Jerome Gilson

Distinguished US lawyer Jerome Gilson has practised trade markand unfair competition law for more than 40 years. He is bestknown in the US and internationally as the original author ofTrademark Protection and Practice (LexisNexis/Matthew Bender),which was renamed Gilson on Trademarks in 2007. How did you first become interested in IP? Five years into general practice, I sent a Time article about     

Helsinki Court of Appeals prohibits the screening and distribution of the motion picture 'Man Exposed' (Riisuttu mies)

In Kirjoituksia Ruudun Takaa Oy v Lasihelmi Filmi Oy, Case S06/2018 the Helsinki Court of Appeals held that a producer hadinfringed a screenwriter's copyrights; the screening and distributionof the film Man Exposed (Riisuttu mies) was thus prohibitedunder threat of a EUR 100,000 fine.     

Profit Neutrality in Licensing: The Boundary Between Antitrust Law and Patent Law

We address the patent/antitrust conflict in licensing and developthree guiding principles for deciding acceptable terms of license.Profit neutrality holds that patent rewards should not dependon the rightholder’s ability to work the patent himself.Derived reward holds that the patentholder’s profits shouldbe earned, if at all, from the social value created by the invention.Minimalism holds that licenses should not be more restrictivethan necessary to achieve neutrality. We argue that these principlesare economically sound and rationalize some key decisions ofthe twentieth century such as General Electric and Line Material.     

The ongoing design duty in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd Casting the scope of copyright infringement even wider

The Australian Federal Court case of Universal Music AustraliaPty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (‘Sharman’)¹is the latest in a series of peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharingcases from various jurisdictions that has found the softwaredistributor/technology provider liable for copyright infringement.² Sharman followed a few months after the groundbreaking US SupremeCourt case of MGM Studios v Grokster Ltd ³ (‘Grokster’)that had acknowledged the Sony safe harbour for technology providersbut also introduced an inducement of infringement doctrine todeal with reprehensible conduct of infringers. While both cases involved similar technology and shared a numberof similarities on the facts and legal principles⁴, a closerexamination of Sharman shows that the net of copyright infringementin P2P filesharing is cast wider than that in Grokster. The effect of Sharman is an increased burden on the technologyprovider and the potentially tremendous consequences on innovationdue to the lack of a clear safe harbour as well as the wideningof the design obligation.     

Trade mark use in transit: EU-phony or cacophony?

Legal context The present article discusses the opinion of Advocate-GeneralJacobs in Case C-405/05 Class International BV v Unilever NVand others, according to which trade mark owners cannot opposethe entry into the European Union of grey market non-Communitygoods placed in external transit, on the grounds of Article5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, or any equivalent provision,as such entry does not constitute trade mark use. Key points We examine the consistency of this approach withprior case law of the European Court of Justice, namely in theCommission v France, Rioglass, The Polo/Lauren and Rolex casesand draw a parallelism with Council Regulation (EC) 1383/2003. Practical significance We conclude that trade mark owners shouldbe allowed to prohibit the placing in transit of goods whichwould infringe an intellectual property right under the lawof the transit country, unless the owner or consignor of thelitigious goods can undeniably prove that the goods are notdestined for the internal market. Stop press. At the end of the article the authors provide abrief analysis of the European Court of Justice's decision of18th October 2005 in this case.     

Navigating the rocky waters of trade mark law

Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 14th Edition ByDavid Kitchin QC, David Llewelyn, James Mellor, Richard Meade,Tom Moody-Stuart, David Keeling; with Consultant Editor: TheRt. Hon Sir Robin Jacob; Sweet & Maxwell, 2005 Price: £255,Hardback, ISBN: 0421860804, pp. 1,350   Until recently, trade mark practitioners in the United Kingdomhad to make do with the 13th edition of Kerly, the 1st editionof The Modern Law of Trade Marks, or the CIPA/ITMA Handbookwhen navigating the rocky waters of trade mark law and practice.The first two of these texts     

The Silicon Valley Media Law Blog

http://www.svmedialaw.com/ By Cathy Kirkman, 24 October 2004,California Archive (Thematic)   As the name suggests, the Silicon Valley Media Law Blog providesa commentary on media law developments in the US. In particular,it follows new legal decisions and legislation that might affectthose in the arena of music     

In Person

Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral is a lawyer in OHIM's Industrial PropertyLitigation Unit. He is the regular contributor, with David Rogers,of the JIPLP annual Community trade mark case law round up.JIPLP managed to catch up with him for long enough to ask afew questions... How did you first become interested in IP? When I was finishing my law studies in the early 90s, IP wasbeing revolutionized     

