Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 491 items :

  • Innovation and Technology x
  • Intellectual Property Law x
  • All content x
Clear All
You do not have access to this content

Chuanzi Cai

China has long been the World's Walmart of counterfeits, and the remedies in counterfeiting cases have always been criticized as too small to compensate trademark owners. In the year 2013, China revised its trademark law, which increased the cap of statutory damages and incorporated secondary liability clauses into the law. Does the change of law bring any changes to the remedies granted in counterfeiting civil cases? What are the factors affecting court decisions? Relying on more than 800 civil cases in trademark counterfeiting, this article empirically studies the case characteristics and court decisions to understand the case outcomes and litigation scenario. It reveals the characteristics of civil litigation and factors affecting court decisions on trademark counterfeiting in China. Though there is some literature on remedies in trademark cases, very few analyses focus on courts' legal reasonings or the changes in civil remedies after the law revision. This article tries to fill in this gap, looking through the lens of the law on the books – the law revisions – and the law in practice – the court decisions.

You do not have access to this content

Christopher P Evans

It has been 50 years since the adoption of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which established the obligation upon all States Parties to work towards nuclear disarmament under Article VI. Yet, despite extensive reductions in nuclear weapons stockpiles since the Cold War peaks, nuclear arms control and disarmament efforts are currently in disarray. After the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was terminated in 2019, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty remains as the only bilateral limitation on United States (US) and Russian nuclear forces in operation and is due to expire in February 2021. The US has justified its limited nuclear disarmament progress on the premise that the current international security environment is not conducive to further nuclear disarmament. Instead, the US has recently promoted a new initiative called Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament (CEND). The initiative aims to provide a platform for all States to engage in constructive dialogue to identify ways to improve the international security environment, which make nuclear deterrence necessary while addressing the hurdles that currently impede progress towards nuclear disarmament. Significantly, the US regards CEND as an ‘effective measure’ and an illustration of its commitment towards disarmament under Article VI. This article seeks to address the US claim that CEND represents a good faith, effective measure towards nuclear disarmament pursuant to Article VI. This will revisit existing doctrinal interpretative debates concerning the obligation under Article VI, particularly the requirements that negotiations and measures be adopted in good faith, and what constitutes an effective measure towards nuclear disarmament. The discussion will then determine whether the CEND initiative itself can be considered a good faith, effective measure towards nuclear disarmament, by considering its purpose, origins and implementation, and actions of the US.

This content is available to you

Anne Peters, Heike Krieger and Leonhard Kreuzer

As a standard bridging law and other spheres of normativity, due diligence is pervasive across numerous areas of international law. This paper defines the features and functions of due diligence, illustrating how the concept's development reflects structural changes in the international legal order. Concerning their content, due diligence obligations can be separated into two overlapping types: procedural obligations and obligations relating to States' institutional capacity. Thus, due diligence serves to manage risks, compensate for States' freedoms being circumscribed through legalisation, expand State accountability and possibly stabilise the international order through ‘proceduralisation’. However, it is argued that due diligence cannot be characterised as a general principle of international law due to its diverse content in different fields of international law and its dependence on accompanying primary rules. Finally, it is contended that due diligence introduces certain risks, particularly by diluting States' substantive obligations and contributing to the rise of ‘informal’ international law.

This content is available to you

Catherine Drummond and Patrick Simon Perillo

This content is available to you

Gerry Liston

The ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a State's fair share of the global burden of mitigating climate change has undermined the ability of domestic climate change litigation to bring about emissions reductions which are collectively capable of meeting the goal of the Paris Agreement. When confronted with challenges to the adequacy of States' mitigation efforts, domestic courts have also drawn on States' international human rights law obligations. This paper argues that when applying these obligations, the uncertainty surrounding the fair share question must be resolved so as to ensure individual mitigation obligations which are collectively consistent with the Paris Agreement. The analysis focuses on the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and outlines how general principles of law applicable in situations involving causal uncertainty could be invoked to address the fair share question.

You do not have access to this content

Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim, Muhamad Helmi Muhamad Khair, Anida Mahmood, Rohazar Wati Zuallcobley and Zeti Zuryani Mohd Zakuan

This article reports a study that aims to formulate an outbound open innovation strategy for the exploitation of publicly funded research intellectual property in Malaysia. The outbound open innovation strategy is proposed due to the inability of the existing intellectual property commercialization strategy of Malaysian public universities to optimize the exploitation of publicly funded research intellectual property. The current strategy assumes that the best exploitation route is by way of commercialization to enable the public universities to monetize the publicly funded research intellectual property. This strategy creates a legal barrier since publicly funded research intellectual property is locked up behind proprietary rights and a rigid licensing regime. In contrast, outbound open innovation strategy allows publicly funded research intellectual property to be exploited through permissive licensing. This study employs a mixed-methods approach involving semi-structured interviews and survey questionnaires with technology licensing officers of Malaysian public universities. The output of this study is an outbound open innovation strategy which connects innovation to the intellectual property system and improves the socio-economic impact of publicly funded research intellectual property.

You do not have access to this content

Florian Koempel

AI applications are manifold in the music industry, both as tools assisting composers in creating and as music generating machines. AI applications assisting composers are widely used, for example in providing drum sequences or mastering services. AI-generated music is mainly used as production music, for example in synchronizing YouTube videos. Copyright implications relate initially to the use of existing works to train the computer, and secondly to the copyright protection for AI-generated musical works or sound recordings. This article firstly looks at the copyright acts involved in the training process in the EU, UK and US as well as potentially applicable exceptions. Secondly, it addresses the copyright position of AI-generated music and in particular the legal requirement of human creativity as the basis of copyright protection for musical works. The situation for sound recordings might be different.

You do not have access to this content

Godwin Tan and Andrea Chong

This article considers the potential of addressing global environmental risks through the investor–State dispute settlement regime, specifically arbitration under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. It examines the viability of States raising environmental counterclaims against investors for breaches of environmental norms through an analysis of the jurisdictional and substantive issues in Burlington v Ecuador and Perenco v Ecuador. The article then assesses broader challenges in using such counterclaims to address environmental risks. However, it also tracks recent developments, such as the rise of new generation treaties that directly impose environmental obligations on investors and tribunal pronouncements that reflect environmental concerns, which demonstrate that international investment law is evolving in a way that will encourage and strengthen environmental counterclaims in the future. The article notes that these developments come with their own set of limitations, some of which are underexamined in practice and in existing literature. While the viability of environmental counterclaims will turn on a careful analysis of the circumstances of each case, the article concludes that such counterclaims will likely play a greater role in supporting global environmental protection in the near future.