Watch that merchandise mark!has been reading the lilliputian banking concern complaint inward Butterworths' All England Direct service on Fields v Klaus Kobec Ltd as well as another 2006 EWHC 350 (Ch), a Chancery Division determination of Richard Sheldon QC, sitting final Fri equally a Deputy Judge.
Fields (a jeweller) as well as the minute accused arranged to sell wristwatches which Fields designed as well as which were made past times GS Ltd. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 company, KKIL, was incorporated on half dozen Dec 1995 for that real purpose. In August 1996 Fields registered the give-and-take merchandise score KLAUS KOBEC equally a UK of Britain as well as Northern Republic of Ireland merchandise mark, amongst Fields. Another fellowship (Klaus Kobec Ltd - the get-go defendant), was incorporated inward Jan 1997 and, on 1 May 1997, it took over all the assets as well as liabilities of KKIL. In August 2001 Fields registered KLAUS KOBEC equally a Community merchandise mark.
In Oct 2004 KKL placed direct orders for watches branded KLAUS KOBEC, exactly from a maker other than GS Ltd. Following that, Fields terminated KKL’s licence to usage the score as well as to demeanour on occupation concern nether the fellowship name, amongst outcome from 25 Dec 2004. Fields as well as then sued the minute defendant, the sole managing director of KKL, contending that his UK of Britain as well as Northern Republic of Ireland as well as Community merchandise marks had been infringed past times (i) the usage before 25 Dec 2004 of the score inward relation to watches non manufactured past times GS Ltd or sourced direct from Fields himself as well as (ii) the usage of the score inward relation to watches afterward 25 Dec 2004, whoever made them. The minute defendant, relying on ii statutory defences, argued that (i) KKL was the possessor of an before correct inward as well as attaching to the score as well as (ii) its usage of the score constituted usage of its ain name.
Richard Sheldon QC held, inward favour of Fields, that the statutory defense forcefulness of usage of an before correct had non been made out.* past times the engagement Fields had registered the UK of Britain as well as Northern Republic of Ireland merchandise mark, KKIL had generated insufficient goodwill inward the score to back upward an activity for passing off. In whatever event, KKIL’s usage of the score had non predated Fields' usage of the mark.wonders why this rather interesting merchandise score number came before Richard Sheldon QC, a perfectly worthy deputy guess exactly who, equally tin live seen (click here and search for him), has no visible rails tape or sense inward intellectual holding matters. Are at that spot no IP barristers who are lucifer for the job? When nosotros maintain telling non-Brits that i of the advantages of litigating IP disputes inward the UK of Britain as well as Northern Republic of Ireland is that you lot teach skilled specialist judges, we're non beingness quite honest, are we? Merpel says, at to the lowest degree the guess boasts a working noesis of French, which is to a greater extent than than you lot tin muster.
* equally for the own-name defence, the interrogation of what constituted honest practices required the individual relying on it to deed inward a mode that was objectively fair inward relation to the legitimate interests of the merchandise score owner. In this case, KKL's continued of the ‘klauskobec.com’ domain elevate afterward christmas 2004 was not, inward all the circumstances, inward accordance amongst honest practices inward industrial or commercial matters since KKL continued to usage the site afterward Fields withdrew his consent.
* it was also clear that the minute accused personally controlled as well as procured the continued usage past times KKL of the website afterward Christmas 2004.
Anyone out at that spot organised, corporate, extraordinary - as well as wants to sign something?
has received the next comment, which has been prepared past times Jonathan Band (Policy Bandwidth):
Jonathan Band wants signatures as well as writes: "I'm looking for companies, institutions, associations, as well as police professors -- non ordinary individuals". So if you lot qualify as well as are suitably motivated, electronic mail Jonathan through the link above. , who is silent quite undecided on the sui generis issue, is pleased that at that spot is some serious debate as well as analysis at last, since he remembers how the sui generis correct was foist upon an unsuspecting Euro-world past times the European Commission. Merpel, however, is silent wondering why police professors are non 'ordinary individuals' ...COMMENTS ON DATABASE DIRECTIVE POLICY OPTIONS
The undersigned organizations as well as entities appreciate the chance to comment on the policy options outlined inward the Dec 12, 2005 DG Internal Market as well as Services Working Paper on the Directive on the Legal Protection of Databases. We stand upward for the interests of engineering scientific discipline as well as fiscal services companies; libraries, scientists, scholars, as well as educational institutions; as well as consumers. We both attain databases as well as usage databases compiled past times others. For the past times decade, nosotros accept opposed the adoption of overly protective database legislation inward the United States. For the reasons laid forth below, the sui generis correct should live withdrawn.The authors of the Working Paper are to live commended for their frank criticism of the “sui generis” right. The Working Paper candidly concedes that the “sui generis” correct required past times the Directive has non had its intended effect: it “has had no proven impact on the production of databases.” Working Paper at 20. The Working Paper acknowledges that “[i]nterpreting the precise ambit of the the ‘sui generis’ correct has proved difficult,” as well as that the “’sui generis’ provisions accept … created considerable legal uncertainty….” Id. at 15. Further, the Working Paper observes that “the complexity of the ‘sui generis’ authorities may accept caused confusion amidst sure users, inward item the academic as well as scientific community.” Id. at 22.
