Industriële eigendom
Senftleben, M.
Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law Journal Article
In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 567-603, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01182-x},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-12},
urldate = {2022-04-12},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {53},
number = {4},
pages = {567-603},
abstract = {The 2015 EU trademark law reform introduced a peculiar rule for reconciling trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression. According to Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD, artistic use can be deemed fair as long as the artist ensures compliance with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”. The honest practices proviso forges a link with the provisions on limitations of trademark rights. Article 14(1) EUTMR and Art. 14(1) TMD exempt from the control of trademark proprietors several types of use that can allow for artistic use. All these limitations, however, apply only when the use satisfies the test of honest practices. Confirming the obligation to comply with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, the fairness rule of Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD turns out to be a double-edged sword. Instead of readily immunizing artistic use against trademark claims, it obliges artists to rely on limitations of trademark rights and furnish corresponding proof. Moreover, artists are expected to align their artistic activity with behavioural standards in the field of industry and commerce \textendash a realm that is alien to the artistic community. Evidently, this approach endangers artistic autonomy. To avoid detrimental effects on artistic expression, it is advisable to strengthen the position of artists and develop a legal solution that resembles the measures taken in Art. 9(3)(f) EUTMR and Art. 10(3)(f) TMD with regard to freedom of commercial expression. Drawing inspiration from cultural sciences and case law on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis explores avenues for achieving this goal.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The 2015 EU trademark law reform introduced a peculiar rule for reconciling trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression. According to Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD, artistic use can be deemed fair as long as the artist ensures compliance with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”. The honest practices proviso forges a link with the provisions on limitations of trademark rights. Article 14(1) EUTMR and Art. 14(1) TMD exempt from the control of trademark proprietors several types of use that can allow for artistic use. All these limitations, however, apply only when the use satisfies the test of honest practices. Confirming the obligation to comply with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, the fairness rule of Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD turns out to be a double-edged sword. Instead of readily immunizing artistic use against trademark claims, it obliges artists to rely on limitations of trademark rights and furnish corresponding proof. Moreover, artists are expected to align their artistic activity with behavioural standards in the field of industry and commerce – a realm that is alien to the artistic community. Evidently, this approach endangers artistic autonomy. To avoid detrimental effects on artistic expression, it is advisable to strengthen the position of artists and develop a legal solution that resembles the measures taken in Art. 9(3)(f) EUTMR and Art. 10(3)(f) TMD with regard to freedom of commercial expression. Drawing inspiration from cultural sciences and case law on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis explores avenues for achieving this goal.
Senftleben, M.
In: GRUR International, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 3-17, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {No Trademark Protection for Artworks in the Public Domain \textendash A Practical Guide to the Application of Public Order and Morality as Grounds for Refusal},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/71/1/3/6349172
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/grurint_2022_1.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab107},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-11},
journal = {GRUR International},
volume = {71},
number = {1},
pages = {3-17},
abstract = {With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.
Senftleben, M.
Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 233-247, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {233-247},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Senftleben, M.; Horen, F. van
The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research Journal Article
In: The Trademark Reporter, vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 739-777, 2021.
@article{Senftleben2021b,
title = {The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Horen, F. van},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3922568
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TheTrademarkReporter_2021_4.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-10-01},
journal = {The Trademark Reporter},
volume = {111},
number = {4},
pages = {739-777},
abstract = {The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies \textendash aiming at a modest degree of similarity \textendash may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated.
To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies – aiming at a modest degree of similarity – may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated.
To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.
To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.
Helberger, N.; Dobber, T.; Vreese, C.H. de
Towards Unfair Political Practices Law: Learning lessons from the regulation of unfair commercial practices for online political advertising Journal Article
In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 273-296, 2021.
@article{Helberger2021bb,
title = {Towards Unfair Political Practices Law: Learning lessons from the regulation of unfair commercial practices for online political advertising},
author = {Helberger, N. and Dobber, T. and Vreese, C.H. de},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-3-2021/5338},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-08-26},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {12},
number = {3},
pages = {273-296},
abstract = {Online political advertising operates in a tense forcefield between political and commercial elements and thus presents regulators with a difficult conundrum: because online political advertising is political rather than commercial speech, it is destined to follow a different regulatory tradition than commercial advertising. And yet many of the tools used, players involved and concerns triggered by modern online political advertising strategies very much resemble the tools, players and concerns in online commercial targeting. Commercial advertising is subject to consumer law and unfair advertising regulation, including rules about unfair commercial practices. Unfair commercial practices law and other rules about commercial advertising, however, are explicitly not applicable to forms of non-commercial political or ideological advertising. An important reason why this is so is the different level of protection of political and commercial speech under fundamental rights law standards. And yet with the ongoing commercial turn in advertising, the traditional division between forms of commercial and political advertising is no longer that self-evident. Also, it cannot be denied that commercial advertising law has a long tradition of thinking of where and how to draw the line between lawful advertising and unlawful persuasion through withholding or misleading consumers about the information they need to take informed decisions, or abusing superior knowledge, exerting undue psychological pressure and engaging in other forms of unfair behaviour. The question this article explores is whether there are lessons to be learned from the regulation of commercial advertising for the pending initiatives at the national and the European level to regulate online political advertising, and online political targeting in specific.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Online political advertising operates in a tense forcefield between political and commercial elements and thus presents regulators with a difficult conundrum: because online political advertising is political rather than commercial speech, it is destined to follow a different regulatory tradition than commercial advertising. And yet many of the tools used, players involved and concerns triggered by modern online political advertising strategies very much resemble the tools, players and concerns in online commercial targeting. Commercial advertising is subject to consumer law and unfair advertising regulation, including rules about unfair commercial practices. Unfair commercial practices law and other rules about commercial advertising, however, are explicitly not applicable to forms of non-commercial political or ideological advertising. An important reason why this is so is the different level of protection of political and commercial speech under fundamental rights law standards. And yet with the ongoing commercial turn in advertising, the traditional division between forms of commercial and political advertising is no longer that self-evident. Also, it cannot be denied that commercial advertising law has a long tradition of thinking of where and how to draw the line between lawful advertising and unlawful persuasion through withholding or misleading consumers about the information they need to take informed decisions, or abusing superior knowledge, exerting undue psychological pressure and engaging in other forms of unfair behaviour. The question this article explores is whether there are lessons to be learned from the regulation of commercial advertising for the pending initiatives at the national and the European level to regulate online political advertising, and online political targeting in specific.
