1 How Italy Succesfully Improved its Approach to Intellectual Property Rights Protection By Professor Cesare Galli, Istituto Bruno Leoni and Professor Pietro Paganini, Competere Introduction The Italian economy is experiencing a deep crisis, due to a series of factors that require radical reform such as excessive tax burden on labor and production, the malfunction of the bureaucratic machine, the failure of the justice system, and arbitrary legal regulation. Political instability and the weakness of the ruling leadership are partially to blame for a substantial lack of any reform; however the systemic pitfalls of an insufficient production model are also a factor. These problems cannot be resolved merely by implementing an array of skin-deep reforms, instead a complete overhaul is needed that includes the strategies of industrial policy, based on a new forward-thinking vision and a long-term realistic and systematic strategy. Despite current difficulties, Italy remains the 8th largest economy in the world with an economic value of $ 2.2 trillion USD (IMF, WEF). This global standing is based on the creative ability and production of small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs account for 65% of GDP and 99.9% of all enterprises, of which 94.4% are micro organizations with an average number of employees of 3.9 (ISTAT). What do these micro- or small businesses manufacture? Their success is based on the Made-in- Italy brand, products that relate to the Italian way of life which are associated with the benchmark for top-tier creativity, quality, originality, and singularity. In a nutshell, it defines everything that has to do with the good life and style, such as gastronomy, product design, cars, bicycles, motorcycles, and fashion. It also refers to all the products of fine artisanship and craftsmanship, including precision engineering, chemical, and pharmaceutical production. In essence, products that are appreciated and recognized throughout the world for their quality and uniqueness. Due to this uniqueness, one would expect the Belpaese to dominate the rankings of the IPRI as a country that patents many of its products and protects its intellectual property and manufacturing processes. Unfortunately this is not the case. As the evidence from the European Patent Office (EPO) shows, Italy is behind Germany and France in the number of patents registered in overall quantity and per capita. There are several reasons for this, which can be tied to fragile and whimsical social and economic structures such as industry, schools, and governmental institutions. In industry, the difficulties can be ascribed to a lax managerial mentality and to internal organizational dynamics; businesses create, but do not patent and therefore they do not prevent breaches in intellectual property. According to the Patent Office, the number of patents requested in 2013 at the Ministry of Economic Development was approximately 68,000. The reason for this low count, according to focus groups and surveys include the following reasons: Ignorance - The concept of preservation and protection of products is virtually absent for many businesses, especially within micro-enterprises. Furthermore, the risk of licensing out their technology to a possible competitor appears not to be a significant issue. Costs and procedures - most of the entrepreneurs interviewed deemed the costs of registration exorbitant and not worth the long term return. Management frailty - Italian SMEs often cannot rely on structured management for a series of reasons, based around the fact they are often family-run businesses. At the educational level, progress is slow but improving nevertheless, thanks to a steady increase in intellectual activities, in particular with regard to the digital industry (as shown below). However, fewer than 10% of academic courses offered include modules or credits on property law.
2 At the governmental level the efforts to protect property are intensifying, in particular in terms of legislation. Despite improvement, more than 80% of SMEs could not recall any government attempts to raise awareness or any policy implementation by institutions, be they public entities or chambers of commerce. The protection of intellectual property within Italy remains a practice adopted sparsely. In contrast, more than 50% of respondents in the survey admitted to having toyed with the idea of registering their patents abroad because of the perception that better protection and stronger incentives exist. The activity of the Italian Antitrust Authority in the fight against infringement In , as new effective measures have become available for IPRs holders in Italy, the designers and producers that are hurt by pirate websites offering either copycats of original products or fake copyright works, often at rock bottom prices. This time, the Antitrust Authority (AGCM) (which is also responsible for the repression of unfair commercial practices) and the Telecommunications Authority (AGCOM) took the lead. Recently, AGCM has become more and more active in the fight against websites which systematically sell copycats. To fight the online spread of unfair trade practices, and protect the market and consumers from deception, AGCM has the authority to shut down clone-websites within Italian territory. After several reports issued by INDICAM (the Institute of the Trade Mark Owner Association for the Fight against Infringement), AGCM closed down hundreds of clone- websites, with other measures being implemented at a fast pace (for further reference, see the authority s decisions no /13, 24167/13, 24329/13, 24353/13, 24354/13, 24381/13, 24582/13, 24583/13, 24647/13, all available at The new Regulation on Copyright web piracy issued by the Telecommunications Authority While AGCM focuses on websites selling copycats of products that are mainly protected as registered trademarks or designs, AGCOM dealt with copyright infringement. AGCOM recently adopted the resolution No. 680/13/CONS, Regulation on the protection of copyright on the internet (available at entered