Due to the enormous extent of the e-commerce market in China, the problem of online patent rights infringement has become more severe and has received more attention from Chinese legislators. Therefore, in the latest Draft Patent Law Amendment, the ‘notice and takedown’ rule originally used in copyright law has now been transplanted into patent law to tackle online patent infringement issues. In our view, because there is a clear distinction between infringement of patent right and infringement of copyright, the notice and takedown rule cannot simply be transplanted without creating an unnecessary burden on internet service providers. Based on an evaluation of court rulings of the People's Republic of China, this article will provide recommendations for improving the application of the rule.
Browse by title
Inventions have been protected, in England, by patents since the sixteenth century. The patent system has undergone significant change since that time – in the nineteenth century, major legislative reforms were undertaken in the shadow of an abolitionist movement; and in the twentieth century, the system began to accommodate radical technological developments. This research applies insights from evolutionary theory, allowing a focus on the range of parties involved in the system and an acknowledgement of how these parties have changed as the system and society have developed.
Sayyed Mohammad Hadi Ghabooli Dorafshan
The need to maintain a competitive environment in the market prevents intellectual property owners from committing anticompetitive conducts. Such conducts, whether unilateral or bilateral, have been prohibited by Iranian law. The core Iranian antitrust rules of relevance to intellectual property licences are, essentially, based on articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In addition there is a need to review these rules in relation to articles 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the United States, as the leading country in regulating competition. Given the religious nature of Iranian law, it is necessary to study the opinions stated by Imamia jurists in order to interpret the Iranian competition rules and find solutions where they are silent. The same is true for Iranian general rules on contracts. The results of this article show that the Iranian competition rules regulating intellectual property licences have strengths, such as their being updated, and weaknesses, for example in being too severe, which must be taken into consideration in their probable revision by the Iranian legislator.
Unlike other IPRs, GI protection is intended for a group of persons who are residing in a locality using the name (title). It is the reputation of the product based on its quality that is attained due to geographical factors and prolonged use that makes a GI different from a trade mark. GI protection has not been prominent in India. In December 1999 the Indian Parliament passed the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act). According to this law, any association of persons, producers, organizations, or authorities established by or under the law can apply for the registration of a GI. The applicant must represent the interests of the producers and give the details of the GI, including its special features, quality, reputation or other characteristics and its relation to the geographical area. Up until 2016 there were 248 products registered as GIs in India. It is the consumer perceived value of the GI that makes GI products unique in the market. The benefits of GI registration can be enjoyed by the producers only if the GI is properly marketed. In this empirical study, the researcher has identified the producer based on the activity he is doing in the GI business. The specific condition for treating a respondent to this study as a ‘producer’ is his/her direct involvement in the production. The process of identifying the actual producer is a very important aspect, since the law creates a wide scope in the definition of producer to cover persons other than persons involved in direct production. The basic intention of this article is to examine whether the GI protection benefited the actual producer and whether the producer has actually realized that GI protection is helping them in marketing. The article also attempts to cover the knowledge of the GI producer towards the Indian GI protection system. Most of the existing research has examined only the conceptual ideas around GI protection and their implications. But the present study looks at the subject on an empirical level.
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.
Edited by Johanna Gibson
Part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process at the UN Human Rights Council involves the states that are conducting the review issuing recommendations to the state that is under review. These recommendations can be on a range of issues surrounding the protection of human rights, from simple praise of a state to a recommendation that a state becomes party to a human rights treaty. States are free to reject or accept recommendations and each year several thousand recommendations are made as part of the UPR process. This paper examines what legal status (if any) recommendations could have and how they relate to existing sources of international law. Sections 2 and 3 examine the nature of recommendations and the legal status of the UPR process. Sections 4 and 5 examine how accepted patterns of recommendations could be used as a mechanism for interpreting and enforcing existing norms in international human rights law.
Hannah Arendt was a German-Jewish witness of the grand infamies of the twentieth-century, a classicist, a political theorist, a social commentator and a cartographer of time. In that last capacity, she presents the international lawyer with a set of concepts to gauge the meaning of international legal time, its relationship to international history, and the part of international law in triggering new historical cycles. Three concepts developed by her stand out for how an international lawyer might reconceive the part of international law in international history and importantly, against catastrophic world tragedies that ask for innovative regulatory response, its redesign. The concepts of a time-gap, time-sequence and historical-cycle and repetition of revolution present possible coordinates for drawing different time-maps for international law. The question raised here follows Arendt to ask: what might a time-map for international law look like if international lawyers notice the gaps, rhythm and sequences that set and reset their part in international historical time? Starting at Potsdam, in 1945, settles the question of a time-map on a series of lines and boundaries that restarted time then under the auspice of international agreement.