Alarmingly, inward the years since the adoption of the Directive, the European part of the global database marketplace has decreased relative to that of the United States, as well as the ratio of European to U.S. database production has decreased from 1:2 to 1:3. Id. The Working Paper wrestles amongst a seeming paradox: During the menses inward which the intellectual holding protection for databases inward the European Union exceeded the protection available inward the United States, the European part of the global database marketplace decreased relative to that of the United States. This marketplace information runs opposite to the widely-held supposition that “more as well as to a greater extent than layers of IP protection agency to a greater extent than excogitation as well as increment ….” Working Paper at 24. Indeed, this information seems to propose that increasing intellectual holding protection beyond a sure indicate really provides a disincentive for excogitation as well as creativity.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit i time observed that
[o]verprotecting intellectual holding is equally harmful equally underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich populace domain. Nothing today, probable null since nosotros tamed fire, is really new: Culture, similar scientific discipline as well as technology, grows past times accretion, each novel creator edifice on the plant of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the real creative forces it's supposed to nurture. White v. Samsung Electronics, 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir.)(Kozinski, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2443 (1993).Judge Kozinski stressed that “intellectual holding rights aren't free: They're imposed at the expense of futurity creators as well as of the populace at large.” For this reason, “intellectual holding police is total of careful balances betwixt what's laid aside for the possessor as well as what's left inward the populace domain for the repose of us….” The limits on intellectual holding rights permit the populace usage something created past times someone else, exactly they “are necessary to maintain a gratis surround inward which creative genius tin flourish.”
One of the critical balances inward intellectual holding police is that copyright protection inward a database extends entirely to the master copy alternative as well as organisation of the facts inward the database, exactly non to facts themselves. This regulation of copyright police is recognized inward the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination inward Feist v. Rural Telephone, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991); inward Chapter II of the European Union’s Database Directive; inward Article 10.2 of GATT-TRIPS; as well as Article v of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. The exclusion of copyright protection for raw facts reflects an awareness that facts are the building-blocks of knowledge. If a publisher could exert a holding correct inward facts, that publisher could forestall the usage of those facts non entirely inward novel information products, exactly also inward inquiry inward all fields of human endeavor. This, of course, would undermine the role of intellectual property: promoting, inward the words of the U.S. Constitution, the progress of scientific discipline as well as the useful arts.
The “sui generis” correct runs opposite to this policy past times coming “precariously unopen to protecting basic information.” Working Paper at 24. By preventing competitors from reusing information inward novel database products, the sui generis correct restricts the evolution of innovative databases. Because the sui generis correct overprotects databases, it is no surprise that the European database manufacture has lost marketplace part to the the States industry, where facts rest inward the populace domain.
The 2004 decisions of the European Court of Justice withholding the sui generis correct from databases consisting of facts “created” past times the publisher sure as shooting cut the accomplish of the sui generis right. However, equally the Working Paper notes, “other industries similar the publishers of directories, listings or maps, rest protected equally long equally they do non ‘create’ their ain information exactly obtain these information from others.” Working Paper at 13. Thus, many databases inward Europe rest off limits equally the source of information for novel products.
Since the sui generis correct places European companies at such a competitive disadvantage to U.S. database companies, i mightiness await the undersigned U.S. based entities to promise that the Commission decides to leave of absence the sui generis correct unchanged. However, many of the undersigned entities engage inward operations inward Europe, as well as so accept been adversely affected past times the sui generis right. Moreover, U.S. users accept been harmed past times the irksome increment of databases based on European information, specially inward the fields of finance as well as science.
Finally, the existence of the sui generis correct inward Europe gives impetus to the efforts of the small-scale number of publishers that seek the adoption of overly protective database legislation inward the United States. These publishers typically are sole source providers that seek to command all downstream uses of the information contained inward their databases. These publishers claim that inward guild for them to do goodness from the reciprocity provision of the Database Directive, the the States Congress must enact legislation establishing sui generis rights inward the United States. Since 1996 Congress has resisted these demands, exactly the House of Representatives passed overly protective database legislation twice inward 1998, as well as the House Judiciary Committee has endorsed such legislation on ii other occasions. So long equally the sui generis correct exists inward Europe, nosotros volition accept to fight the enactment of similar legislation inward the United States.
Accordingly, nosotros respectfully propose that both database developers as well as users inward both the European Union as well as the the States would do goodness from the withdrawal of the “sui generis” right.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar