Pub Date : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0006
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter is about the rights conferred by the law on copyright owners, and the scope of what determines the types of activity that amounts to copyright infringement. It begins by considering the right to copy the work, focusing on the issue of reproduction with respect to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works as well as films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and typographical arrangements. It then looks at other rights granted to copyright owners, including distribution right; the right to rent and lend copies of the work; the right to perform the work in public; and the right to make an adaptation of the work.
{"title":"6. Nature of the rights","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter is about the rights conferred by the law on copyright owners, and the scope of what determines the types of activity that amounts to copyright infringement. It begins by considering the right to copy the work, focusing on the issue of reproduction with respect to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works as well as films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and typographical arrangements. It then looks at other rights granted to copyright owners, including distribution right; the right to rent and lend copies of the work; the right to perform the work in public; and the right to make an adaptation of the work.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80738731","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 : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0028
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter focuses on who is entitled to apply for a design registration as well as the rules relating to ownership and exploitation with respect to registered designs in the UK and the registered and unregistered Community designs. It also discusses infringement and exceptions in the three harmonized systems. It begins by considering the question of who is initially entitled to a design, citing entitlement under the UK Registered Designs Act 1949 and EU provisions. It then turns to assignment and licensing, the optimal period of protection for a design, and the British and EU approach to infringement. Finally, the chapter examines exceptions and defences that are available when dealing with design protection.
{"title":"28. Ownership, exploitation, and infringement: UK registered designs, registered community designs, and unregistered community designs","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0028","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on who is entitled to apply for a design registration as well as the rules relating to ownership and exploitation with respect to registered designs in the UK and the registered and unregistered Community designs. It also discusses infringement and exceptions in the three harmonized systems. It begins by considering the question of who is initially entitled to a design, citing entitlement under the UK Registered Designs Act 1949 and EU provisions. It then turns to assignment and licensing, the optimal period of protection for a design, and the British and EU approach to infringement. Finally, the chapter examines exceptions and defences that are available when dealing with design protection.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72447209","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 : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0016
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter explains the processes involved in granting patents as well as the factors that applicants must take into account when deciding whether to patent an invention in the UK. The role of patent agents and the choice of route to take to secure grant of the patent are considered. The chapter then documents the procedures in the application for a patent, paying particular attention to some of the key features of the UK and European Patent Office patent application processes together with the Patent Cooperation Treaty. It also describes situations in which applicants and patentees are able to amend their applications and the restrictions under which such amendments operate. Finally, it looks at a number of proposals to reform the patent procedure.
{"title":"16. Procedure for grant of a patent","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0016","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explains the processes involved in granting patents as well as the factors that applicants must take into account when deciding whether to patent an invention in the UK. The role of patent agents and the choice of route to take to secure grant of the patent are considered. The chapter then documents the procedures in the application for a patent, paying particular attention to some of the key features of the UK and European Patent Office patent application processes together with the Patent Cooperation Treaty. It also describes situations in which applicants and patentees are able to amend their applications and the restrictions under which such amendments operate. Finally, it looks at a number of proposals to reform the patent procedure.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76466679","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 : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0036
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter discusses three requirements that a sign must satisfy to be validly registered or, if it is already registered, to ensure that it is not subsequently declared invalid: there is a sign; the sign can be represented graphically, or otherwise represented adequately; and the sign must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. The chapter also considers specific policy-based limits on the registration of shapes, in the form of three ‘functionality’ exclusions.
{"title":"36. Subject matter","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0036","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses three requirements that a sign must satisfy to be validly registered or, if it is already registered, to ensure that it is not subsequently declared invalid: there is a sign; the sign can be represented graphically, or otherwise represented adequately; and the sign must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. The chapter also considers specific policy-based limits on the registration of shapes, in the form of three ‘functionality’ exclusions.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90581958","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 : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0038
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter focuses on ‘relative grounds’ for denying an application to register a trade mark as set out in section 5 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Article 8 of the European Union Trade Marks Regulation (EUTMR). It identifies ‘earlier trade marks’ and ‘earlier rights’ before turning to the tests which allow a prior mark to oppose the registration of a subsequent one. First, it reviews the so-called double identity ground, where an identical (later) mark is applied for, in the context of identical products. Second, it considers when likelihood of confusion may be established. Third, it surveys three situations referred to collectively as ‘dilution’, where the later mark may mentally evoke the earlier one in a way that is not confusing, yet still wrongful. It also explains the ‘advertising function’ of a trade mark, along with requirements relating to reputation and ‘due cause’. Finally, the chapter discusses relevant provisions governing unregistered trade marks, copyright, design right, and registered design right in the UK.
{"title":"38. Relative grounds for refusal","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0038","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on ‘relative grounds’ for denying an application to register a trade mark as set out in section 5 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Article 8 of the European Union Trade Marks Regulation (EUTMR). It identifies ‘earlier trade marks’ and ‘earlier rights’ before turning to the tests which allow a prior mark to oppose the registration of a subsequent one. First, it reviews the so-called double identity ground, where an identical (later) mark is applied for, in the context of identical products. Second, it considers when likelihood of confusion may be established. Third, it surveys three situations referred to collectively as ‘dilution’, where the later mark may mentally evoke the earlier one in a way that is not confusing, yet still wrongful. It also explains the ‘advertising function’ of a trade mark, along with requirements relating to reputation and ‘due cause’. Finally, the chapter discusses relevant provisions governing unregistered trade marks, copyright, design right, and registered design right in the UK.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83885018","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 : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0025
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter considers the way in which design right comes into being, whether by registration in the case of registered designs in the UK and in the European Union, or automatically in the case of unregistered Community designs. It also discusses the conditions that must be satisfied for an unregistered Community design right to arise, as well as the procedures for applying for national registered design protection in the UK and in the European Union.
