Publications
Top Keywords
- Art. 10 EVRM (25)
- Art. 17 CDSM Directive (13)
- Artificial intelligence (72)
- Big data (12)
- Constitutional and administrative law (11)
- Consumer law (11)
- Content moderation (22)
- Copyright (188)
- Cybersecurity (10)
- Data protection (29)
- Data protection law (11)
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (32)
- Digital Single Market (13)
- EU (19)
- EU law (26)
- Europe (12)
- European Union (10)
- Fake news (14)
- Freedom of expression (46)
- Fundamental rights (18)
- GDPR (22)
- Human rights (31)
- Intellectual property (29)
- Internet (24)
- Journalism (15)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Licensing (13)
- Media law (28)
- Online platforms (19)
- Patent law (20)
- Personal data (35)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (326)
- Regulation (11)
- Social media (11)
- Software (10)
- Surveillance (11)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (20)
- Trademark law (13)
- Transparency (19)
The Implications of Generative AI in the EU Data and Copyright Protection Frameworks external link
Fashion Upcycling as Protected Free Speech in Trademark Law external link
Abstract
Fashion upcycling offers unprecedented opportunities for the sustainable reuse of clothing. Using second-hand garments as raw material for new creations, upcyclers transform used pieces of clothing into new fashion products that may become even more sought-after than the original source material. The more fashion elements enjoy trademark protection; however, the more legal obstacles arise. Fashion upcycling may trigger allegations of consumer confusion, brand dilution, and unfair freeriding. As the Introduction will explain, the exhaustion of trademark rights after the first sale does not necessarily dispel concerns about trademark infringement. The rearrangement of branded garment components in the upcycling process may render the first sale doctrine inapplicable and give the trademark proprietor ammunition to oppose the resale. Against this background, the analysis explores other strategies to assure fashion upcyclers that, as long as they do not specifically aim at misleading consumers or damaging and exploiting protected brand insignia, they can rework trademarked fashion items without risking the verdict of infringement. To lay groundwork for this approach, Section I focuses on trademark theory that stresses the need to develop a specific set of rules capable of shielding the expressive use of trademarks against allegations of trademark infringement. In the light of cultural sciences, Section II demonstrates that fashion upcycling constitutes a specific form of artistic speech – and a specific form of expressive trademark use – that has particular societal value in the current environmental crisis. It offers a vision of alternative, more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Therefore, fashion upcycling should benefit from breathing space for free speech in trademark law. Taking this insight as a starting point, Section III discusses two avenues for supporting fashion upcycling in trademark contexts: first, the option of adopting a strict test of use as a trademark that could immunize sustainable fashion reuse from allegations of trademark infringement on the ground that consumers will understand the specific reuse context and perceive third-party trademarks on circular economy products as mere decorative elements. Second, the option of strengthening defenses, in particular the referential use defense, by developing labelling guidelines that allow upcyclers to ensure compliance with the requirement of honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. The Conclusion offers concluding remarks. The EU trademark system – the Trade Mark Regulation (“EUTMR”) and the Trade Mark Directive (“TMD”) – will serve as a reference point for the discussion.
Fashion, Freedom of Speech, Trademark law
RIS
Bibtex
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 19 december 2023 download
Abstract
Demonstratie in vliegtuig tegen uitzetting vreemdeling. 1. Art. 46 lid 2 onder b Vreemdelingenwet 2000 heeft ook betrekking op regels voor het beheersbaar maken en houden van de situatie ten behoeve van de grensbewaking, en art. 4.6 Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 omvat de bevoegdheid om een aanwijzing te geven vanwege het zich op een voor de uitoefening van de grensbewaking hinderlijke wijze ophouden op of nabij een grensdoorlaatpost. 2. De verwerping van het verweer dat de verdachte moet worden ontslagen van alle rechtsvervolging vanwege onverenigbaarheid van de strafvervolging met art. 10 en art. 11 EVRM is niet onjuist en ook niet onbegrijpelijk.
Links
annotatie
RIS
Bibtex
Explaining and Contesting Judicial Profiling Systems: Beyond a Procedural Right to an Explanation external link
Abstract
This paper argues that a right to an explanation can enable litigants to contest judicial profiling systems on various grounds. However, the technical opacity of certain types of systems, integrity concerns, and the rights and interests of third parties, can hinder the ability of courts to provide an explanation. To overcome these obstacles, a number of technical and organizational measures can be taken before and during the development of these systems, to ensure that they are contestable. This paper also critically interprets EU Data Protection Law, the right to a fair trial, and the AI-Act. It shows how these laws (partially) protect contestation by design, as well as their limitations and potential loopholes.