is not uncommon in cases of multi-jurisdictional FRAND disputes situations of overlapping jurisdiction to arise. are in disputes with a private international law dimension. One way to resolve jurisdictional conflicts is the issuance of an ‘anti-suit injunction’ (ASI). ASIs are court orders barring a litigant from initiating or continuing proceedings in foreign jurisdictions regarding the same disputes and against the same counterparties. 1 In SEP disputes, ASIs can be potentially granted by courts the US, the UK, and China. Where ASIs are issues, the parties enjoined are barred from initiating or continuing litigation in foreign jurisdictions, including actions for injunctive relief, declaratory actions to set a FRAND rate, and antitrust complaints.
{"title":"Anti-suit injunctions for standard-essential patents: the emerging gap in international patent enforcement","authors":"Haris Tsilikas","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB027","url":null,"abstract":"Executive Summary: In standard essential patent (SEP) disputes, situations of overlapping national jurisdictions often arise. These overlaps are occasionally resolved with the issuance of an anti-suit injunction (ASI), i.e., an order barring the initiation or continuation of overlapping proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. In the context of SEP disputes, an ASI has been issued in the US on one occasion (by the 9 th Circuit in Microsoft v. Motorola ), while UK courts have also left open the possibility of an ASI being granted in the SEP context. Courts in China appear, however, increasingly willing to issue ASIs. ASIs may potentially undermine relations of comity between national courts and represent a challenge from a rule of law perspective by interfering with patent owners’ right to property and effective judicial protection. engendered a global market for standard-compliant products and standard patents Because patents are territorial rights and major technology contributors hold SEPs in many jurisdictions, it is not uncommon in cases of multi-jurisdictional FRAND disputes situations of overlapping jurisdiction to arise. are in disputes with a private international law dimension. One way to resolve jurisdictional conflicts is the issuance of an ‘anti-suit injunction’ (ASI). ASIs are court orders barring a litigant from initiating or continuing proceedings in foreign jurisdictions regarding the same disputes and against the same counterparties. 1 In SEP disputes, ASIs can be potentially granted by courts the US, the UK, and China. Where ASIs are issues, the parties enjoined are barred from initiating or continuing litigation in foreign jurisdictions, including actions for injunctive relief, declaratory actions to set a FRAND rate, and antitrust complaints.","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44542156","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":"Creativity and artificial intelligence: a view from the perspective of copyright","authors":"A. Shtefan","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB093","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB093","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49224093","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":"Towards a core unitary legal regime for Geographical Indications in the European Union digital market","authors":"P. Montero","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB030","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"427-434"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49031921","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":"The ever-growing scope of Geographical Indications’ evocation: from Gorgonzola to Morbier","authors":"Vicente Zafrilla Díaz-Marta, A. Kyrylenko","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44250621","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}
Charles R. Macedo, David P. Goldberg, Christopher Lisiewski
{"title":"Review of some of the most important cases of the year in US copyright law 2020","authors":"Charles R. Macedo, David P. Goldberg, Christopher Lisiewski","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPAB074","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46957438","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}
Famous and sensational event often leads to several entities filing trade mark applications that include terms related to these events. The most recent example of this phenomenon is the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to large numbers of (largely controversial) filings worldwide. In this article, I review the applications including the terms ‘COVID’ and ‘Coronavirus’ filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2020. These data offer significant information related to the type of products for which the applications were filed, the type of filing entities, the legal basis for filings, and the timing of these filings throughout the months of 2020. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic led not only to a large number of filings for medical and pandemic related products, but also for unrelated and promotional products. Individuals and small businesses were the largest groups of filers, and over two-thirds of the applications were based on intent-to-use rather than use in commerce. Lastly, the number of filings closely mirrored the development of the pandemic during the various months of 2020. The author
{"title":"Trade marking ‘COVID’ and ‘Coronavirus’ in the USA: an empirical review","authors":"Irene Calboli","doi":"10.1093/jiplp/jpab032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab032","url":null,"abstract":"Famous and sensational event often leads to several entities filing trade mark applications that include terms related to these events. The most recent example of this phenomenon is the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to large numbers of (largely controversial) filings worldwide. In this article, I review the applications including the terms ‘COVID’ and ‘Coronavirus’ filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2020. These data offer significant information related to the type of products for which the applications were filed, the type of filing entities, the legal basis for filings, and the timing of these filings throughout the months of 2020. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic led not only to a large number of filings for medical and pandemic related products, but also for unrelated and promotional products. Individuals and small businesses were the largest groups of filers, and over two-thirds of the applications were based on intent-to-use rather than use in commerce. Lastly, the number of filings closely mirrored the development of the pandemic during the various months of 2020. The author","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"473 - 483"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43693718","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：