{"title":"25. How design protection arises in the united kingdom and the european union","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0025","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter considers the way in which design right comes into being, whether by registration in the case of registered designs in the UK and in the European Union, or automatically in the case of unregistered Community designs. It also discusses the conditions that must be satisfied for an unregistered Community design right to arise, as well as the procedures for applying for national registered design protection in the UK and in the European Union.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86300682","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 : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0020
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter deals with the internal requirements for patentability (that is, the focus is on the way the patent is drafted). It first discusses the sufficiency of disclosure, with particular reference to the scope of the patent monopoly, the ‘technical contribution’ made by the invention, and whether the invention is disclosed in a manner that is clear and complete enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art. It then turns to the form and content of the claims, with emphasis on the clarity and conciseness of the claims, whether they are supported by the description, and whether they relate to one invention. It also considers the requirement that the patent must not be amended to prevent it from acquiring additional subject matter or extending the protection conferred by the patent, along with restrictions on such amendments.
{"title":"20. Internal requirements for patentability","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0020","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter deals with the internal requirements for patentability (that is, the focus is on the way the patent is drafted). It first discusses the sufficiency of disclosure, with particular reference to the scope of the patent monopoly, the ‘technical contribution’ made by the invention, and whether the invention is disclosed in a manner that is clear and complete enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art. It then turns to the form and content of the claims, with emphasis on the clarity and conciseness of the claims, whether they are supported by the description, and whether they relate to one invention. It also considers the requirement that the patent must not be amended to prevent it from acquiring additional subject matter or extending the protection conferred by the patent, along with restrictions on such amendments.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77399376","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 : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0024
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter is concerned with two areas of law that are related to, but not traditionally part of, patent law: the system of plant variety that gives protection to the breeders of new plant varieties, and supplementary protection certificates that extend the length of patent protection in the UK and are meant to compensate owners for time lost while awaiting regulatory approval to market their patented products. The procedure to be followed when applying for plant variety rights is also discussed, along with issues of ownership, duration, and patent infringement. The chapter concludes by considering exceptions and compulsory licences relating to the plant variety system.
{"title":"24. Rights related to patents","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0024","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter is concerned with two areas of law that are related to, but not traditionally part of, patent law: the system of plant variety that gives protection to the breeders of new plant varieties, and supplementary protection certificates that extend the length of patent protection in the UK and are meant to compensate owners for time lost while awaiting regulatory approval to market their patented products. The procedure to be followed when applying for plant variety rights is also discussed, along with issues of ownership, duration, and patent infringement. The chapter concludes by considering exceptions and compulsory licences relating to the plant variety system.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"108 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81654153","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 : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0037
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter examines the ‘absolute’ grounds for refusing to register a trade mark as set out in section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, Article 3 of the Trade Marks Directive, and Article 7 of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR). It first looks at the reasons for denying an application for trade mark registration before analysing the absolute grounds for refusal, which can be grouped into three general categories: whether the sign falls within the statutory definition of a trade mark found in sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a) and (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994; whether trade marks are non-distinctive, descriptive, and generic; and whether trade marks are contrary to public policy or morality, likely to deceive the public, prohibited by law, or if the application was made in bad faith. Provisions for specially protected emblems are also considered.
{"title":"37. Absolute grounds for refusal","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0037","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the ‘absolute’ grounds for refusing to register a trade mark as set out in section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, Article 3 of the Trade Marks Directive, and Article 7 of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR). It first looks at the reasons for denying an application for trade mark registration before analysing the absolute grounds for refusal, which can be grouped into three general categories: whether the sign falls within the statutory definition of a trade mark found in sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a) and (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994; whether trade marks are non-distinctive, descriptive, and generic; and whether trade marks are contrary to public policy or morality, likely to deceive the public, prohibited by law, or if the application was made in bad faith. Provisions for specially protected emblems are also considered.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84959421","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 : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0014
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter introduces the reader to patents, how they work, and the laws governing them. It begins with a history of the patent system in the UK up to 1977. This is followed by a discussion of various justifications that have been proposed in support of the patent system, such as the natural rights of inventors to their work and the public benefits that flow from the grant of patent monopolies. It also considers the current regulatory regime governing the creation and use of patents in the UK and Europe, with particular reference to the European Patent Convention and the Patents Act 1977. Finally, the chapter discusses the impact of the European Commission on patent law and some of the international treaties that have influenced British patent law, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The chapter also speculates on the impact of Brexit on UK patent law.
{"title":"14. Introduction to patents","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter introduces the reader to patents, how they work, and the laws governing them. It begins with a history of the patent system in the UK up to 1977. This is followed by a discussion of various justifications that have been proposed in support of the patent system, such as the natural rights of inventors to their work and the public benefits that flow from the grant of patent monopolies. It also considers the current regulatory regime governing the creation and use of patents in the UK and Europe, with particular reference to the European Patent Convention and the Patents Act 1977. Finally, the chapter discusses the impact of the European Commission on patent law and some of the international treaties that have influenced British patent law, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The chapter also speculates on the impact of Brexit on UK patent law.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79189557","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：