Landmark intellectual property cases and their legacyPDF电子书下载

Chapter 1 Shostakovich and John Huston: The French Supreme Court on Copyright, Contracts and Moral Rights&Andre Bertrand 1

Chapter 2 Moral Rights 2.0&Peter K. Yu 13

Chapter 3 The Legacy of International News Service v. Associated Press (USA)&Matthias Leistner 33

Chapter 4 Odol: The Introduction of a Watery Concept with Steeled Resilience&Anselm Kamperman Sanders 51

Chapter 5 Darcy v. Allen&Matthew Fisher 63

Chapter 6 The Taiwanese 'Philips' CD-R Cases: Abuses of a Monopolistic Position, Cartel and Compulsory Patent Licensing&Kung-Chung Liu 83

Chapter 7 The Anton Piller Case and Its Legacy: In Search of a Balance in Civil Search&Alain Strowel and Vicky Hanley 105

Chapter 8 The Case eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, Its Impact on NPE's and Patent Enforcement&Severin de Wit 121

Chapter 9 Hitting the Bricks&Protecting the LEGO~ Brick around the World Aldo Nicotra 135

Chapter 10 The Budweiser Cases: A Brewing Conflict&Christopher Heath 181

Index 245

Chapter 1 Shostakovich and John Huston: The French Supreme Court on Copyright, Contracts and Moral Rights&Andre Bertrand 1

1. The Shostakovich Cases 3

2. The John Huston Case 6

Chapter 2 Moral Rights 2.0&Peter K. Yu 13

1. Introduction 13

2. Obsolescence 15

3. Creative Reuse and Semiotic Democracy 18

4. Liberative Reuse and Democracy 23

5. Right to Delete 28

6. Conclusion 31

Chapter 3 The Legacy of International News Service v. Associated Press (USA)&Matthias Leistner 33

1. The INS-Case: The Classic American Tort of Misappropriation 33

1.1.The Facts in INS and the Central Elements of the Misappropriation Action 33

1.2.Quasi-property or Unfair Competition? 35

2. The Chequered History of INS v. AP 37

2.1.The Impact of INS v. AP on States' Misappropriation Laws, on UK and Australian Law, and on Federal US Restatements in the Field 37

3. Relationship to IP Rights: The Issue of Pre-emption 38

3.1.Pre-emption by Federal Intellectual Property Legislation 38

3.2.Lessons for European Law 41

4. INS and Database Protection 42

4.1.INS and European Database Protection? 42

4.2.INS as a Pathfinder for US Database protection? 46

5. Discovering and Developing IP Rights: An Assignment for the Judge or for the Legislator? 48

Chapter 4 Odol: The Introduction of a Watery Concept with Steeled Resilience&Anselm Kamperman Sanders 51

1. Introduction 51

2. The Dispute 52

3. The Roots of the Dilution Rationale 52

4. The Legacy of Odol: Trans-Atlantic Reception 53

5. The Legacy of Odol: Cross-Atlantic Parallel Import 56

6. Conclusion 59

Chapter 5 Darcy v. Allen&Matthew Fisher 63

1. Of Monopolies… 63

1. 1 . … And Legacies 64

2. A Little Background 65

3. The Case 68

3.1.The Prerogative Questioned 69

3.2.The Decision 73

3.3.Coke's Report of the Decision 74

3.3.1.The First Question 74

3.3.2.The Second Question 76

3.4.Coke's Report: Altered Reality? 76

4. The Immediate Impact of the Decision 78

5. Conclusion 79

Chapter 6 The Taiwanese 'Philips' CD-R Cases: Abuses of a Monopolistic Position, Cartel and Compulsory Patent Licensing&Kung-Chung Liu 83

1. Introduction 83

2. Abuse of a Joint Monopolistic Position 85

2.1.Improperly Maintaining Prices 85

2.2.Other Exploitative Abuses 86

3. Did the Defendants Form a Cartel? 86

3.1.Confirmed by the TFTC 86

3.2.Denied by the Taipei Administrative High Court and the Supreme Administrative Court 87

4. The Compulsory Patent Licensing 87

4.1.TIPO's Decision to Grant a Compulsory Patent License against Philips 88

4.2.TIPO's Decision to Annul the Compulsory Patent License 88

4.3.The Taipei Administrative High Court Rescinded TIPO's Decision to Grant a Compulsory Patent License 89

