Pub Date : 2014-09-01DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0045
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter considers one requirement in a breach of confidence action: that the defendant was under a legal (as opposed merely to a moral) obligation of confidentiality. It first looks at the basic test for a confidence arising that is ‘knowledge’ or ‘notice’. More specifically, it examines the duties that arise where the parties are in a direct relationship, where there is an indirect relationship, and where no relationship exists. It also describes the duties that arise when the parties are in an employment relationship and tackles the question as to whether (and if so, when) strangers come under an obligation of confidentiality.
{"title":"45. Obligation of confidence","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0045","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter considers one requirement in a breach of confidence action: that the defendant was under a legal (as opposed merely to a moral) obligation of confidentiality. It first looks at the basic test for a confidence arising that is ‘knowledge’ or ‘notice’. More specifically, it examines the duties that arise where the parties are in a direct relationship, where there is an indirect relationship, and where no relationship exists. It also describes the duties that arise when the parties are in an employment relationship and tackles the question as to whether (and if so, when) strangers come under an obligation of confidentiality.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74925635","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/9780198769958.003.0029
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter deals with the conditions under which copyright law might protect designs as well as the limitations on the term of design protection. It first considers the subsistence of copyright in designs via two routes: either directly, by protecting the form and decoration of articles as artistic works (particularly sculptures, engravings, or works of artistic craftsmanship), or indirectly, by protecting the author of a preliminary document on which a design is based. It then discusses section 52 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which limited the term of protection of copyright for mass-produced designs to twenty-five years, and its demise.
{"title":"29. Copyright protection for designs","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0029","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter deals with the conditions under which copyright law might protect designs as well as the limitations on the term of design protection. It first considers the subsistence of copyright in designs via two routes: either directly, by protecting the form and decoration of articles as artistic works (particularly sculptures, engravings, or works of artistic craftsmanship), or indirectly, by protecting the author of a preliminary document on which a design is based. It then discusses section 52 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which limited the term of protection of copyright for mass-produced designs to twenty-five years, and its demise.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76690463","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/9780198769958.003.0019
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter examines the requirement that an invention is patentable if it involves an ‘inventive step’ or ‘non-obviousness’, that is, the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, and the difficulty of deciding whether an invention is obvious (non-inventive) or non-obvious (inventive). It first considers the approach used by the European Patent Office to deal with the obviousness of a patent and compares it with that in the UK. It then explains the concept of the state of the art in an obviousness examination before concluding with an assessment of the way in which the inventive step has been addressed in a number of different circumstances.
{"title":"19. Inventive step","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0019","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the requirement that an invention is patentable if it involves an ‘inventive step’ or ‘non-obviousness’, that is, the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, and the difficulty of deciding whether an invention is obvious (non-inventive) or non-obvious (inventive). It first considers the approach used by the European Patent Office to deal with the obviousness of a patent and compares it with that in the UK. It then explains the concept of the state of the art in an obviousness examination before concluding with an assessment of the way in which the inventive step has been addressed in a number of different circumstances.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76904321","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/9780198769958.003.0003
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter is concerned with the subject matter, or types of creation, protected by copyright law as stipulated by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Eight categories of work are examined: literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and published editions (or typographical works). The chapter considers the definitions of these categories of work in the case law and through the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. It also discusses three important issues. First, that legal categories do not necessarily correspond to the objects usually associated with copyright law. Second, that all types of subject matter that are protected by copyright are referred to as ‘works’. The third issue, and the most problematic, is whether the list of works must be treated as an exhaustive list.
{"title":"3. Subject matter","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter is concerned with the subject matter, or types of creation, protected by copyright law as stipulated by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Eight categories of work are examined: literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and published editions (or typographical works). The chapter considers the definitions of these categories of work in the case law and through the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. It also discusses three important issues. First, that legal categories do not necessarily correspond to the objects usually associated with copyright law. Second, that all types of subject matter that are protected by copyright are referred to as ‘works’. The third issue, and the most problematic, is whether the list of works must be treated as an exhaustive list.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76362179","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/9780198769958.003.0043
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter examines three regimes that form part of the legal framework that governs the way agricultural products are described and labelled. It first considers the scheme developed by the European Union to regulate protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical indications (PGIs). It then discusses the traditional specialities guaranteed scheme that aims to protect the names of traditional foods and recipes, as well as the optional quality terms scheme that was introduced in 2013. It covers important international treaties that have an impact upon the legal regulation of geographical indications, including the 1994 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The chapter concludes by looking at situations in which a registered name will be infringed (or misused), together with the scope of protection against infringement.
{"title":"43. Geographical indications of origin","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0043","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines three regimes that form part of the legal framework that governs the way agricultural products are described and labelled. It first considers the scheme developed by the European Union to regulate protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical indications (PGIs). It then discusses the traditional specialities guaranteed scheme that aims to protect the names of traditional foods and recipes, as well as the optional quality terms scheme that was introduced in 2013. It covers important international treaties that have an impact upon the legal regulation of geographical indications, including the 1994 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The chapter concludes by looking at situations in which a registered name will be infringed (or misused), together with the scope of protection against infringement.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74336710","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/9780198769958.003.0004
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter examines the criteria used to determine whether a work is to be protected by copyright. More specifically, it considers the requirements for copyright protection: the work must be recorded in a material form; must be ‘original’; should be sufficiently connected to the UK to qualify for protection under UK law; and should not be excluded from protection on public policy grounds. The originality requirement applies to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (authorial works), not to entrepreneurial works (sound recordings, films, broadcasts, and typographical arrangements). The common characteristics of originality are also discussed, along with British conception of originality, harmonization of ‘originality’ in Europe, differences between British and European standards on originality, and the issue of whether the UK can-and does-protect non-original works. The chapter concludes by focusing on subject matter excluded from copyright protection.
