The aim of this paper is to define the scope of protection afforded to ‘marks with reputation’ under EU Directives and Regulations. The authors argue that the protection granted to said marks also in relation to ‘not similar’ goods requires that, having regard to all the circumstances of the specific case, the consumer could be induced to reasonably suppose that the trade mark owner is somehow (industrially or commercially) connected with the circulation of products bearing an identical or confusingly similar sign. If this possibility cannot be assessed, it should be denied that the use of that sign either brings an unfair advantage to the third party user, or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the renowned trade mark. In sum, the thesis here submitted states that the protection afforded to renowned trade marks, even ‘extra moenia’ (ie beyond the risk of confusion in a strict sense between the products), anyway presupposes that a misleading message is conveyed to the consumer, inducing her/him to ‘transfer’ the reputation of the latter's products to those of the third party user's products, with the effect of altering the consumer's purchasing choices.
Browse by title
Gustavo Ghidini and Giovanni Cavani
Edited by Johanna Gibson
Fernando J. Cardim de Carvalho
Much of the criticism directed at austerity programs implemented after the 2007/2008 financial crisis, more forcefully in the eurozone, have relied on the same arguments Keynes and others raised against the (British) Treasury View developed in the 1920s and 1930s. Austerity, however, has been proposed most insistently in the 2010s by European authorities, led by the German Federal Ministry of Finance, the Bundesfinanzministerium (BMF). While the arguments for austerity then and now share some common elements, there are enough original arguments being presented by the BMF to make many of the criticisms ineffective. The paper reconstructs both views, the Treasury's and the BMF's, to show and evaluate their similarities and their differences.
Why are investment companies are regulated so differently from every other kind of company? The multitude of other companies across our diverse spectrum of business endeavors—from software design to clothing retail to food service, and so forth—are regulated by a generic body of securities regulations. What exactly makes an investment company so different from every other kind of company that it alone deserves special securities regulation? The chapter concludes that, whatever the historical rationales for investment company regulation, the most compelling rationale for investment company regulation today is an investment company’s unique organizational structure. An investment fund almost always has a separate legal existence and a separate set of owners from the managers who control it. A fund investor thus relates to her managers in a radically different way from an investor in every other kind of company.
Mauro C. Moschetti
Few studies have explored how schools respond to competition in socially embedded education quasi-markets. This study focuses on how state-subsidized privately-run low-fee schools (S-LFPS) compete with free state schools in some of the poorest neighbourhoods of the City of Buenos Aires. In particular, we explore how S-LFPSs follow different logics of action to attract (and shape) enrollment profiting from their extended autonomy and some regulatory gaps. We applied discourse analysis on data from eight months of ethnographic case study research in nine S-LFPSs. Student selection and operational changes (e.g., increasing the student/teacher ratio) prevail over academic and curricular changes. Selection is operated by means of aptitude tests and screening interviews, and more subtle symbolic artifacts aimed at signaling differences with state-run schools and the potential ‘fit’ between schools and families. We suggest that normative inconsistencies tilt the field against state-run schools and create divergent networks of meaning regarding equity.
Dirk Lindebaum, Deanna Geddes and Peter J. Jordan
Our introduction explains the theme of this edited volume, namely, an exploration of workplace emotion from a social functional perspective in relation to societal ‘talk about emotion’. We examine conditions under which they can be at odds with, as well as reinforce each other in organizations, and occasions when both practices can occur simultaneously. Our hope is that this focus injects fresh theoretical and practical momentum into understanding how our talking about emotion can generate changes in emotion-eliciting events over time and place, which in turn can influence various causes, expressions, and consequences of emotions at work. This introductory chapter (and subsequent chapters) shed further light on the ramifications for social functional accounts of emotion, especially in the context of work environments. We also briefly foreshadow chapter contents in alphabetical order by emotion (i.e., awe, anger, boredom, envy, fear, happiness, pride, sadness, schadenfreude, and shame) and conclude with possible directions for future research.
Marcelo G. Kohen and Mamadou Hébié
This chapter introduces the international law framework applicable to territorial disputes and provides an overview of the entire content of the book. Starting with a definition of the terms that delimit the field of the present inquiry, Marcelo G. Kohen and Mamadou Hébié explore important cornerstones of the law applicable to territorial disputes. Thus, the authors proposes a method for analysing territorial disputes, before addressing the impact of the fundamental principles of international law on the settlement of territorial disputes. Among these principles, the authors assess the relevance of the principle of territorial integrity, of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the prohibition of the use of force. Finally, the authors explore the legal significance of technical rules of international law, such as the intertemporal law principle, the critical date and the rules governing evidence, in the assessment of territorial claims.