5. The Ramifications Abroad 89

5.1.In the US: Raising the Patent Misuse Issue under the Patent Act 89

5.1.1.Philips Has Market Power in the Relevant Market 90

5.1.2.Package License of 'Essential' and 'Non-essential' Patents 91

5.1.3.No Patent Misuse under Per Se Analysis 91

5.1.4.No Patent Misuse under Rule of Reason Analysis 92

5.1.5.Even if Philips and Sony Agreed to Suppress Sony's Technology, Such an Agreement would not Constitute Patent Misuse 92

5.2. In the EU 92

6. The Aftermath 95

6.1.Ailing CD-R Market in Taiwan 95

6.2.Philips's Demand of Sensitive Information Violated Section 24 of the Fair Trade Act? 95

6.3.The TFTC Substantially Revised Its Guidelines on Technology Licensing Arrangements in 2009 96

6.3.1.Analytical Steps 97

6.3.2.White Clauses 98

6.3.3.Black Clauses 99

6.3.4.Evaluation of the Guidelines 101

6.4.The IP Court Awarded Philips Full Royalty Despite of Violation of Article 10 of the Fair Trade Act 101

6.5.The Draft Compulsory Patent-Licensing Provisions 102

7. Future Prospects 103

Chapter 7 The Anton PUler Case and Its Legacy: In Search of a Balance in Civil Search&Alain Strowel and Vicky Hanley 105

1. Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd 106

1.1.When Lord Denning meets Hugh Laddie QC 106

1.2.Anton Piller: Is It a Search Warrant for Civil Cases? 107

1.3.What Are the Exceptional Circumstances Particular to the Anton Piller case? 108

1.4.Anton Piller Orders: Disquiet about Their Success 109

2. The Anton Piller Orders Today: The Search Orders in the UK 110

2.1.Procedure for Application 110

2.2.Built-In Safeguards to Avoid Misuse and Protect the Defendant 111

2.3.Is the Defendant Forced to Comply with the Order? 112

3. Towards a Global Recognition of Civil Search or Anton Piller Order in Europe and Beyond? 113

3.1 .Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement Defines the Minimum at International Level 113

3.2.The Legislative Process Leading to Article 7 of the 2004 Enforcement Directive: Some Evidence of the Legacy of Anton Piller 114

3.3.Objectives and Building Blocks of Article 7 of the 2004 Enforcement Directive 115

3.4.Some Unresolved Issues and Open Questions in Relation to the Implementation of Article 7 of the 2004 Enforcement Directive 117

3.4.1.Protection of Confidential Information 117

3.4.2.Persons Participating to the Search 117

3.4.3.Persons Granting the Civil Order 118

3.4.4.The Evidence Needed to Obtain a Civil Search 118

3.4.5.The Possibility to Modulate the Evidence Threshold for the Description and for the Physical Seizure 119

4. Conclusion: From Anton Piller to the Moderm Civil Search in Europe, in Search of the Balance of Civil search 120

Chapter 8 The Case eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, Its Impact on NPE's and Patent Enforcement&Severin de Wit 121

Chapter 9 Hitting the Bricks&Protecting the LEGO~ Brick around the World Aldo Nicotra 135