into force on March 31, 2014), which provides a fast, economical and simplified procedure for the removal of copyright infringement online, especially in urgent cases. According to the procedures, the IP rights-holder can submit a complaint to AGCOM through an online form. In the case of infringement for financial gain, the Authority shall act with a simplified procedure (to be concluded within 12 days from the complaint), by means of a communication to be sent to the uploader of the infringing material and to the web page/website manager, requesting the removal of such infringing material within 3 days from the communication. Should the uploader or the manager fail to comply with the request, AGCOM has the authority to ask the ISP to remove the infringing material if the website is located in Italy or to disable Italian access to the website if located abroad. The Regulation has been challenged before the Administrative Court for Lazio, on the grounds that it exceeded the scope of AGCOM s mission. This issue is now waiting to be assessed by the Constitutional Court, which will also review whether the AGCOM Regulation complies with freedom of expression, economic freedom and proportionality. It should also be considered that, even though these new procedures may appeal to rights- holders because of the low costs involved, there are significant limitations to the process. Once removed, the illicit content often reappears on different websites. Even more frequently, the counterfeiters temporarily remove copycat content listed by the judicial injunction but leave other illicit content for sale online. This represents a copycats rotation which allows the counterfeiters to earn enough money to make piracy viable. This has led to a thriving "industry of fake" based in the Far East and operating on demand. This industry manufactures and imports goods into Europe for consumers that are aware of the counterfeiting, but are nevertheless attracted to the lower prices even at the expense of creators.
3 Pilot Class Actions against infringement under consideration In Italy, a possible solution for dealing with counterfeiting has been recently identified in the form of a class action suit brought by all victims of the same counterfeiters, to obtain broad judicial remedies. This involves businesses teaming up to target a single counterfeiter, so as to inflict a singular blow of significant damage and prevent further violations. Such initiatives might represent progress in the fight against online counterfeiting. Italian judges appear to be showing increased sensitivity towards the issue, as proven by the extremely detailed report on online counterfeiting and liability of the subjects involved recently made by Judge Marina Tavassi, President of the IP and Company Division of the Court of Milan. In particular where Community trademarks and designs are concerned, a viable legal basis for these proceedings comes from the rules on pan-european effects of the injunctions against the violation of these rights (see CJEU of April 12th 2011 in the case C-235/09, The scope of the prohibition against further infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark, issued by a Community trade mark court whose jurisdiction is based on Articles 93(1) to (4) and 94(1) of that regulation, extends, as a rule, to the entire area of the European Union ). These operations are conceivable in almost all trade areas, as long as they are carried out extremely seriously and preceded by a professional juridical work. It also requires intelligence activities aimed at rebuilding the counterfeiting chain, identifying the individuals involved, the counterfeiters headquarters in Europe and if possible, their current accounts. The evolution of the measures for fighting infringements in Italy Contrary to common belief, Italy has remarkably efficient civil judicial protection of IP rights especially in preventive proceedings. It is now possible to rapidly obtain injunctions on infringement and seizure orders for the infringing goods. The 2005 Code of Industrial Property united the primary laws relating to IP matters (with two exceptions: copyright, which is covered by the separate Copyright Law and the relevant criminal provisions, which are contained in the Criminal Code). The Code expressly includes unregistered trademarks, trade secrets and appellations of origin as IP rights. Although these were already protected under Italian law they now benefit from the special procedural rules provided for IP rights. In 2006 the implementation of the EC Directive No. 48/2004 on the enforcement of IP rights offered the opportunity to revise the special procedural rules in this field, aimed at consolidating the good results achieved prior. The setting up of specialized IP Divisions in 2003 has meant that there is now a competent authority on trademarks, patents, copyrights, and unfair competition linked to these rights and contracts. In 2003 specialized IP divisions were set up at each of the twelve existing Courts and Courts of Appeal. In September 2012 these were increased to twenty one units, now renamed Company Divisions after they were given authority over company litigation. Since 2014 jurisdiction over foreign companies has been exclusively granted to 9 of these courts to better increase specialization. Further improvements took place in 2010 when the IP Code was amended by Legislative Decree 131/2010 which extensively revised both the special procedural rules in this field and the substantial rules. In particular, a series of amendments rendered the protection of IP rights more complete and consistent at civil, criminal, and administrative levels by protecting them against any conduct aimed at unlawfully exploiting the values of commercial goodwill inherent in these rights. In particular the legislative decree introduced new procedural rules aimed at stronger IP rights. This decree made it easier to obtain injunctive relief against infringers, it simplified procedures, and it improved the effectiveness and speed of protection in patent matters.
4 The reform of Italian legislation was aimed at enhancing the results experienced during the last few years at an International and European level. This effort represents progress towards a more concrete and realistic approach of intellectual property rights protection. This is measured based on how these rights interact with both the market and economic dynamics such as enterprise, communication, and research. The approach has a clear basis within existing international conventions and in EC laws in the IP field that outline a balance between exclusivities, competition, and contracts. Under this law, protection can be granted only when it is necessary based on the understanding that rules are made to regulate concrete realities and that their cause is strictly related to the human experience of such realities based on a connection to real life interpersonal relationships. Border measures are also an extremely efficient way to protect IP rights. They are regulated by EU regulations and therefore implementation is entrusted to the Customs Agency which has become a highly efficient body. The government has made agreements to coordinate operations with a number of countries from which counterfeit goods originate, such as China. The activities of the Customs Agency are supported by a multimedia database (FALSTAFF: the Fully Automated Logical System Against Forgery and Fraud) which gathers information on how to distinguish fake goods. The database is updated directly by rights-holders requesting protection for their goods. Urgency proceedings as effective tools for enforcing IP rights in Italy IP Civil Courts in Italy are now a highly effective tool for enforcing IP rights. The Italian judiciary is characterized by affordable costs, a high level of efficiency and a general inclination towards IP rights-holders. The efficiency of Italian IP Specialized Divisions is mainly due to their willingness to grant urgent requests such as injunctions, seizures, and orders for the withdrawal of goods from the market. If granted at the preliminary stage these requests may compel the infringer to buy back illicit products directly from the stores where they were sold at market price. Furthermore, under Article 131 of the Code of Industrial Property, urgent measures can be granted in cases of an imminent IP rights violation or a risk of repeated violation, even if the violation has been occurring for a significant period of time (see for instance Court of Naples, September 19, 2009). Urgent measures are typically examined and granted quickly. Trademarks and designs are often granted in a few days (such measures are often granted ex parte), while patents are frequently granted within a few months. An injunction is usually accompanied by a fine for each violation which is paid to the rights holder. Violation of an injunction is also subject to criminal penalties (a prison term of up to three years or a fine) under Article 388 of the Criminal Code. Urgent protective measures are granted by a single judge appointed by the President of the competent specialized division. They may be subject to appeal proceedings before a panel of three judges belonging to the same division. The panel, which does not include the first judge, normally issues a decision within one to two months. Furthermore, Article 132 of the Code of Industrial Property, as amended in 2010, expressly states that injunctive relief (including a fine or an order for withdrawal from the market) granted in urgency proceedings may become final unless any of the parties start proceedings on the merits of the case. Therefore, proceedings on merit are necessary only in order to ask the court to order the infringer to pay compensation and surrender profits made from the infringement, pay the costs of publication of the ruling in newspapers and reviews, hand over the infringing goods to the rights holder, or arrange for the destruction of said goods at the expense of the infringer. Increasing efficiency on proceedings on the merits is still important. In other countries such as Germany, the average duration of infringement litigation is 2-3 years less than Italy. However the German judiciary system also splits the judgment in two parts giving the Bundespatentgericht the responsibility for issuing a decision on patent validity. This causes delay and some uncertainty and is not considered in statistical data about duration of infringement litigations in Germany. In Italy litigation before a Specialized Division includes a decision on the patent validity in case of a counterclaim, as normally happens.
5 The accounts of the alleged infringer are often seized which assists with the calculation of any compensation to be paid. Under Art. 121 of the IP Code and Art. 156-bis of the Copyright Law the court may also order the infringer trading in pirated goods to submit copies of banking, financial or, commercial documentation in his/her possession relating to violation in the commercial field. Following the implementation of the EU IP Rights Enforcement Directive, the rights-holder may receive a sum which corresponds to either the infringer s profits or the rights-holder s lost profits, whichever is greater. Compensation for any further damage, such as expenses incurred for responding to the infringement or damage to image may also be added to the amount. Compensation for damage caused to the rights-holder s image is often calculated as a fraction of the advertising expenses incurred by the rights-holder or the cost of an advertising campaign to mitigate the negative impact of the infringement on the public. Among European countries, Italy recognizes one of the highest damages/account of infringer s profits in cases of proved infringement. For instance a decision rendered by the Court of Brescia in 2013 awarded 2 million Euro in damages for trade secret violation (see Court of Brescia, January ). The account of infringer s profits, which is a sort of remedy for unjust enrichment sui generis, merits particular attention: returning profits, provided as an alternative to compensation for the lost profits of the owner of the violated right will help the latter to acquit his burden of proof. This consolidates current developments in the latest Italian case law by awarding more substantial compensation than in the past in cases of IP rights infringement. This remedy, in combination with the possibility of obtaining a description of the accounts of the alleged infringer (and now, as we have seen, also a description of banking documentation), proved to be a useful deterrent and has allowed IP cases to be resolved through quick settlements. Based on the success of the policy, it is extremely surprising that the rule was not expressly provided in Copyright Law. However, it must be noted that in this field the remedy of returning profits had already been admitted by the Courts as a form of minimal liquidated damages. This occurred on the basis of arguments inferred in the preparatory work of the 1941 Law, when an article similar to that inserted in the IP Code was proposed but not included as it was considered superfluous (see Court of Cassation, 24 October 1983, no. 6251). Protection against exploitation of trademarks and distinctive signs IP protection tends to be rigorous in nature. Well-known marks are normally protected against any use in trade of an identical or similar sign, even where there is no likelihood of confusion. The mainstream of Italian case law on trademarks and other distinctive signs is characterized by a strong consideration of what these signs represent in the market, as central pillars of the enterprise communication and generally, in the real world. On the whole, trademarks, other distinctive signs, and the designations of origin are protected against all activities that attempt to unlawfully exploit the commercial goodwill associated with these signs. The 2010 reform has become the firmest pillar of the IP Code in order to give enterprises the possibility to enhance all the positive externalities coming from the use of their intellectual property rights, forbidding every form of free-riding, and of parasitic exploitation of their investments. In most of the recent cases, public perception was key to the ruling, in line with the decisions of the EU courts. Key decisions in this area have come from the Court of Naples (on August 11, 2011), which protected the CHAMPION trademark against parasitical linkage, including the adoption of a similar trademark as a business name; and from the Court of Milan (on October 20, 2009), which protected the color red as the non-registered trademark of Ferrari against its use for products connected to Formula 1, including clothing. In a more well-known case, the Court of Milan accorded protection to one of the most famous luxury goods trademarks in Italy (Bulgari) against its unauthorized use as a pseudonym by a pornographic actress for
6 calendars and for hardcore movies and shows. This was based on the assumption that such a use unlawfully exploited (causing prejudice by soiling its reputation) the message of sophistication and elegance strictly linked to this trade-mark. This rule applies to web infringement as well, preventing cases of parasitic exploitation of one s famous trademarks even through the use of similar or identical signs as unauthorized domain names, as metatags, or keywords that take unlawful advantage from the notoriety of the original trademarks. Protection of patents consistent with European standards With regard to the patent field and specifically protection of technological innovations, the 2010 reform of the Code was aimed at giving Italy the foundation for real growth in innovation in order to increase international competitiveness. The reform was largely inspired by the most recent version of the European Patent Convention, EPC 2000, in order to minimize any discrimination between the treatment of national and European patents. Notable is the inclusion of the new provision of the EPC interpretation protocol in Italian law. This protocol defines the limits of the application of the equivalence notion, about which Italian case law has shown some uncertainties in the past. It also provides a specification of the limits of the provision concerning the possibility for the Judge to redefine the claims, by request of the owner and provided that the redefined claims are in a more restricted form which remains within the limits of the filed prior patent application. In other words, whether it is within the limits where EPC allows the recourse to the limitation procedure. As a matter of fact, the centrality of the claims in the interpretation of the patent matches the guidelines of the EPO which are based on the so called problem-solution approach, i.e. to objectify and to anchor to the reality the evaluation of the requirements to get protection, but at the same time to commensurate such a protection to what the applicant claimed when he/she applied. Even in the area of biotechnological inventions, the inclusion in the Code of the rules that was hurriedly approved in 2006 by a government decree under the pressure of a European infringement procedure represented an opportunity to remove duplication of rules that could have caused interpretative uncertainties. It also made clear that the filing at the Office of Statements on the origin of biological material used for the invention was just an option for the applicant and not a prerequisite to obtain the patent, which would have been contrary to what all other European countries required. It has also been clarified that the penalties that the enabling act compelled to foresee for the violations in this field had no consequences on the validity of the patent, but gave rise to an administrative infringement. In patent matters, preventive measures can be obtained from either a national or European patent application. In the case of a European application, a translation of the claims must be filed with the Italian Patent and Trademark Office. A further remedy was introduced by Legislative Decree 131/2010, which now sets forth that the owner of a patent who is unsure about its infringement may ask the court to appoint an expert to obtain a quick technical assessment on validity and infringement, which can then be used in further legal action or to reach a settlement more quickly (Article 128 of the IP Code). In almost all patent matters, the judge usually appoints an expert to ascertain validity and infringement even in urgency proceedings (as expressly laid down by Article 132 of the Code of Industrial Property, as amended in 2010) and at the appeal stage, if any. The expert s conclusions often form the basis of the ruling. However, it is not uncommon for judges to deviate from the expert s opinion (see Court of Rome, September ) or to appoint a new expert or panel of experts, especially at the appeal stage. In regards to patent matters, Legislative Decree 131/2010 also clarified that in case of patent invalidity actions, it is enough to summon the party indicated in the public register as the rights-holder, not the inventors who assigned the rights (this rule also applies to the pending proceedings see Article 120 of the IP Code). As a result, according to the WIPO (World International Patent Organization) the filings of patent applications in 2012 in Italy were 28,271 of which 16,079 were filed from abroad, which meant Italy ranked 11th in the world. In 2013, Italy was ranked fifth for the number of filings of European Patent applications at EPO.