Bostyn, S.
Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy Journal Article
In: 2021.
@article{Bostyn2021,
title = {Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy},
author = {Bostyn, S.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3843327},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-17},
abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.
Quintais, J.; Gervais, D.J.; P.B. Hugenholtz
Trends And Developments In Artificial Intelligence: Challenges To Patent Law Online
Kluwer Patent Blog 2021.
@online{Quintais2021KPB,
title = {Trends And Developments In Artificial Intelligence: Challenges To Patent Law},
author = {Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J. and P.B. Hugenholtz},
url = {http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/27/trends-and-developments-in-artificial-intelligence-challenges-to-patent-law/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-27},
organization = {Kluwer Patent Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Senftleben, M.
Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection - Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU Book Chapter
In: pp. 209-225, 2020, (Chapter in: Cambridge Handbook on International and Comparative Trademark Law, I. Calboli & J.C. Ginsburg (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.).
@inbook{Senftleben2020f,
title = {Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection - Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717753
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Signs_Eligible_for_Trademark_Protection.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.014},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-26},
pages = {209-225},
abstract = {In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.},
note = {Chapter in: Cambridge Handbook on International and Comparative Trademark Law, I. Calboli \& J.C. Ginsburg (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.
Senftleben, M.
Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement - Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions? Book Chapter
In: pp. 381-403, 2020, (Chapter in: Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, G.F. Frosio (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.).
@inbook{Senftleben2020g,
title = {Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement - Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Intermediary_Liability_and_Trade_Mark_Infringement.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3736919
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198837138},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-26},
pages = {381-403},
abstract = {The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law.
The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products.
As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.},
note = {Chapter in: Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, G.F. Frosio (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law.
The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products.
As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.
The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products.
As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.
Senftleben, M.
The Copyright/Trademark Interface: How the Expansion of Trademark Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity Book
Kluwer Law International, 2020, ISBN: 9789403523705.
@book{nokey,
title = {The Copyright/Trademark Interface: How the Expansion of Trademark Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
isbn = {9789403523705},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-12},
number = {44},
publisher = {Kluwer Law International},
series = {Information Law Series},
abstract = {The Copyright/Trademark Interface is an exceptional analysis of the clash between culture and commerce, and the imbalances caused by protection overlaps arising from cumulative copyright and trademark protection. This book highlights the corrosive effect of indefinitely renewable trademark rights. It underscores the necessity to safeguard central preconditions for the proper functioning of the copyright system in society at large: the freedom to use pre-existing works as reference points for the artistic discourse and building blocks for new creations need to ensure the constant enrichment of the public domain. The registration of cultural icons as trademarks has become a standard protection strategy in contemporary cultural productions. It plays an augmented role in the area of cultural heritage. Attempts to register and ‘evergreen’ the protection of cultural signs, ranging from ‘Mickey Mouse’ to the ‘Mona Lisa’, are no longer unusual. This phenomenon, which is characterized by the EFTA Court as trademark registrations and is triggered by ‘commercial greed’, has become typical of an era where trademark law is employed strategically to restrain or eliminate cultural symbols from the public domain.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
The Copyright/Trademark Interface is an exceptional analysis of the clash between culture and commerce, and the imbalances caused by protection overlaps arising from cumulative copyright and trademark protection. This book highlights the corrosive effect of indefinitely renewable trademark rights. It underscores the necessity to safeguard central preconditions for the proper functioning of the copyright system in society at large: the freedom to use pre-existing works as reference points for the artistic discourse and building blocks for new creations need to ensure the constant enrichment of the public domain. The registration of cultural icons as trademarks has become a standard protection strategy in contemporary cultural productions. It plays an augmented role in the area of cultural heritage. Attempts to register and ‘evergreen’ the protection of cultural signs, ranging from ‘Mickey Mouse’ to the ‘Mona Lisa’, are no longer unusual. This phenomenon, which is characterized by the EFTA Court as trademark registrations and is triggered by ‘commercial greed’, has become typical of an era where trademark law is employed strategically to restrain or eliminate cultural symbols from the public domain.
Stapel, S.
Preliminary ruling to the CJEU on geographical boundaries of UCD novelty assessment Journal Article
In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 240-241, 2020, (Current Intelligence).
@article{Stapel2020,
title = {Preliminary ruling to the CJEU on geographical boundaries of UCD novelty assessment},
author = {Stapel, S.},
url = {https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa032},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa032},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-24},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
volume = {15},
number = {4},
pages = {240-241},
abstract = {Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group Plc [2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC), High Court of England and Wales, 17 September 2019.
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards whether the disclosure of a design outside the Community can still qualify for protection within the Community.},
note = {Current Intelligence},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group Plc [2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC), High Court of England and Wales, 17 September 2019.
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards whether the disclosure of a design outside the Community can still qualify for protection within the Community.
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards whether the disclosure of a design outside the Community can still qualify for protection within the Community.
van Gompel, S.
Patent Abolition: A Real-Life Historical Case Study Journal Article
In: American University International Law Review, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 877-922, 2019.
@article{vanGompel2019f,
title = {Patent Abolition: A Real-Life Historical Case Study},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AUILR_2019.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-08-23},
journal = {American University International Law Review},
volume = {34},
number = {4},
pages = {877-922},
abstract = {Over time, patent abolition has been the subject of fierce academic debate. However, no country in the world has ever abolished patents, except for one. Between 1869 and 1912, the Netherlands officially abandoned patents. This unique case is often mentioned in the literature on patent abolition, but the accounts drawn up so far present an incomplete and somewhat obscure image of the motives behind the decision of the Dutch government to eliminate patents. This paper fills this gap by conducting a full analysis of the various \textendash legal, economic, practical, and political \textendash arguments that have inspired the Dutch to abolish patents. By so doing, it sketches a striking picture of the circumstances that gave rise to the exceptional Dutch case. Translating this to today’s reality, which is so entirely different, it seems unlikely that we will soon witness another case where all the necessary ingredients will so neatly coincide as they did in the Netherlands in the late 1860s. Therefore, another real-life example of a developed country abolishing patents appears far away.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Over time, patent abolition has been the subject of fierce academic debate. However, no country in the world has ever abolished patents, except for one. Between 1869 and 1912, the Netherlands officially abandoned patents. This unique case is often mentioned in the literature on patent abolition, but the accounts drawn up so far present an incomplete and somewhat obscure image of the motives behind the decision of the Dutch government to eliminate patents. This paper fills this gap by conducting a full analysis of the various – legal, economic, practical, and political – arguments that have inspired the Dutch to abolish patents. By so doing, it sketches a striking picture of the circumstances that gave rise to the exceptional Dutch case. Translating this to today’s reality, which is so entirely different, it seems unlikely that we will soon witness another case where all the necessary ingredients will so neatly coincide as they did in the Netherlands in the late 1860s. Therefore, another real-life example of a developed country abolishing patents appears far away.
van Eechoud, M.
Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 12 december 2018 (FPI Ghana / Koas c.s.) Journal Article
In: AMI, vol. 2019, no. 2, pp. 73-74, 2019.
@article{vanEechoud2019e,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 12 december 2018 (FPI Ghana / Koas c.s.)},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2019_2_p73.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-05-24},
journal = {AMI},
volume = {2019},
number = {2},
pages = {73-74},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Sax, M.; Helberger, N.; Bol, N.
Health as a Means Towards Profitable Ends: mHealth Apps, User Autonomy, and Unfair Commercial Practices Journal Article
In: Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 103-134, 2018, ISSN: 0168-7034.
@article{Sax2018,
title = {Health as a Means Towards Profitable Ends: mHealth Apps, User Autonomy, and Unfair Commercial Practices},
author = {Sax, M. and Helberger, N. and Bol, N.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10603-018-9374-3},
doi = {10.1007/s10603-018-9374-3},
issn = {0168-7034},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-05-22},
journal = {Journal of Consumer Policy},
volume = {41},
number = {2},
pages = {103-134},
abstract = {In this article, we discuss mHealth apps and their potential to influence the user’s behaviour in increasingly persuasive ways. More specifically, we call attention to the fact that mHealth apps often seek to not only influence the health behaviour of users but also their economic behaviour by merging health and commercial content in ways that are hard to detect. We argue that (1) such merging of health and commercial content raises specific questions concerning the autonomy of mHealth app users, and (2) consumer law offers a promising legal lens to address questions concerning user protection in this context. Based on an empirically informed ethical analysis of autonomy, we develop a fine-grained framework that incorporates three different requirements for autonomy that we call “independence,” “authenticity,” and “options.” This framework also differentiates between three different stages of mHealth app use, namely installing, starting to use, and continuing to use an app. As a result, user autonomy can be analysed in a nuanced and precise manner. Since the concept of autonomy plays a prominent, yet poorly understood role in unfair commercial practice law, we utilize the ethical analysis of autonomy to guide our legal analysis of the proper application of unfair commercial practice law in the mHealth app domain.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In this article, we discuss mHealth apps and their potential to influence the user’s behaviour in increasingly persuasive ways. More specifically, we call attention to the fact that mHealth apps often seek to not only influence the health behaviour of users but also their economic behaviour by merging health and commercial content in ways that are hard to detect. We argue that (1) such merging of health and commercial content raises specific questions concerning the autonomy of mHealth app users, and (2) consumer law offers a promising legal lens to address questions concerning user protection in this context. Based on an empirically informed ethical analysis of autonomy, we develop a fine-grained framework that incorporates three different requirements for autonomy that we call “independence,” “authenticity,” and “options.” This framework also differentiates between three different stages of mHealth app use, namely installing, starting to use, and continuing to use an app. As a result, user autonomy can be analysed in a nuanced and precise manner. Since the concept of autonomy plays a prominent, yet poorly understood role in unfair commercial practice law, we utilize the ethical analysis of autonomy to guide our legal analysis of the proper application of unfair commercial practice law in the mHealth app domain.
Tsoutsanis, A.
Concise European Trade Mark and Design Law Book Chapter
In: 2nd, 2017, ISBN: 9789041156938, ( Commentary on key provisions of trade mark law and design law in: Concise European Trade Mark and Design Law, Ch. Gielen & V. von Bomhard, eds., Kluwer, 2017, p. 113-140, 156-157, 557-564, 570-574, 582-583, 629-634, 652-658, 789-793, 798-800.).
@inbook{Tsoutsanis2017,
title = {Concise European Trade Mark and Design Law},
author = {Tsoutsanis, A.},
isbn = {9789041156938},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-04-18},
edition = {2nd},
note = { Commentary on key provisions of trade mark law and design law in: Concise European Trade Mark and Design Law, Ch. Gielen \& V. von Bomhard, eds., Kluwer, 2017, p. 113-140, 156-157, 557-564, 570-574, 582-583, 629-634, 652-658, 789-793, 798-800.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Tsoutsanis, A.
Oppositieprocedures in merkenzaken Book Chapter
In: 2017, ISBN: 9789013135053, (In: Tekst en Commentaar Intellectuele Eigendom, Ch. Gielen & D.J.G. Visser, eds., Kluwer, 5th edition, 2016, p. 316-326.).
@inbook{Tsoutsanis2017b,
title = {Oppositieprocedures in merkenzaken},
author = {Tsoutsanis, A.},
isbn = {9789013135053},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-04-18},
note = {In: Tekst en Commentaar Intellectuele Eigendom, Ch. Gielen \& D.J.G. Visser, eds., Kluwer, 5th edition, 2016, p. 316-326.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Bostyn, S.
2016, (European Commission, Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW).).
@misc{Bostyn2016,
title = {Final report of the Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering},
author = {Bostyn, S.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report-of-Biotech-Expert-Group.pdf},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-10-28},
abstract = {This is the Final Report of the of the Europen Commission Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering, which is chaired by Dr. Sven Bostyn. It describes in detail the issues regarding a number of very important topics in the area of biotechnological inventions, i.e., the patentability of plants and processes for making plants, issues relating to human embryonic stem cells and the patentability of human DNA. It finally provides advice for future policy and legislative work. },
note = {European Commission, Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW).},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
This is the Final Report of the of the Europen Commission Expert Group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering, which is chaired by Dr. Sven Bostyn. It describes in detail the issues regarding a number of very important topics in the area of biotechnological inventions, i.e., the patentability of plants and processes for making plants, issues relating to human embryonic stem cells and the patentability of human DNA. It finally provides advice for future policy and legislative work.
Pessers, L.
The Inventiveness Requirement in Patent Law: An Exploration of Its Foundations and Functioning Book
2016, ISBN: 9789041167316.
@book{ILS36,
title = {The Inventiveness Requirement in Patent Law: An Exploration of Its Foundations and Functioning},
author = {Pessers, L.},
isbn = {9789041167316},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-01-01},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
Tsoutsanis, A.
Back to Black: justice.cn Journal Article
In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, no. 10, pp. 725., 2015, (
Editorial.
).
@article{,
title = {Back to Black: justice.cn},
author = {Tsoutsanis, A.},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2667516},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-10-15},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
number = {10},
pages = {725.},
abstract = {
This short - peer reviewed - article touches on innovation in China in the field of smart phones, recent legislative reform in China for fostering intellectual property and combating counterfeit and trade mark grabbing. It also touches on human rights in China, the different approach in which the West advances its economic v human rights agenda and the selective way Silicon Valley industry participates in grass roots debate on civil liberties. The article also touches on the 'right to seek counsel' as one of the fundamental rights, which many arrested lawyers in China were deprived of during the July 2015 arrests.
},
note = {
Editorial.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This short - peer reviewed - article touches on innovation in China in the field of smart phones, recent legislative reform in China for fostering intellectual property and combating counterfeit and trade mark grabbing. It also touches on human rights in China, the different approach in which the West advances its economic v human rights agenda and the selective way Silicon Valley industry participates in grass roots debate on civil liberties. The article also touches on the 'right to seek counsel' as one of the fundamental rights, which many arrested lawyers in China were deprived of during the July 2015 arrests.
Bostyn, S.
Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation? Journal Article
In: The Journal of World Intellectual Property, no. 3-4, pp. 105-149, 2014.
@article{,
title = {Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?},
author = {Bostyn, S.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1401.pdf},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-08-26},
journal = {The Journal of World Intellectual Property},
number = {3-4},
pages = {105-149},
abstract = {
This article provides an in-depth critical analysis of pressing issues regarding the patentability of plants. There is no public interest overarching principle present in the European Patent Convention or any other convention for that matter which would exclude patent protection for plants. The expansionist behavior of some users of the patent system seeking to obtain patent protection for methods and products which are very akin to traditional breeding methods needs to be halted and patent applications in that context deserve very close scrutiny so as to avoid that the border is crossed. Patents for hybrid seeds ought not to be protected by patents, as they in effect protect plant varieties as such. If the patent system is not capable of keeping such innovations outside of the patent territory, the call for excluding all plant-related innovations from patentability will become more influential. Products produced by essentially biological processes should not be patentable. However, in the absence of a statutory basis, the current legal framework does not allow the judiciary to come to such conclusion. The EPC needs to be amended in this respect. Finally, introducing a breeders’ exemption in the patent system could jeopardize the internal and external architecture of the patent system and one should be wary of introducing it.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article provides an in-depth critical analysis of pressing issues regarding the patentability of plants. There is no public interest overarching principle present in the European Patent Convention or any other convention for that matter which would exclude patent protection for plants. The expansionist behavior of some users of the patent system seeking to obtain patent protection for methods and products which are very akin to traditional breeding methods needs to be halted and patent applications in that context deserve very close scrutiny so as to avoid that the border is crossed. Patents for hybrid seeds ought not to be protected by patents, as they in effect protect plant varieties as such. If the patent system is not capable of keeping such innovations outside of the patent territory, the call for excluding all plant-related innovations from patentability will become more influential. Products produced by essentially biological processes should not be patentable. However, in the absence of a statutory basis, the current legal framework does not allow the judiciary to come to such conclusion. The EPC needs to be amended in this respect. Finally, introducing a breeders’ exemption in the patent system could jeopardize the internal and external architecture of the patent system and one should be wary of introducing it.
A. Tsoutsanis
Finding Vredo: The Dutch Supreme Court Decision on Escitalopram Journal Article
In: Berichten Industriële Eigendom, no. 2, pp. 41-45, 2014.
@article{,
title = {Finding Vredo: The Dutch Supreme Court Decision on Escitalopram},
author = {A. Tsoutsanis},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2451438},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-07-18},
journal = {Berichten Industri\"{e}le Eigendom},
number = {2},
pages = {41-45},
abstract = {
This article is about the pharma patent litigation sparked by Lundbeck\'s blockbuster drug for \'escitalopram\', a drug used for treating depression and generalized anxiety disorder. The key theme is about whether patents can also protect novel substances that can be fully envisaged but cannot yet be made. The decision of the Supreme Court is compared with earlier decisions in Germany and the United Kingdom. The author criticizes the lack of explanation provided by the Supreme Court.
},
note = {
Also published in Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice, 2014-8, p. 644-649.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article is about the pharma patent litigation sparked by Lundbeck's blockbuster drug for 'escitalopram', a drug used for treating depression and generalized anxiety disorder. The key theme is about whether patents can also protect novel substances that can be fully envisaged but cannot yet be made. The decision of the Supreme Court is compared with earlier decisions in Germany and the United Kingdom. The author criticizes the lack of explanation provided by the Supreme Court.
A. Tsoutsanis
Trade mark applications in bad faith: righting wrong in Denmark and why the Benelux is next Journal Article
In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, no. 2, pp. 118-122, 2014.
@article{,
title = {Trade mark applications in bad faith: righting wrong in Denmark and why the Benelux is next},
author = {A. Tsoutsanis},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2396180},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-03-28},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
number = {2},
pages = {118-122},
note = {
Ook verschenen in Berichten Industri\ële Eigendom, 2013, p. 254-260.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A. Tsoutsanis
Merkenopposities in de Benelux Miscellaneous
2014.
@misc{,
title = {Merkenopposities in de Benelux},
author = {A. Tsoutsanis},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2336671},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-09},
booktitle = {Tekst \& Commentaar IE},
pages = {270-283},
publisher = {Kluwer},
edition = {4},
abstract = {
In dit deel uit de bekende Tekst \& Commentaar serie gaat de auteur in detail in op de merkenoppositie in de Benelux. Hoe instellen, waar indienen en op welke juridische basis, zijn bijvoorbeeld een aantal vragen die in dit deel aan de orde komen. Het commentaar volgt de wettelijke structuur van het Benelux Verdrag inzake de Intellectuele Eigendom. Naast de Benelux oppositie vergelijkt de auteur ook andere deelterreinen: nietigheidsprocedure bij de overheidsrechter op (dezelfde) relatieve gronden, opposities tegen Internationale Merkaanvragen en de OHIM oppositie procedure.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
In dit deel uit de bekende Tekst & Commentaar serie gaat de auteur in detail in op de merkenoppositie in de Benelux. Hoe instellen, waar indienen en op welke juridische basis, zijn bijvoorbeeld een aantal vragen die in dit deel aan de orde komen. Het commentaar volgt de wettelijke structuur van het Benelux Verdrag inzake de Intellectuele Eigendom. Naast de Benelux oppositie vergelijkt de auteur ook andere deelterreinen: nietigheidsprocedure bij de overheidsrechter op (dezelfde) relatieve gronden, opposities tegen Internationale Merkaanvragen en de OHIM oppositie procedure.
A. Tsoutsanis
Comparison of Patent Claim Construction between Netherlands and Germany on Basis of AGA v. Occlutech Journal Article
In: World Intellectual Property Report, no. 6, pp. 32-34, 2013.
@article{,
title = {Comparison of Patent Claim Construction between Netherlands and Germany on Basis of AGA v. Occlutech},
author = {A. Tsoutsanis},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2262859},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-06-27},
journal = {World Intellectual Property Report},
number = {6},
pages = {32-34},
abstract = {
This article provides a brief overview on how the Dutch and German courts interpret the claims of a patent. It briefly compares each national approach on the basis of the recent AGA v Occlutech litigation in both countries. The dispute between AGA and Occlutech involved socalled \‘\‘occluders\’\’, a collapsible medical device for closing defects in the septum wall of the heart through cardiac catheterisation. Items discussed are: claim construction and judicial balancing under the new "Protocol for the Interpretation of Art. 69 of the European Patent Convention", equivalence, pioneer inventions and file wrapper estoppel.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article provides a brief overview on how the Dutch and German courts interpret the claims of a patent. It briefly compares each national approach on the basis of the recent AGA v Occlutech litigation in both countries. The dispute between AGA and Occlutech involved socalled ‘‘occluders’’, a collapsible medical device for closing defects in the septum wall of the heart through cardiac catheterisation. Items discussed are: claim construction and judicial balancing under the new "Protocol for the Interpretation of Art. 69 of the European Patent Convention", equivalence, pioneer inventions and file wrapper estoppel.
A. Tsoutsanis
Octrooien, tussen letter en geest, annotatie bij Hoge Raad 25 mei 2012 (AGA / Occlutech) Miscellaneous
2013.
@misc{,
title = {Octrooien, tussen letter en geest, annotatie bij Hoge Raad 25 mei 2012 (AGA / Occlutech)},
author = {A. Tsoutsanis},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2233404},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-03-15},
journal = {Berichten Industri\"{e}le Eigendom},
number = {12},
pages = { 64-70},
abstract = {
Extensive case-comment on the most important ruling in patent law in The Netherlands in the last five years. It addresses the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court 25 May 2012 \textit{AGA v Occlutech}. The paper contains a historical, transnational and comparative approach, tracing back the origins of some of the recent controversy on claim construction in the Netherlands, while also reflecting on recent literature and case-law in Germany and the United Kingdom. The author contrasts and compares the Dutch approach on claim construction with the new developments of the Revised Protocol of art. 69 of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The paper sets out and summarizes the Dutch standard for claim construction, touching on important elements in legal practice such as the impact of (a) the two-part form of a claim, (b) the file wrapper and patent prosecution history, (c) equivalence and (d) whether the degree of inventive step or innovative character of the patent, warrants a bigger scope of protection. It also compares the outcome of the decisions on the same patent between the same parties in Germany and the United Kingdom AGA and Occlutech. The paper concludes with looking back on the achievements of the EPC, while also looking forward to the new legislative developments surrounding the Unitary Patent and the Agreement for a Unified Patent Court.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Extensive case-comment on the most important ruling in patent law in The Netherlands in the last five years. It addresses the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court 25 May 2012 AGA v Occlutech. The paper contains a historical, transnational and comparative approach, tracing back the origins of some of the recent controversy on claim construction in the Netherlands, while also reflecting on recent literature and case-law in Germany and the United Kingdom. The author contrasts and compares the Dutch approach on claim construction with the new developments of the Revised Protocol of art. 69 of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The paper sets out and summarizes the Dutch standard for claim construction, touching on important elements in legal practice such as the impact of (a) the two-part form of a claim, (b) the file wrapper and patent prosecution history, (c) equivalence and (d) whether the degree of inventive step or innovative character of the patent, warrants a bigger scope of protection. It also compares the outcome of the decisions on the same patent between the same parties in Germany and the United Kingdom AGA and Occlutech. The paper concludes with looking back on the achievements of the EPC, while also looking forward to the new legislative developments surrounding the Unitary Patent and the Agreement for a Unified Patent Court.
Antic, M.; Lagemaat, A.; Stekelenburg, M. van; Kabel, J.; van der Sloot, B.
2011, (
In: <em>Dutch Report for the LIDC Congress in Oxford (22-24 September 2011), </em>41 p<em>.</em>
).
@techreport{,
title = {To what extent should on-line intermediaries (such as ISPs and operators of online market places) be responsible for the control or prohibition of unfair competitive practices (in particular sales of},
author = {Antic, M. and Lagemaat, A. and Stekelenburg, M. van and Kabel, J. and van der Sloot, B.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/rapportBNL.pdf},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-07-29},
note = {
In: \<em\>Dutch Report for the LIDC Congress in Oxford (22-24 September 2011), \</em\>41 p\<em\>.\</em\>
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Sakulin, W.
Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry into the Conflict between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression under European Law Book
2011, ISBN: 9789041134158.
@book{ILS22,
title = {Trademark Protection and Freedom of Expression: An Inquiry into the Conflict between Trademark Rights and Freedom of Expression under European Law},
author = {Sakulin, W.},
isbn = {9789041134158},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-01-01},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
A.B. Ramalho
Portugal - Vorläufige Patentanmeldungen: Eine erfolgreiche Neuerung Journal Article
In: GRUR International, no. 10, pp. 882, 2009.