1. Overview 135

1.1.The Context of the Issue 135

1.2.Outline of Presentation and Paper 136

2. LEGO Bricks: An Auspicious History 137

2.1.Seventy Years of Commercial Success 137

2.2.How Did the LEGO Brick Come to Market? 137

3. A Selection of Cases 139

3.1.Summary of Outcomes 139

3.2.Australia (First Instance), 1991 139

3.2.1.Background 139

3.2.2. Copyright 140

3.2.3.Trade Practices Act and Passing Off 142

3.2.4.Findings 144

3.3.Australia (Appeal), 1992 146

3.4.Hong Kong (First Instance), 1986 147

3.4.1.Background 147

3.4.2.Claims 148

3.4.3.Findings 148

3.5.Hong Kong (Appeal and Privy Council Decision) 1987 and 1988 149

3.5.1.Background and Appeal 149

3.5.2.Privy Council 149

3.5.3.Significance of Decision 150

3.6.Sweden, 1984-1987 151

3.6.1.Background 151

3.6.2.Findings 152

3.6.3.Summary of Appeals 152

3.7.France, 1989-1994 153

3.7.1.Background and First Instance 153

3.7.2.Appeal 153

3.8.Hungary, 1996 154

3.8.1.Background and First Instance 154

3.8.2.Appeal 154

3.9.France, 1994-2000 155

3.9.1.Background and First Instance 155

3.9.2.Appeals 155

3.9.3.Court of Appeal (Paris) decision 156

3.10. China, 2002 156

3.10.1. Background and First Instance 156

3.10.2. Appeal 156

3.11. Italy, 1991-1998 157

3.11.1. Background 157

3.11.2. Summary of Appeals 157

3.12. Sweden, 2004 158

3.12.1. Background 158

3.12.2. Market Research 158

3.12.3. Findings 159

3.13. Canada, 2005 159

3.13.1. Background 159

3.13.2. Summary of Appeals 160

3.14. Germany, 1999-2004 161

3.14.1. Background 161

3.14.2. Summary of Appeals 161

3.14.3. Findings 162

3.15. Czech Republic, 2006 162

3.15.1. Background 162

3.15.2. Finding 163

3.16. Italy, 2008 163

3.16.1. Background and Initial Findings 163

3.16.2. Appeal to Supreme Court of Italy 163

3.17. Registration of Shape Marks 164

3.18. Switzerland, 2003 164

3.18.1. Background 164

3.18.2. Summary of Appeals 165

3.19. Hungary, 2008 166

3.19.1. Background 166

3.19.2. Summary of Appeals 166

3.20. Three-Dimensional Marks in the EU, 2008 167

3.20.1. Background 167

3.20.2. Summary of Appeals 168

4. Conclusion 168

Appendix. Hitting the Bricks 170

Chapter 10 The Budweiser Cases: A Brewing Conflict&Christopher Heath 181

1. Introduction 181

2. The Parties 182

2.1.Anheuser-Busch (A.B.) 182

2.2.Budweiser Budvar (B.B.) 182

3. 'Budweiser' Lawsuits Around the World 184

3.1.The Trademark Cases 185

3.2.Cases Involving the Lisbon Agreement 187

3.3.Cases Involving Bilateral Treaties on Geographical Indications 188

4. Analysis, Suggestions and Conclusions 189

4.1.Contract Law 189

4.1.1.The B.B .B.B. Agreement 189

4.1.2.The Cesky Agreement 192

4.1.3.The 1939 Agreement 192

4.1.4.Synoptical Overview and Analysis 193

4.2.The Angle of Trademarks and Trade Names 195

4.2.1.General Matters 195

4.2.2.Similarity 196

4.2.3.Recognition 196

4.2.4.Registrability 196

4.2.4.1. General Considerations 196

4.1.2.2. Community Law 198

4.1.2.3. Cases related to Budweiser 199

5. Defences 201

5.1.Use of a Company or Trade Name (e.g., Article 6(1)(a) European Trade Mark Directive) 201

5.2.Use of an Indication Concerning the Geographical Origin (e.g., Article 6(1)(b) European Trade Mark Directive) 203

5.3.Geographical Indications 206

5.3.1.The Paris Convention and Madrid Arrangement 206

5.3.1.1. The Paris Convention 206

5.3.1.2. The Madrid Arrangement 1891 207

5.3.1.3. The Versailles Peace Treaty 1919 as a multilateral agreement 207

5.3.2.Bilateral Treaties 208

5.3.3.The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin 210

5.3.3.1. History 210

5.3.3.2. Registration of Appellations 211

5.3.3.3. Scope and contents of such right are regulated in Articles 3, 5(6) and 6 212

5.3.3.4. Specific Issues related to the Budweiser cases 213

5.3.3.4.1. The Lisbon Register 213

5.3.3.4.2. National Courts 214

5.3.3.3. Relationship to Community Law 224

5.4.Comments and Conclusions 225

5.4.1.Comments 225

5.4.2.Conclusions 226

5.4.3.Outlook 227

Appendix. The Budweiser Saga 228

Index 245