7 Light and shadow in the Design protection In the design field, the central importance of stakeholder perception of the validity and the scope of protection which can be granted to shapes, has made inroads in case law which has helped it become aligned to the European standards. Likewise design protection through copyright law has been available since the implementation of the EU Community Design Directive (98/71/EC). On January 27, 2011 the European Court of Justice (C-168/09) stressed that this protection also applies to works created before the date of implementation of the EU Design Directive (71/98/EC). This was expressly stated in Article 239 of the Code of Industrial Property (as amended in 2010), which stated that all copied products manufactured in Italy after April 19, 2006 (and those imported after April 19, 2001) are pursuable as counterfeit. In 2012 the deadline of April 19, 2014 was fixed to sell off stocks of infringing products, but this was neglected by the Court of Milan (with the decision on April 28, 2011), as it was contrary to the Directive. Hence an infraction procedure was brought against Italy by the European Commission. Suggestions Further improvements remain necessary. In addition to design issues described previously,an inconsistent position has been taken by Italy on the Unitary Patent System that was implemented by the EU in order to reduce the costs of patenting and protecting innovation in Europe. Italy joined the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (which has not yet been ratified). While Italy is not currently participating in the Unitary Patent system, on July , the Italian Senate approved a Resolution stating that Italy is now committed, in order to increase its competitiveness, to implementing all measures which are necessary to go ahead towards the whole system of the Unitary Patent. The Senate vote followed the May filing of an appeal to the government to adopt the unitary patent system. The appeal was supported by business groups such as Confindustria (the largest federation of Italian industry), Confapi (the Italian federation of associations for small and medium-sized companies), Assobiotech (the Italian association for the development of biotechnology) and Netval (the consortium for the dissemination of university research). In addition, it was also supported by Italian associations dealing with IP rights protection and anti- counterfeiting issues including AICIPI (the Italian association of industrial property consultants and experts), INDICAM (the Italian anti-counterfeiting organisation), Sindacato Consulenti (one of the national unions of IP attorneys), and the Centre for Anti-counterfeiting Studies. Many prominent lawyers, university professors, and judges in the IP field also supported the appeal. While trade associations have overwhelmingly expressed their support for the the unitary patent system, patent attorneys are divided on the issue, with several 'senior statesmen' of Italian IP law as well as some midgeneration professionals opposed to the unitary patent system. Regardless of opposition, it is hopeful that Renzi s new government will fully support the unitary patent system. In fact the unitary patent system, based on EU-wide patent granting procedures, will provide many innovative Italian companies operating in the European market with a convenient alternative to the present system, since applying a single patent to the entire European Union would reduce costs and bureaucratic burdens and serve as a barrier against the import of counterfeit products from outside the European Union. Another challenge for the new Italian Government regards criminal prosecution against infringement. Even though criminal provisions were amended and improved in 2009 (such as the introduction of a specific aggravating circumstance for the infringement involving large quantities or committed in a continuous and organized fashion: Article 474ter Criminal Code), there are still many problems in their enforcement. Specialized IP public
8 prosecutors should be introduced, as proposed by the National Council for the Fight against Infringement. This seems to be especially urgent because of the Expo to be held in Milan next year that will cause the issue of fakes to again be raised (a special law against ambush marketing is currently under discussion). Italy is currently at a critical moment. Creating a better awareness of IP rights and of the existing measures to defend them would aid industries facing the challenges of protecting innovation and the fight against infringement of IPRs. Furthermore, protecting IPRs could serve as a benchmark for enhancing the protection of physical property rights and the efficiency of the Italian legal environment as a whole.