@article{,
title = {Portugal - Vorl\"{a}ufige Patentanmeldungen: Eine erfolgreiche Neuerung},
author = {A.B. Ramalho},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Ramalho_GRUR.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-10-29},
journal = {GRUR International},
number = {10},
pages = {882},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A.B. Ramalho
The Legal Protection of Fashion under Design Law (in het Portugees) Journal Article
In: Direito Industrial, vol. V, 2009.
@article{,
title = {The Legal Protection of Fashion under Design Law (in het Portugees)},
author = {A.B. Ramalho},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/168.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-09-15},
journal = {Direito Industrial},
volume = {V},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A.B. Ramalho
Parody in Trademarks and Copyright: Has Humour Gone Too Far? Journal Article
In: Cambridge Student Law Review, no. 1, pp. 58-74, 2009.
@article{,
title = {Parody in Trademarks and Copyright: Has Humour Gone Too Far?},
author = {A.B. Ramalho},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/parody_final.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-09-15},
journal = {Cambridge Student Law Review},
number = {1},
pages = {58-74},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A.B. Ramalho
Marks, Forfeiture and a Constitutional Conundrum Journal Article
In: World Trademark Review, no. 18, pp. 15-17, 2009.
@article{,
title = {Marks, Forfeiture and a Constitutional Conundrum},
author = {A.B. Ramalho},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/WTR_18%20Forfeiture.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-09-15},
journal = {World Trademark Review},
number = {18},
pages = {15-17},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
2009.
@techreport{,
title = {Misleading Practices of 'Directory Companies' in the Context of Current and Future Internal Market Legislation Aimed at the Protection of Consumers and SMEs'},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Misleading_directory_companies.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-04-28},
note = {
Studie in opdracht van de Commissie Interne Markt eConsumentenbescherming in het Europees Parlement.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
‘Audiovisual Media Services and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ Journal Article
In: IRIS Plus, no. 8, pp. 2-8, 2008.
@article{,
title = {‘Audiovisual Media Services and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/iplus8_2008.pdf.pdf},
year = {2008},
date = {2008-09-18},
journal = {IRIS Plus},
number = {8},
pages = {2-8},
note = {
(Supplement to IRIS - Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory)
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
Eerlijke handel: de beoordeling van misleidende reclame en andere oneerlijke handelspraktijken Journal Article
In: Vakblad voor de MKB-Adviseuer, no. 5, pp. 6-11, 2008.
@article{,
title = {Eerlijke handel: de beoordeling van misleidende reclame en andere oneerlijke handelspraktijken},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/vakblad_mkb_2008_5.pdf},
year = {2008},
date = {2008-05-15},
journal = {Vakblad voor de MKB-Adviseuer},
number = {5},
pages = {6-11},
abstract = {
Het codificeren en harmoniseren van oneerlijk mededingingsrecht gaat niet van een leien dakje, vooral omdat de belangen van de betrokken partijen niet op \'{e}\'{e}n lijn zijn te krijgen. Uiteindelijk heeft de Europese Commissie besloten om vooralsnog slecht een deel van het hier bedoelde rechtsgebied te harmoniseren, te weten de bescherming van de consument tegen oneerlijke handelspraktijken. Dat is gebeurd in Richtlijn 2005/29, die vervolgens is ge\ïmplementeerd in Nederlandse wetgeving die naar alle waarschijnlijkheid een dezer dagen in werking treedt. Die wetgeving gaat een hoop problemen opleveren, lijkt nu al vast te staan.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Het codificeren en harmoniseren van oneerlijk mededingingsrecht gaat niet van een leien dakje, vooral omdat de belangen van de betrokken partijen niet op één lijn zijn te krijgen. Uiteindelijk heeft de Europese Commissie besloten om vooralsnog slecht een deel van het hier bedoelde rechtsgebied te harmoniseren, te weten de bescherming van de consument tegen oneerlijke handelspraktijken. Dat is gebeurd in Richtlijn 2005/29, die vervolgens is geïmplementeerd in Nederlandse wetgeving die naar alle waarschijnlijkheid een dezer dagen in werking treedt. Die wetgeving gaat een hoop problemen opleveren, lijkt nu al vast te staan.
M.M.M. van Eechoud
Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 17 januari 2007 (Garmin / TomTom) Miscellaneous
2007.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 17 januari 2007 (Garmin / TomTom)},
author = {M.M.M. van Eechoud},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_IER_2007_3.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-08-17},
journal = {IER},
number = {3},
pages = { 190-192},
note = {Bevoegdheidsincident - Internationale rechtsmacht bij geschil over Gemeenschapsmodel (auto) navigatiesystemen TomTom en Garmin - Omvang bevoegdheid t.a.v. vordering in reconventie - Gemeenschapsmodelverordening art. 79, 82, 83 - EEX-Verordening art. 4, 6.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
S.J.R. Bostyn
No Contact with the Human Body, Please! Patentability of Diagnostic Method Inventions after G01/04 Journal Article
In: European Intellectual Property Review, no. 6, pp. 238-244, 2007.
@article{,
title = {No Contact with the Human Body, Please! Patentability of Diagnostic Method Inventions after G01/04},
author = {S.J.R. Bostyn},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/993.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-08-09},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
number = {6},
pages = {238-244},
abstract = {When the referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) was made in respect of diagnostic method inventions, high expectations were present that the decision would bring an end to existing confusion and legal uncertainty with regard to diagnostic method patent applications. As will be seen further in this comment, the EBA had not entirely delivered.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
When the referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) was made in respect of diagnostic method inventions, high expectations were present that the decision would bring an end to existing confusion and legal uncertainty with regard to diagnostic method patent applications. As will be seen further in this comment, the EBA had not entirely delivered.
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Rb. Arnhem 31 augustus 2005 ((De Lotto / Ladbrokes)) Miscellaneous
2007.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Arnhem 31 augustus 2005 ((De Lotto / Ladbrokes))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/annotatie_ier_2005_6.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-07-25},
journal = {IER},
number = {6},
pages = {368-375},
abstract = {
Er zijn de laatste tijd veel van dit soort zaken geweest, waarin een Nederlandse aanbieder een (veelal in Engeland gevestigde) buitenlander van de internetgokmarkt verdrijft met het argument dat wat Nederlanders niet mogen, ook aan buitenlanders niet is toegestaan uit een oogpunt van eerlijke concurrentie. Tot nu toe hebben de Nederlandse vergunninghouders het doorgaans gewonnen. Dat gebeurt hier ook, mede dankzij een bijzondere vorm van public-private partnership tussen rechterlijke en uitvoerende macht. Publiek en privaat belang lijken hier als uit \'{e}\'{e}n mond te spreken. Dat wekt enig wantrouwen. Wordt het leerstuk van oneerlijke voorsprong door wetsovertreding wel goed toegepast?
},
note = {
Rechtspraak zoeken: http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/detailpage.aspx?ljn=AU1924
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Er zijn de laatste tijd veel van dit soort zaken geweest, waarin een Nederlandse aanbieder een (veelal in Engeland gevestigde) buitenlander van de internetgokmarkt verdrijft met het argument dat wat Nederlanders niet mogen, ook aan buitenlanders niet is toegestaan uit een oogpunt van eerlijke concurrentie. Tot nu toe hebben de Nederlandse vergunninghouders het doorgaans gewonnen. Dat gebeurt hier ook, mede dankzij een bijzondere vorm van public-private partnership tussen rechterlijke en uitvoerende macht. Publiek en privaat belang lijken hier als uit één mond te spreken. Dat wekt enig wantrouwen. Wordt het leerstuk van oneerlijke voorsprong door wetsovertreding wel goed toegepast?
J.J.C. Kabel
Moet er een nieuwe Aalberse opstaan? Oneerlijke handelspraktijken in B2B-verhoudingen (40) Journal Article
In: IER, no. 3, pp. 143-144, 2007.
@article{,
title = {Moet er een nieuwe Aalberse opstaan? Oneerlijke handelspraktijken in B2B-verhoudingen (40)},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IER_2007_3.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-07-10},
journal = {IER},
number = {3},
pages = {143-144},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Vzr. Rb. Arnhem 16 augustus 2006 ((KPN / UPC)) Miscellaneous
2007.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Vzr. Rb. Arnhem 16 augustus 2006 ((KPN / UPC))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/annotatie_ier_2006_5.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-05-25},
journal = {IER},
number = {5},
pages = {281-285},
abstract = {
Gebruik van het merk van een ander in vergelijkende reclame vergt volgens deze uitspraak onderzoek naar noodzaak dat merk te noemen. Indien die noodzaak ontbreekt, is er geen sprake van een geldige reden in de zin van artikel 13a, lid 1 sub d. BNW en sprake van onrechtmatig gebruik van het merk in de zin van artikel 6:194a BW. Het simpele feit dat een adverteerder vergelijkende reclame maakt, is volgens annotator echter voldoende noodzaak om het merk van de concurrent te noemen. Afzonderlijk onderzoek naar de noodzaak is dan dus niet vereist. Een rechter die dat wel doet, zet de richtlijn op zijn kop. Dat betekent ook dat voor een afzonderlijk onderzoek naar het bestaan van een geldige reden in het merkenrecht in zaken van vergelijkende reclame geen plaats behoort te zijn.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Gebruik van het merk van een ander in vergelijkende reclame vergt volgens deze uitspraak onderzoek naar noodzaak dat merk te noemen. Indien die noodzaak ontbreekt, is er geen sprake van een geldige reden in de zin van artikel 13a, lid 1 sub d. BNW en sprake van onrechtmatig gebruik van het merk in de zin van artikel 6:194a BW. Het simpele feit dat een adverteerder vergelijkende reclame maakt, is volgens annotator echter voldoende noodzaak om het merk van de concurrent te noemen. Afzonderlijk onderzoek naar de noodzaak is dan dus niet vereist. Een rechter die dat wel doet, zet de richtlijn op zijn kop. Dat betekent ook dat voor een afzonderlijk onderzoek naar het bestaan van een geldige reden in het merkenrecht in zaken van vergelijkende reclame geen plaats behoort te zijn.
J.J.C. Kabel
2007.
@techreport{,
title = {Should the objectives of the rules on unfair competition be te protection of competitors, or consumers, or of other interests? How should any conflict between these objectives be resolved?},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/LIDC_International_Report.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-05-24},
abstract = {
The European Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices of May 11, 2005 regulates exclusively unfair commercial practices which are directly related to influencing a transactional decision of end-consumers and excludes all practices that are neither directed to end-consumers, nor directly influencing a transactional decision of consumers. Misleading advertising, for instance, is now judged on the basis of two different sets of regulation: the new Directive 2005/29/EC deals with "B2C"-advertising, while "B2B"-advertising has to comply with Directive 84/450/EEC. This international report, based upon contributions from eleven countries, is devoted to the question whether there are a priori two different standards for assessing unfair commercial practices. Is there one standard for consumers and another one for competitors? On the other hand, are the interests of all market participants too intertwined to allow different standards of fairness? More generally: Should the rules on unfair competition focus on the act as such - which, of course, must be seen against the background of alle circumstances, especially the target group - or should they focus primarily on the protection of the end-consumer or of competitors?
},
note = {
International Report for the LIDC Amsterdam Congress on Competition Law
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
The European Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices of May 11, 2005 regulates exclusively unfair commercial practices which are directly related to influencing a transactional decision of end-consumers and excludes all practices that are neither directed to end-consumers, nor directly influencing a transactional decision of consumers. Misleading advertising, for instance, is now judged on the basis of two different sets of regulation: the new Directive 2005/29/EC deals with "B2C"-advertising, while "B2B"-advertising has to comply with Directive 84/450/EEC. This international report, based upon contributions from eleven countries, is devoted to the question whether there are a priori two different standards for assessing unfair commercial practices. Is there one standard for consumers and another one for competitors? On the other hand, are the interests of all market participants too intertwined to allow different standards of fairness? More generally: Should the rules on unfair competition focus on the act as such - which, of course, must be seen against the background of alle circumstances, especially the target group - or should they focus primarily on the protection of the end-consumer or of competitors?
J.J.C. Kabel
Meer onderzoek naar Misleiding & Verwarring? Consequenties van de OHP Richtlijn (IER) Presentation
02.11.2005.
@misc{,
title = {Meer onderzoek naar Misleiding \& Verwarring? Consequenties van de OHP Richtlijn (IER)},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/622.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-11-02},
pages = {20},
note = {
Presentatie op het Lustrumcongres 20 jaar IER
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Vzngr. Rb. 's-Gravenhage 12 november 2004 ((Pretium Telecom / Yiggers Nederland)) Miscellaneous
2005.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Vzngr. Rb. 's-Gravenhage 12 november 2004 ((Pretium Telecom / Yiggers Nederland))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/annotatie_ier_2005_2.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-07-06},
journal = {IER},
number = {2},
pages = {118-121},
abstract = {
Gebruik van merk en handelsnaam van een ander als zoekwoord niet op zichzelf onrechtmatig, maar wel indien aan zoekwoord advertentie van die gebruiker wordt gekoppeld. Het niet onder eigen naam doen van mededelingen over de concurrent is onrechtmatig. Waarschuwingen met betrekking tot aanbod van concurrent niet onrechtmatig indien de gemaakte vergelijking verder inhoudelijk juist is.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Gebruik van merk en handelsnaam van een ander als zoekwoord niet op zichzelf onrechtmatig, maar wel indien aan zoekwoord advertentie van die gebruiker wordt gekoppeld. Het niet onder eigen naam doen van mededelingen over de concurrent is onrechtmatig. Waarschuwingen met betrekking tot aanbod van concurrent niet onrechtmatig indien de gemaakte vergelijking verder inhoudelijk juist is.
J.J.C. Kabel
‘Kroniek Reclamerecht en Oneerlijke Mededinging 2004’ Journal Article
In: IER, no. 2, pp. 85-90, 2005.
@article{,
title = {‘Kroniek Reclamerecht en Oneerlijke Mededinging 2004’},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/artikel_kroniekIER2004.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-06-17},
journal = {IER},
number = {2},
pages = {85-90},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EG 7 januari 2004 ((Gerolsteiner Brunnen / Putsch)) Miscellaneous
2005.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EG 7 januari 2004 ((Gerolsteiner Brunnen / Putsch))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/annotatie_ier_2004_2.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-06-17},
journal = {IER},
number = {2},
pages = {150-153},
abstract = {
In een conflict tussen twee overeenstemmende merken voor dezelfde waren, is gebruik als merk van het conflicterende teken geen doorslaggevende beoordelingsfactor, indien het conflicterende merk een (erkende) herkomstaanduiding betreft. Artikel 6 lid 1 van Richtlijn 89/104/EEG geeft slechts \'{e}\'{e}n beoordelingscriterium voor de verbodsbevoegdheid van de merkhouder, namelijk of het gebruik van de geografische aanduiding in overeenstemming is met de (nationale) eerlijke gebruiken in handel en nijverheid. De nationale rechter dient daarbij alle omstandigheden van het geval te betrekken.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
In een conflict tussen twee overeenstemmende merken voor dezelfde waren, is gebruik als merk van het conflicterende teken geen doorslaggevende beoordelingsfactor, indien het conflicterende merk een (erkende) herkomstaanduiding betreft. Artikel 6 lid 1 van Richtlijn 89/104/EEG geeft slechts één beoordelingscriterium voor de verbodsbevoegdheid van de merkhouder, namelijk of het gebruik van de geografische aanduiding in overeenstemming is met de (nationale) eerlijke gebruiken in handel en nijverheid. De nationale rechter dient daarbij alle omstandigheden van het geval te betrekken.
S.J.R. Bostyn
DNA patents in Europe: Controversy remains Presentation
10.05.2005.
@misc{,
title = {DNA patents in Europe: Controversy remains},
author = {S.J.R. Bostyn},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/994.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-05-10},
note = {
Lezing gehouden tijdens symposium "The ethics of patenting human genes and stem cells", georganiseerd door University of Copenhagen, Danish Council of Ethics en Biotik, 28 september 2004.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam 30 september 2004 ((T-Mobile / ID&T Mobile)) Miscellaneous
2005.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam 30 september 2004 ((T-Mobile / ID\&T Mobile))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IER2005_1_TMobile.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-04-06},
journal = {IER},
number = {1},
pages = {41-43.},
abstract = {
Bij de beoordeling van verwarringsgevaar dient niet beslissend te zijn de door de inbreukmaker zelf gebezigde uitingen, maar komt het aan op het normale gebruik van het teken. Het hof kan dan ook voorbijgaan aan marktonderzoek dat uitsluitend gebaseerd is op de website en op commercials van de inbreukmaker.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Bij de beoordeling van verwarringsgevaar dient niet beslissend te zijn de door de inbreukmaker zelf gebezigde uitingen, maar komt het aan op het normale gebruik van het teken. Het hof kan dan ook voorbijgaan aan marktonderzoek dat uitsluitend gebaseerd is op de website en op commercials van de inbreukmaker.
S.J.R. Bostyn
Patenting DNA sequences (polynucletides) and scope of protection in the European Union: an evaluation Technical Report
2005.
@techreport{,
title = {Patenting DNA sequences (polynucletides) and scope of protection in the European Union: an evaluation},
author = {S.J.R. Bostyn},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/patentingdna.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-01-27},
pages = {162},
note = {
Background study for the European Commission within the framework of the Expert Group on Biotechnological Inventions, European Commission, Directorate-General for Research Food Quality and Safety, 2004.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
S.J.R. Bostyn
2005.
@techreport{,
title = {Enabling biotechnological inventions in Europe and the United States: a study of the patentability of proteins and DNA sequences with special emphasis on the disclosure requirement},
author = {S.J.R. Bostyn},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/996.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-01-27},
note = {
European Patent Office, 2001.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij het Hof van Justitie EG, 6 november 2003 ((Piergiorgio Gambelli e.a/Italië)) Miscellaneous
2004.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij het Hof van Justitie EG, 6 november 2003 ((Piergiorgio Gambelli e.a/Itali\"{e}))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AnnotatieGambelli.IER2004-1.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-03-09},
journal = {IER},
number = {1},
pages = {61-69},
note = {
Hof van Justitie EG, 6 november 2003: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=nl\&jur=C,T,F\&num=C-243/01\&td=ALL
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
2004.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij het Hof van Justitie EG 23 oktober 2003 ((Adidas-Salomon AG, voorheen Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV/Fitnessworld Trading Ltd))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AnnotatieAdidas.IE2004-1.pdf},
year = {2004},
date = {2004-03-09},
journal = {IER},
number = {1},
pages = {53-58},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}