Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 290 items :

  • Intellectual Property Law x
  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Gustavo Ghidini and Giovanni Cavani

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.

This content is available to you

Edited by Johanna Gibson

This content is available to you

Jessica C Lai

This article analyses and compares the two main approaches that deal with the relationship between patent exclusive rights and the artefacts embodying patented inventions (usually chattel). Namely, it examines the implied licence approach and the exhaustion approach, at the national and international level, and extrapolates the scope of patent exclusive rights under these two models. The article uses the international dimension to highlight that having two approaches complicates international trade and that this is exacerbated by the nature of the exclusive rights themselves. Highlighting the fact that several exclusive rights only exist upon embodiment, do not marry up to the invention as claimed, and are – for all intents and purposes – served by rights in choses in possession, the article argues that several patent exclusive rights have no practical purpose. The article suggests a simplified approach to patent exclusive rights and thereby the relationship between patented inventions and their physical embodiments.

This content is available to you

Edited by Johanna Gibson

This content is available to you

Edited by Carlo S. Lavizzari and René Viljoen

This content is available to you

Edited by Carlo S. Lavizzari and René Viljoen

This content is available to you

Edited by Carlo S. Lavizzari and René Viljoen

This content is available to you

Edited by Carlo S. Lavizzari and René Viljoen

This content is available to you

Edited by Carlo S. Lavizzari and René Viljoen

This content is available to you

Sebastian Schwiddessen and Philipp Karius

So called loot boxes are one of the most important monetization methods for many companies in the video gaming, social gaming and social casino gaming industry. After the global skin betting scandal in 2016 and the 2017 loot-box uproar, loot boxes are now under investigation or even subject to legislative measures in several jurisdictions. Since then, numerous regulatory authorities, politicians and other stake holders have issued statements on the matter. From a legal perspective, loot boxes can touch gambling, youth protection, consumer and even financial laws. Characteristic of the 2017 loot-box debate was a black or white view and people taking extreme positions. In particular, gamers and people not familiar with the subject tend to condemn loot boxes as gambling. However, taking a closer look at selected key jurisdictions shows that the application of gambling laws depends on the jurisdiction and on the exact set up of the loot box mechanism. Furthermore, some questions are not conclusively solved yet – not even in those jurisdictions which are regarded as loot-box safe havens. One of these questions is, for instance, the impact of secondary-market trading of loot-box-generated items. This article evaluates the legal situation of loot boxes from a gambling law perspective in selected jurisdictions.