In association with Unitary patent and Unified Patent Court: the proposed framework Rainer K Kuhnen Patents in Europe 2013/2014 Helping business compete in the global economy Unitary patent and Unified
Supported by World Trademark Review Anti-counterfeiting 2012 Poland Contributing firm A Global Guide Poland Contributing firm Authors Jaromir Piwowar and Bartek Kochlewski Legal framework Rights holders
An Enhanced European Patent System The Select Committee The Preparatory Committee An Enhanced European Patent System In December 2012 the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament agreed
Ufficio Stampa Jacobacci & Partners DATASTAMPA Simonetta Carbone Via Tiepolo, 10-10126 Torino, Italy Tel.: (+39) 011.19706371 Fax: (+39) 011.19706372 e-mail: email@example.com torino milano roma madrid
UFI Recommendations for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights at Exhibitions UFI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF IPR AT EXHIBITIONS - 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE 3 TERMINOLOGY AND BASIC
IP-Litigation in Germany German and European Patent, Trademark and Design Attorneys Lawyers What is a litigation team in Germany? In contrast to litigation procedures in certain jurisdictions, in particular
China Contributing firm Wan Hui Da Law Firm & Intellectual Property Agency Author Huang Hui Senior partner 55 China Wan Hui Da Law Firm & Intellectual Property Agency 1. Legal framework After many years
Designs 2015 Mette Bender A Global Guide BUSINESS IN EURO IPE? Success in Europe is critical for your business. As one of the continent s top IP firms, we do more than protect intellectual assets. We guide
In association with The proposed structure of the Unified Patent Court system in Europe Rainer K Kuhnen, KUHNEN & WACKER Intellectual Property Law Firm Patents in Europe 2015/2016 Helping business compete
ENFORCEMENT OF IP RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT CONCERNS, CHALLENGES AND ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SINGLE MARKET GRUR Workshop Brussels March 7, 2007 Michael Keplinger* Overview: 1.
Intellectual Property Rights In China Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office Contents Intellectual Property Rights In China What Are Intellectual Property Rights? International
PATENT LITIGATION IN MEXICO: OVERVIEW AND STRATEGY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN PATENT LITIGATION IN MEXICO Global E-Commerce Law and Business Report. September, 2003. Patent infringement actions. The Mexican
13.1 Efficient alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for intellectual property disputes More and more rights holders are recognizing the benefits of using private neutral mechanisms that allow parties to
PROJECT PROPOSAL: PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FIGHT AGAINST COUNTERFEITING IN THE T/C SECTOR Protecting intellectual property and dealing with counterfeiting are vital to the textiles
Parasitic copying is unfair play Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) has developed this document following the European Commission s call for comments on its retail market monitoring report, Towards more efficient
Intellectual Property Rights in the USA Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office Contents Intellectual property rights in the USA What are intellectual property rights? International
Error!Marcador no definido.introduction The implementation of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 29, 2000 into Belgian law The European directive had to be implemented
INTRODUCTION TO TRADE MARKS INTRODUCTION TO TRADE MARKS Trade Marks are the signs used by businesses to distinguish their goods and services from those of each other. It is important to choose trade marks
Intellectual Property Rights In India Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office Contents Intellectual property rights in India 3 What are intellectual property rights? 3 International
WIPO TRAINING OF TRAINERS PROGRAM ON EFFECTIVE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES (SMEs) IP Law and Administration in the State of Qatar by Malik Al-Kammaz Saba
Draft Report of the Dispute Settlement Subcommittee, Intellectual Property Policy Committee, Industrial Structure Council October 2002 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Overview and Problems of Legal Systems
Patent Litigation in Germany An Introduction (I) By Prof. Dr. Heinz Goddar, Dr. jur. Carl-Richard Haarmann Prof. Dr. Heinz Goddar Senior Partner, Boehmert & Boehmert, Munich, and Honorary Professor for
Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Section I Summary of findings There is no special legislation concerning damages for breach of EC or national competition law in Denmark,
Session III Private Sector Perspective: Strengthening Supply Chain Integrity to Combat Illicit Trade Counterfeiting Landscape in India Counterfeiting Landscape in India China Large Factories based production
European Court of Human Rights Questions & Answers Questions & Answers What is the European Court of Human Rights? These questions and answers have been prepared by the Registry of the Court. The document
Published by Yearbook 2016 Building IP value in the 21st century Taking a ride on the Birthday Train KUHNEN & WACKER Intellectual Property Law Firm Christian Thomas KUHNEN & WACKER Intellectual Property
The role of EU in supporting SMEs for protection of IPR Avv. Elio De Tullio EU Actions 2003 - New Customs Regulation 2004 - Enforcement Directive 2005 - Communication on European Industrial Policy: central
Intellectual Property Rights in Vietnam Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office Contents Intellectual property rights in Vietnam What are intellectual property rights? International
In-House Insurance Defense Counsel Permissible Cost-Saving Measure or Impermissible Conflict of Interest? by Nathan Price Chaney Why have In-House Counsel? From Company s point of view: Control Effective
Marketers must: The Political, Legal, and Regulatory Environments of Global Marketing Global Marketing Chapter 5 Attempt to comply with each nation s laws and regulations. Keep up with laws and regulations
This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Patents in Europe 2008 April 2008 Norway By Amund Brede Svendsen and Svein Ruud Johansen, Advokatfirmaet Grette, Oslo 1. What options are open to
Comments on the Draft of a Decision of the Administrative Committee on Rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate and Other Appropriate Qualifications Pursuant to Article 48(2) of the Agreement
Trademarks and domain names a necessary harmonising of practices Introduction 1 2 3 4 Best practices in brand management Best practices in domain name management Necessary harmonisation Real-life examples
STRENGTHENING ANTICOUNTERFEITING LAWS and PROCEDURES in CANADA Canada Task Force INTA Anticounterfeiting Committee February 2013 I. Introduction: The Harms of Counterfeits Counterfeiting is the most serious
International Patent Litigation and Jurisdiction Study of Hypothetical Question 1 Under the Hague Draft Convention and Japanese Laws Yoshio Kumakura Attorney at Law Nakamura & Partners 1 The 1999 Draft
ID REGISTER: Telef05162 Telefónica response to the consultation on the implementation of the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive Telefónica welcomes the opportunity to comment on the findings
Fighting Counterfeiting in Asia Douglas Clark Partner Lovells, Shanghai Introduction "Counterfeiting in China has reached a crisis point" This is a common view heard from many western executives and government
World Book 1. TRADE MARKS 1.1 INTRODUCTION In, trade marks are protected by Book VII of the French Intellectual Property Code (the Code), the provisions of which were modified by the Act n 91-7 of January
Protecting and Enforcing Your Intellectual Property in China Tim Browning, Attorney-Advisor United States Patent & Trademark Office Office of Enforcement Why care? This is not only a problem for US companies
BILL ANALYSIS Senate Research Center C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Jurisprudence 4/5/2007 Committee Report (Substituted) AUTHOR'S / SPONSOR'S STATEMENT OF INTENT C.S.S.B. 1309 gives the State of Texas civil
Intellectual property rights (IPRs) refer to rights that are based on creations of the human mind. IPRs are divided into two categories: industrial property and copyright and related rights. Industrial
FRANCE Last updated: April 2014 This material is only intended to provide an introduction to and simplified profile of this jurisdiction's local practice and procedure relevant to trademark cancellation.
http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/12ebe/13cdb/1402c/1402e?f=templates&... Page 1 of 1 47-18-2101. Short title. This part shall be known and may be cited as the Tennessee Identity Theft Deterrence
By Andrey Zelenin, Lidings Law Firm Debt collection in Russia Foreign companies doing business in Russia generally have several main options of dispute resolution to choose: (i) international commercial
Strategies of G8 Industry and Business to Promote Intellectual Property Protection and to Prevent Counterfeiting and Piracy (As agreed upon on 18 April 2007) Intellectual property is the basis for innovative
Present Situation of IP Disputes in Japan Feb 19, 2014 Chief Judge Toshiaki Iimura 1 1 IP High Court established -Apr.1.2005- l Appeal cases related to patent rights etc. from district courts nationwide
I. OVERVIEW Intellectual Property Protection in Vietnam Despite Vietnam s accession to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ( TRIPs ), protecting and enforcing intellectual
European IPR Helpdesk Fact Sheet Intellectual Property considerations for business websites The European IPR Helpdesk is managed by the European Commission s Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized
Fundamentals of Intellectual Property (IP) Management by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) Dr. Horst Fischer, Corporate Vice President, Siemens AG Any company wishing to prosper in the next millennium
Trademark Infringement Complaint [Name/Address] Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ALPHA, INC., a Washington corporation, v. Plaintiff, MR, DELTA
Basic Law on Intellectual Property (Law No.122 of 2002) (Provisional Translation) Table of Contents Chapter I General Provisions (Articles 1 to 11) Chapter II Basic Measures (Articles 12 to 22) Chapter
BRANDSTOCK LEGAL EXPERT ADVICE FOR ALL IP MATTERS The Brandstock Group of companies is one of the world s leading and fastest-growing providers of Intellectual Property services that harnesses innovative
Inspections and Access to Evidence in Patent Litigation 10 th Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law & Policy at Fordham IP Law Institute April, 12 th 2012, New York by Dr. Klaus Grabinski Judge
Global Guide to Competition Litigation Poland 2012 Table of Contents Availability of private enforcement in respect of competition law infringements and jurisdiction... 1 Conduct of proceedings and costs...
