EU Directive on unfair commercial practices--a UK perspective

Legal context. Lack of any catch-all law of unfair competitionin the UK – difficulty for brand owners in protectingtheir IP rights with regard to look-alike products. UK remediessuch as passing-off and trade mark infringement have provedtoo narrow. EU Directive will add to the remedies availableand may assist brand owners in their battle against look-a-likeproducts. Key points. Legal position on look-a-likes in the UK –objectives of the new Directive. Analysis of the two main waysto establish a commercial practice is unfair in the look-a-likecontext. The likely effect of the Directive in the UK on copycatsyndrome and looking to the future. Practical significance. Brand owners may use the new law alongwith the old to stamp out look-a-like activities. Practicalapplication of the test under the Directive. Remedies includecourt orders to stop and prevent unfair commercial practiceto optional possibility of court-imposed requirement to publisha corrective statement or fine – if latter is introducedinto the UK would be an additional deterrent factor of practicalvalue.     

追续权的理论与立法

追续权由法国所首创,旨在保护著作权人从作品后续交易中获得收益的权利。尽管《伯尔尼公约》和《欧盟指引》都对追续权作出规定、目前世界上已经有70多个国家承认追续权,但各国在追续权的用语、权力属性及立法合理性上仍存在分歧。著作权人是针对后续交易本身而获益,还是仅对增值获益,以及获益的计算方法;追续权究属人格权、财产权还是复合性权利;规定追续权是否会对市场的经济效果产生影响,这些方面均存在以两大法系为对立双方的重大分歧。尽管中国著作权法修改草案的三个建议稿中对追续权有所提及,但目前没有正式的追续权立法规定。在中国已经成为全球第二大艺术市场的前提下,对追续权的立法很可能提上日程,因此,对追续权的内容以及所涉及的争议进行梳理有重要意义。     

“Hand-to-mouth” citizenship: decision time for the UK Supreme Court on the substance of Zambrano rights,EU citizenship and equal treatment

UK benefit rules strip Zambrano residence rights, for UK national children and their third country national primary carers, of equal treatment entitlement. These rules are challenged in a case pending before the UK Supreme Court. This piece argues that Zambrano creates an EU-citizenship-based right to reside which necessarily entails equal treatment. UK national children in Zambrano families fall within the scope of EU law so are not prevented by the wholly internal rule from claiming equal treatment with EU national children in Teixeira families. And they are protected by equal treatment as a general principle of EU law, which requires equal treatment with other UK national children. The justifications for automatic unequal treatment put forward before, and accepted with alacrity by, the Court of Appeal, are poorly reasoned and ill-matched with the rules in question – most notably because Zambrano families may have strong connections with the UK. A CJEU reference is likely; a Zambrano right is the right to reside in the Union – it is the right to have EU rights. The substance of EU citizenship is at stake.     

The economic costs and consequences of mass communications data retention: is the data retention directive a proportionate measure?

This article seeks to determine the economic costs and consequences of implementing the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC), an extraordinary counter terrorism measure that mandates the a priori retention of communications data on every European citizen, by drawing on the insights of economic analysis. It also explores the monetary costs of the Directive on subscribers and communications service providers of Member States within the EU. Furthermore, it examines the implications of the Directive on the economic sector of the European Union, by focusing on the Directive’s impact on EU competitiveness and other EU policies such as the Lisbon Strategy. This analysis is motivated by the following questions: what are the monetary costs of creating and maintaining the proposed database for data retention? What are the effects of these measures on individuals? What obstacles arise for the global competitiveness of EU telecommunications and electronic communications service providers as a result of these measures? Are other policies in the European Union affected by this measure? If so, which ones?     

Sui generis database protection: a new start for the UK and Ireland?

LEGAL CONTEXT: The decisions of the ECJ in William Hill and Fixtures Marketingconstitute setbacks for rightholders seeking to protect thecontent of databases from unauthorised use by others. This developmentis keenly felt in Ireland and the UK because of the absenceof any overlapping protection in the form of unfair competitionrelief against parasitical activities by competitors. Ironically,post-Feist US copyright law, in the form of the Montgomery CountyRealtor case (1995), when contrasted with the recent Dutch ZAHdecision (2006), shows that US copyright law affords a greaterlevel of protection than is available in the EU under the DatabaseDirective. The ZAH decision also builds upon earlier Germancase law, virtually eliminating liability for linking to websitematerial made available to the public. KEY POINTS: In ZAH, the Dutch Court's interpretation of the Directive andcriteria to be met before content may be copyright protectedwas very restrictive, in stark contrast to the approach of mostCommon Law judges. The result is a very different one to thatintended by the drafters of the Directive, a point reinforcedby the European Commission's own 2005 assessment of the Directive. PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The Directive has been a disaster from every perspective. Lawmakersin the UK and Ireland may feel that the time is right to consideradopting national measures to produce a more balanced protectivemeasure in respect of commercial databases and an effectivemeans of stimulating investment by following unfair competitionprinciples, rather than the quasi-copyright model of the suigeneris right. ZAH demonstrates that until the European Commissiontackles the critical issue of a common originality standard(which is very unlikely) national differences will be inevitablewithin EU copyright law.     

Medical data breaches: Notification delayed is notification denied

The EU and the United States have implemented data breach notification rules that cover the health sectors. Nevertheless, data breach incidents involving medical data continue to rise, especially in the US and the UK. The HITECH Act, Pub. L. 111-5 Title XIII is the first federal health breach notification law in the US to be characterized by less government intrusions, while the revised EU Privacy Directive, 2009/136/EC calls for tougher privacy protection for data held by electronic communication providers. While the EU law sets a global de facto standard, the law remains toothless without strong enforcement mechanisms.     

Does private copying need an update in the UK?

Legal context: Most European legal systems have limited the ‘exclusive’reproduction right of authors in their works to enable usersto copy, for private purposes and without the authorizationof the authors, legally acquired protected material. In exchange,authors receive compensation for their loss of control of theircreations. The UK Copyright Act does not generally permit privatecopying, but it does exempt a few acts from the exclusive rightsawarded to authors through copyright. Key points: The article examines the limitations to the reproduction rightprovided by IP law in the UK, such as time-shifting, in thelight of relevant case law—GEMA (1964), Sony v UniversalStudios (1984)—the European Copyright Directive and aEuropean sector inquiry. Many countries have established levieson copying-friendly media where their proceeds are distributedto authors as compensation. This article argues for the needto reform the IP law in the UK, arguing that time-shifting andother reproduction acts authorized by the statute are privatecopying in disguise. The paper only considers legal privatecopying, which should not be mistaken with piracy or file-sharingin P2P networks. Practical significance: Copying another's works in the privacy of one's home has becomeincreasingly popular on account of the fast-developing paceof technology and its supporting platform: the internet. Althoughlevies have often been imposed on physical media (CDs, CDRs),new technologies such as MP3 and MP4 players and USB flash drivesare often exempted, despite their widespread use as tools forprivate copying. The private copying trend is bringing greaterbenefits to the users than to the creators of protected workswho understandably would like to obtain a share of the overallprofits.     

欧盟对分时度假及相关产品的法律规制

欧盟主要通过《分时度假指令》和《不正当商业做法指令》对分时度假产业进行法律规制,《分时度假指令》赋予消费者对购买分时度假产品合同的撤销权,《不正当商业做法指令》则禁止销售商在销售分时度假产品及相关产品时的不正当商业做法。由于《分时度假指令》的适用范围过于狭窄,欧盟已提出了对其的修改建议。总结欧盟规制分时度假产业的经验,我国应对分时度假产业进行法律规制并结合行业自治。     

EU Work–Family Policies—Challenging Parental Roles or Reinforcing Gendered Stereotypes?

Shared parenting is premised on both working parents having the right to care. However, the work–family conflict at the EU level has traditionally focused on working mothers. This was reinforced in Hofmann v Barmer Ersatzkasse [1986] 1 CMLR 242 and Commission v Italy [1984] 3 CMLR 169, and in the enactment and application of the Parental Leave Directive 96/34/EC. In both instances, fathers' role in childcare has been secondary, at best, to that of mothers. The question of shared parenting, and enabling all working parents to care, underpins proposals to amend the Pregnant Workers Directive 92/85/EEC and the revised Parental Leave Directive 2010/18/EU. This article examines the development of EU work–family policies with reference to Fineman's notion of family care, and the right to care for all working parents. It considers whether a more defined role for fathers is beginning to emerge or maternal care is further entrenched.     

'Innocent infringement' and the Community unregistered design right: the position in the UK and Ireland

Legal context and Key Points: This article systematically examines ‘innocent infringement’—highlightsits non-uniform nature and summarizes defence it offers as toliability and/or remedies across a range of national UK andIrish IP rights—particularly copyright and design. It considers ‘innocent infringement’ in contextof community unregistered design right (directly applicablein all EC member states under EC Reg 6/2002) and assesses ifit affords defence to liability or financial remedies—suggestsanswer depends on meaning and effect of Article 19 (2), Article89 (Reg 6/2002) and consideration of; the harmonizing effectof the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC); the ensuing respectiveUK and Irish IP Enforcement Regulations 2006; the UK's CommunityDesign Regulations.2005. It concludes: limited scope of Reg 6/2002 indicates ‘innocentinfringement’ affords neither defence to liability nora limited defence to damages, but contrasts the role of discretionaryremedy of account of profits, and nevertheless predicts UK andIrish Design Courts may seek to justify ‘innocent infringement’offers limited defence to damages. Practical significance: Given that the community unregistered design right, applicableEC wide, is useful and of interest in many commercial fields(eg fashion, furnishings, etc.), which require short-term protectionagainst copying by over enthusiastic competitors, understandingthe status and effect of ‘innocent infringement’on liability and financial remedies is important.     

Kicking butt? Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004

Legal context. This article looks at the provisions of The TobaccoAdvertising and Promotion (Brandsharing) Regulations 2004 implementingEU Directive 2003/33 to approximate the laws of EU Member Statesrelating to indirect advertising and sponsorship of tobaccoproducts through brandsharing. Key points. The Directive is the latest in a series of measuresto control direct and indirect tobacco advertising. Its provisionsand those of the implementing Regulations are widely drawn toprevent use of tobacco trade marks and other features indicatingthe origin of goods or services for non-tobacco products andvice versa if the effect of such use results in brandsharing.Purpose or intended effect is irrelevant—there is no requirementfor ‘mens rea’. There are defences however but absentthese, liability is assessed on the criminal rather than thecivil standard. The Directive also impacts on the procedureof the Patent Office and its assessment of whether trade markscan be accepted for registration. Practical significance. There are practical consequences tooas regards brand clearance and the extent to which identicaland similar marks for tobacco/non-tobacco goods need to be includedin clearance searches.     

The Transfer of Personal Data to Third Countries Under EU Directive 95/46/EC

The 1981 Council of Europe Convention 108 and EU Directive 95/46/ EC assert that data protection is privacy protection. Consequently, countries with data protection rules control trans-border data flows to protect the rights of their citizens. Under the Directive, but subject to some derogations, personal data may only be transferred to third countries with adequate protection. 'Adequacy' is to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances. Alternative safeguards can be provided by means such as contractual arrangements. The Data Protection Commissioners have tried to define 'adequacy' as the usual data protection principles plus an assurance of compliance. This can be delivered by self-regulation as well as formal law. The Directive has not made a radical break with the past. The usual principles are those found in Convention 108 and in the 1980 OECD Guidelines. Those instruments also dealt with the control of trans-border data flows because of fears of restrictions on the free flow of information. The flexibility of the effective current UK law, which permits flows whilst preventing those which would lead to a breach of data protection, would have prevented the acrimony of the current debate with third countries. National laws on transborder data flows long pre-date the Directive and data protection authorities can be expected to continue to promote pragmatic methods of protecting exported data such as the use of model contracts either as a basis for derogation from 'adequacy' or as part of a package to satisfy the adequacy test. Work is taking place to build bridges between those with formal law and others relying on self-regulation. In Ottawa last October OECD ministers reaffirmed the 1980 Guidelines and if practical privacy protection can be secured globally, transborder data-flow control is of much less concern.     

The GDPR: A game changer for electronic identification schemes? The case study of Gov.UK Verify

This article offers an interdisciplinary analysis of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the context of electronic identification schemes. Gov.UK Verify, the UK Government's electronic identification scheme, and its compatibility with some important aspects of EU data protection law are reviewed. An in-depth examination of Gov.UK Verify's architecture and the most significant constituent elements of both the Data Protection Directive and the imminent GDPR – notably the legitimising grounds for the processing of personal data and the doctrine of joint controllership – highlight several flaws inherent in the Gov.UK Verify's development and mode of operation. This article advances the argument that Gov.UK Verify is incompatible with some major substantive provisions of the EU Data Protection Framework. It also provides some general insight as to how to interpret the requirement of a legitimate legal basis and the doctrine of joint controllership. It ultimately suggests that the choice of the appropriate legal basis should depend upon a holistic approach to the relationship between the actors involved in the processing activities.     

The Legal Profession in the european Union – a Comparative Analysis of Four Member States

Cross-border legal practice has finally become reality in Europe mainly thanks to two factors: the legal framework offered to EC lawyers by the EC legislator and the effect of globalization on legal profession. This article focuses primarily on the success of EC/EU efforts in abolishing obstacles to the free movement of lawyers. Particular attention is drawn to the Establishment Directive, adopted in 1998, opening up new perspectives for lawyers. Secondly, it discusses how globalization has contributed to this development. In relation to the above, this article also explores the new concept of establishment stemming from the expansion of law firms in Europe. Thirdly and mainly, it considers the national positions and the difficulties in harmonizing the legal professions throughout Europe. The examples of four Member States: the UK, France, Germany and Italy demonstrate how much they differ from each other as far as the needs, expectations and rules governing the legal profession. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Is the consumer directive advantageous for the consumers?

According to the EU Consumer Protection Directive a purchaser has the right to ask for either repair or replacement of a defect product, whereas before in some member countries only one of these remedies were available. It seems to be taken for granted in the Directive and in Green Papers that such a reform is an advantage to the consumers. An analysis of a case at the Supreme Court of Norway demonstrates that the opposite might be true. It will be argued that both purchasers and vendors will be better off if the Directive is interpreted in accordance with economic theory. Harmonization of consumer protection across EU countries might be counterproductive. The analysis is of general interest in the sense that it demonstrates that mandatory changes in rights and obligations among contracting parties may have distributive effects different from what is commonly assumed.     

Unblocking the Digital Economy Act 2010; human rights issues in the UK

Through an example of a study utilizing the case-law research method, this paper critically assesses whether taking into account both the findings of Mr La Rue (the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights) as well as some Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) case-law, website blocking could be implemented in a way which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular, with Article 10. Drawing upon, inter alia, Ofcom site blocking review, sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA), section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), and some independent expert evidence, this paper's major argument is that in view of the CJEU SABAM v Scarlet and SABAM v Netlog, the UK government's decision to repeal the website blocking provisions of the DEA appears appropriate. The paper examines the findings of Fox v BT. It contrasts such findings with the CJEU's case-law and in light of the incompatibility of any website blocking measure with the cumulative three-part test set out in the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights discusses a number of implications. It concludes that given that the implementation of content blocking systems, such as Cleanfeed is likely to result in general monitoring being carried out; the UK government could possibly be in breach of EU law, namely, Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31.     

The Power of EU Collective Action: The Impact of EU Data Privacy Regulation on US Business Practice

Contemporary critiques of globalisation processes often focus on the potential levelling of regulatory standards and the export by the United States of neoliberal norms of deregulation and market facilitation. This paper, in contrast, examines the extra-jurisdictional impact of EU regulatory policy on the behaviour of foreign private parties, even in powerful states such as the United States. Shaffer finds that the threat of curtailing access to the EU's large market provides the EU with leverage. By acting collectively, EU Member States can magnify the impact of European policy on US business practice and enhance EU Member State clout in the negotiation of de jure and de facto foreign standards. The site of analysis is the current dispute between the United States and the European Union over the provision of 'adequate' data privacy protection in accordance with the EU Directive on data privacy. The paper explores the many ways in which the Directive affects US practice through changing the stakes of US players – including regulators, businesses, privacy advocates, lawyers and privacy service providers – and thereby shifting the playing field in the United States on which competing interest groups clash. In examining the interaction of EU law, US practice and international trade rules, the author finds that WTO law, rather than constraining the Directive's extra-jurisdictional impact, provides the EU with a shield against US retaliatory threats, thereby facilitating a trading up of data privacy standards. The paper concludes by examining the conditions under which cross-border exchange can lead to a leveraging up of social protections: the desire for firms to expand their markets, Member States' collective bargaining power buttressed by market clout, the nature of luxury goods, the externalities of foreign under-regulation legitimising EU intervention, and the constraints of supranational trade rules.     

The Cyprus and other EU court rulings on data retention: The Directive as a privacy bomb

This paper discusses the controversy surrounding the Data Retention Directive with an emphasis on the 2011 decision of the Cyprus Supreme Court which has annulled several district court orders that allowed the police access to telecommunications data relating to certain persons relevant to criminal investigations. The annulment has been on the ground that the legal provisions upon which the orders have been issued are unconstitutional. It will suggest that the decision does not entail a direct rejection of the EU Data Retention Directive and that in any event, Cyprus is not a Member State resisting the particular measure. This is because the legal provisions are deemed unconstitutional, though part of the law that has transposed the relevant Directive into national law are provisions that go beyond what the EU legislator intended to regulate through that Directive. Still, the particular Directive sits rather uneasily within the ‘human rights’ regime, in particular the one governing the individual right of privacy.     

The EU Directive on Electronic Signatures--A Worldwide Model or a Fruitless Attempt to Regulate the Future?

The Directive on a Community Framework for Electronic Signatures is an essential and important new legal standard for the regulation of electronic signatures. The following article describes this Directive and assesses whether this new legal framework will be an effective and successful worldwide model or whether it will be rather fruitless. While doing this, I will consider the implementation of the Directive into UK and German law. This will also reveal some possibilities of how the legal status of electronic signatures can or cannot and should or should not be regulated. Furthermore, I will refer to other acts, for example, the UCITA and UETA of the US and the Model Law on Electronic Commerce and Draft Uniform Rules on Electronic Signatures of the UNCITRAL. My result is that the EU Directive is to be approved in general. Only if one said that in an ever-changing world every law was premature or even that in an imperfect world every law was either insufficient or unnecessary, would it be consequent to decline regulation of electronic signatures completely. However, regarding the details, some provisions, for example, the possibility of introducing a voluntary accreditation scheme, are open to criticism.     

Regulating webcasting: An analysis of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the current broadcasting law in the UK

Webcasting is an emerging industry, which steadily gains significance as technology enables efficient delivery of video content via Internet. The regulation of webcasting is a topic worthy of debate: Regulating webcasting heavy-handedly may result in stifled innovation whereas not imposing any regulation carries the danger of an un-level playing field between webcasters and stringently regulated broadcasters. In the wake of the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive's adoption, the debate has inevitably come to the attention of national regulators of EU Member States, and will remain on OFCOM's agenda until the Directive's implementation into UK law is completed. This article provides an analysis of both the AVMS Directive and the current UK broadcasting law as regards to its applicability to Internet-based services in order to identify UK's current standing prior to implementation; discusses the role of alternatives to state regulation (self- and co-regulation) in the implementation process and finally addresses the DCMS Public Consultation on the Implementation of AVMS Directive revealing the government's plan for the implementation.