{"title":"4. Criteria for protection","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the criteria used to determine whether a work is to be protected by copyright. More specifically, it considers the requirements for copyright protection: the work must be recorded in a material form; must be ‘original’; should be sufficiently connected to the UK to qualify for protection under UK law; and should not be excluded from protection on public policy grounds. The originality requirement applies to literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (authorial works), not to entrepreneurial works (sound recordings, films, broadcasts, and typographical arrangements). The common characteristics of originality are also discussed, along with British conception of originality, harmonization of ‘originality’ in Europe, differences between British and European standards on originality, and the issue of whether the UK can-and does-protect non-original works. The chapter concludes by focusing on subject matter excluded from copyright protection.","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":"82038589","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/9780198769958.003.0031
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter introduces the common law of passing off and the statutory regime that protects registered trade marks found in the Trade Marks Act 1994. It commences with a brief history of trade marks and the development of their legal protection. This is followed by a discussion on the ways in which legal protection of signs and symbols are justified. It then considers the international and regional background that informs and constrains the law on trade marks in the UK, with particular reference to registration and the harmonization of standards. The chapter concludes by looking at challenges posed to trade marks by electronic commerce and the use of trade marks as domain names, as well as the phenomenon of supermarket lookalikes or own brands.
{"title":"31. Introduction to passing off and trade marks","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0031","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter introduces the common law of passing off and the statutory regime that protects registered trade marks found in the Trade Marks Act 1994. It commences with a brief history of trade marks and the development of their legal protection. This is followed by a discussion on the ways in which legal protection of signs and symbols are justified. It then considers the international and regional background that informs and constrains the law on trade marks in the UK, with particular reference to registration and the harmonization of standards. The chapter concludes by looking at challenges posed to trade marks by electronic commerce and the use of trade marks as domain names, as well as the phenomenon of supermarket lookalikes or own brands.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89119705","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/9780198769958.003.0044
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter looks at the type of information that is capable of being protected by the action for breach of confidence. More specifically, it examines four limitations placed on the type of information that may be protected under the action: where the information is trivial, immoral, vague, or in the public domain. It also considers the notion of ‘relative secrecy’ around which the breach of confidence, along with encrypted information and the so-called ‘springboard’ doctrine.
{"title":"44. Is the information capable of being protected?","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0044","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter looks at the type of information that is capable of being protected by the action for breach of confidence. More specifically, it examines four limitations placed on the type of information that may be protected under the action: where the information is trivial, immoral, vague, or in the public domain. It also considers the notion of ‘relative secrecy’ around which the breach of confidence, along with encrypted information and the so-called ‘springboard’ doctrine.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81047163","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/9780198769958.003.0017
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter deals with patentable subject matter and the ways in which it is regulated under the Patents Act 1977 and the 2000 European Patents Convention (EPC). More specifically, it discusses five criteria that an invention must satisfy to be patentable, including the requirement that it must be capable of ‘industrial application’, and that patents are not granted for immoral inventions. The chapter also considers two different approaches that are used when deciding whether an invention falls within the scope of section 1(2)/Article 52(2): the ‘technical effect’ approach in the UK and the ‘any hardware’ approach applied by the European Patent Office. Finally, it examines how the law deals with a number of specific types of invention and looks at possible reforms, particularly in relation to computer programs and computer-related inventions.
{"title":"17. Patentable subject matter","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0017","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter deals with patentable subject matter and the ways in which it is regulated under the Patents Act 1977 and the 2000 European Patents Convention (EPC). More specifically, it discusses five criteria that an invention must satisfy to be patentable, including the requirement that it must be capable of ‘industrial application’, and that patents are not granted for immoral inventions. The chapter also considers two different approaches that are used when deciding whether an invention falls within the scope of section 1(2)/Article 52(2): the ‘technical effect’ approach in the UK and the ‘any hardware’ approach applied by the European Patent Office. Finally, it examines how the law deals with a number of specific types of invention and looks at possible reforms, particularly in relation to computer programs and computer-related inventions.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83061073","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/9780198769958.003.0011
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
This chapter examines the ways in which copyright can be exploited or transferred, with emphasis on the two most important forms of exploitation: assignment and licensing. It also discusses the transfer of copyright in the case of mortgages, bankruptcy, or death, as well as situations in which compulsory licences and voluntary licences are used to exploit copyright. In addition, the chapter considers testamentary dispositions, techniques for exploiting works that rely on the use of technological protection measures, and the role of collecting societies in copyright exploitation. Finally, it looks at the hub platform for copyright licensing transactions which will eventually be integrated with the digital copyright exchanges.
{"title":"11. Exploitation and use of copyright","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the ways in which copyright can be exploited or transferred, with emphasis on the two most important forms of exploitation: assignment and licensing. It also discusses the transfer of copyright in the case of mortgages, bankruptcy, or death, as well as situations in which compulsory licences and voluntary licences are used to exploit copyright. In addition, the chapter considers testamentary dispositions, techniques for exploiting works that rely on the use of technological protection measures, and the role of collecting societies in copyright exploitation. Finally, it looks at the hub platform for copyright licensing transactions which will eventually be integrated with the digital copyright exchanges.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76609485","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：