To the Legal Working Group of the Preparatory Committee On behalf of all members of the Orde van Octrooigemachtigden (Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys), we wish to thank the members of the Legal
Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litigation Moderator: John R. Thomas Panelists: Trevor M. Cook, Jamison E. Lynch, Mark D. Selwyn Global IP Litigation Strategy: Why Is It Important? Trend toward globalization
Global Guide to Competition Litigation Japan 2012 Table of Contents Availability of private enforcement in respect of competition law infringement and jurisdiction... 1 Conduct of proceedings and costs...
LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN ON LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS AND ADDITIONAL LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS OF APRIL 22, 1998 N 220-1 (with amendments and additions as of August 7, 2007) CHAPTER I. GENERAL
BENELUX RULES ON TRADE MARKS UNIFORM BENELUX TRADE MARKS ACT (BENELUX TRADE MARKS ACT) PART I. INDIVIDUAL TRADE MARKS Section 1 Individual trade marks may consist of names, designs, stamps, seals, letters,
PENNSYLVANIA IDENTITY THEFT RANKING BY STATE: Rank 14, 72.5 Complaints Per 100,000 Population, 9016 Complaints (2007) Updated January 29, 2009 Current Laws: A person commits the offense of identity theft
PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the
The trademark lawyer as brand manager This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Brands in the Boardroom 2005 May 2005 For further information please visit www.iam-magazine.com Feature The
Natalie Marshall Graduation Date: 2014 MArCH Honor Society Career Profile for: Lawyer Type: Professional Area: Legal Subarea: Lawyer From the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook
SINO-RUSSIAN BUSINESS: FIVE TIPS ON RUSSIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Emerging trade relations give rise to various concerns, and in today s world the legal aspects of intellectual property are growing
THE GOVERNMENT No. 103/2006/ND - CP THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM Independence Freedom Happiness ------------------------------ DECREE Hanoi, September 22, 2006 Making detailed provisions and providing
Intellectual Property is the body of law that protects the fruits of human intelligence: our inventions, our creative works, and the logos and brand names that we adopt for the goods and services we sell.
Law No. 677/2001 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and the Free Movement of Such Data, amended and completed The Romanian Parliament adopts the present law.
Legal FAQ: Introduction to Patent Litigation by charlene m. morrow and dargaye churnet 1. Who enforces a patent? The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants a patent. Contrary to popular belief, a patent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LAW OF DAMAGES AND REMEDIES DIFC LAW No. 7 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INFORMATION ON PATENTS Why obtain a patent? Apatent is proof of the rights that one has in an invention. The rights provided by a patent constitute an exception to free market principles by granting
Représentant les avocats d Europe Representing Europe s lawyers CCBE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DATA RETENTION DIRECTIVE CCBE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DATA RETENTION
Patent Litigation in Europe - Presence and Future Innovation Support Training Program (ISTP) Module 2 / November 27, 2006 Christian W. Appelt German and European Patent and Trademark Attorney Patent Litigation
[doc. web n. 1589969] Spamming: How to Lawfully Email Advertising Messages GARANTE PER LA PROTEZIONE DEI DATI PERSONALI Prof. Stefano Rodotà, President, Prof. Giuseppe Santaniello, Vice-President, Prof.
Evaluating Brazilian Electricity Regulation for Legitimacy, Independence and Accountability Workshop: Regulation and Finance of Infrastructure in Latin America: Experience on Case Development São Paulo,
FINANCIAL REFORM LEGISLATION OFFERS WHISTLEBLOWERS LUCRATIVE INCENTIVES AND ROBUST PROTECTION Philip H. Hilder 1 Sunida A. Louangsichampa 2 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Intellectual Property Protection Helpsheet When running a business you need to consider protecting your intellectual property which could be anything from your logo to inventions, products and designs.
Resolving IP and Technology Disputes Through WIPO ADR Getting back to business Intellectual property (IP) is a central component of today s knowledge economy, and its efficient exploitation is of growing
Program: Master s of Intellectual Property Law (Comprehensive) Syllabus Syllabus No. 2005 C A. GENERAL RULES AND CONDITIONS: 1. This plan Conforms to the valid regulations of programs of graduate studies.
China IPR SME Helpdesk Protecting your IPR in China & How the Helpdesk can Assist you Beijing, 28 April 2014 Valentina Salmoiraghi, IP Expert 1) The China IPR SME Helpdesk s Services 2) Protecting your
Comments of Verizon Communications on the Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Verizon Communications appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on
Knowledge Practical guide to competition damages claims in the UK Practical guide to competition damages claims in the UK Contents Reforms to damages litigation in the UK for infringements of competition
Private Interest Foundation Law of Panama Law N 25 of June 12, 1995 Article 1. One or more natural or juridical persons by themselves or through third parties, may create a private foundation in accordance