Guidelines on International Protection: The application of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees to victims of trafficking and persons at risk of being trafficked

UNHCR issues these Guidelines pursuant to its mandate, as containedin the 1950 Statute of the Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees in conjunction with Article 35 ofthe 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and ArticleII of its 1967 Protocol. These Guidelines complement the UNHCRHandbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining RefugeeStatus under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relatingto the Status of Refugees (1979, re-edited, Geneva, January1992). They should additionally be read in conjunction withUNHCR's Guidelines on International Protection on gender-relatedpersecution within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees(HCR/GIP/02/01) and on "membership of a particular social group"within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/orits 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (HCR/GIP/02/02),both of 7 May 2002. These Guidelines are intended to provide interpretative legalguidance for governments, legal practitioners, decision-makersand the judiciary, as well as for UNHCR staff carrying out refugeestatus determination in the field.     

Intellectual Property High Court of Japan denies registration of trade mark for market leading multi-million dollar beer product on non-distinctive grounds

The Intellectual Property High Court of Japan's (IPHCJ) recent Honnama trade mark decisionillustrates the difficulties of registering an inherently non-distinctivemark and the perils of relying on secondary meaning evidenceof use that is not identical with the mark in the trade markapplication.     

Does Dworkin Commit Dworkin's Fallacy?: A Reply to Justice in Robes

In an article entitled ‘Dworkin's Fallacy, Or What thePhilosophy of Language Can't Teach Us about the Law’,I argued that in Law's Empire Ronald Dworkin misderived hisinterpretive theory of law from an implicit interpretive theoryof meaning, thereby committing ‘Dworkin's fallacy’.In his recent book, Justice in Robes, Dworkin denies that hecommitted the fallacy. As evidence he points to the fact thathe considered three theories of law—‘conventionalism’,‘pragmatism’ and ‘law as integrity’—inLaw's Empire. Only the last of these is interpretive, but each,he argues, is compatible with his interpretive theory of meaning,which he describes as the view that ‘the doctrinal conceptof law is an interpretive concept’. In this Reply, I arguethat Dworkin's argument that he does not commit Dworkin's fallacyis itself an example of the fallacy and that Dworkin's fallacypervades Justice in Robes just as much as it did Law's Empire.     

Amanda Michaels

A barrister at Hogarth Chambers, Amanda Michaels has recentlybeen appointed by the Lord Chancellor as an Appointed Personunder the Trade Marks Act 1994. Amanda is also the author ofA Practical Guide to Trade Mark Law (Sweet & Maxwell). Hereshe answers some questions put to her by JIPLP     

Clear, Simple, and Precise Legislative Drafting: How Does a European Community Directive Fare?

In 2001, Martin Cutts redrafted Toy-Safety Directive 88/378/EEC¹in plain language. He criticized the language of that Directiveas being archaic legalese.² He added that Directives, as a whole,were poorly drafted.³ The European Commissions Legal Servicerejected his criticisms. It stated that it had published theEuropean Commission’s plain language guidelines⁴ afterDirective 88/378/EEC had been drafted. In a previous articlein the Statute Law Review,⁵ Butt and Castle’s⁶ plain languageguidelines were explicated using examples from Directive 2002/2/EC.⁷In this article, their guidelines are applied to the whole ofthat Directive to see if its language is ‘clear, simple,and precise’.⁸ The criticisms made in the previous article,⁹combined with those made in this article, suggest that the draftersof Directive 2002/2/EC¹⁰ have not yet mastered the skill ofwriting in ‘clear, simple, and precise’ language.     

The Islamic Veil and Freedom of Religion, the Rights to Education and Work: a Survey of Recent International and National Cases

The wearing of the female Islamic dress (generally referredto as the hijab), or any feature of this dress such as the headscarf(khimar), face veil (niqab) and the head-to-toe all envelopinggarment (jilbab) is a complex and multi-faceted issue that isoften raised in public debate in most European States in recentyears particularly in the education and employment areas. Thisarticle analyses the selected State practice and judicial decisionson the banning and similar restrictions to the wearing of theIslamic dress in State schools. Two issues are analysed: (i)whether the prohibition of female Muslim pupils or studentsfrom wearing the Islamic dress, or any feature of the Islamicdress, while at State schools amounts to an unjustifiable violationof the right to education and/or an unjustifiable violationof freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs and (ii) ifa State (or a non-State actor) prohibits a female Muslim teacherfrom wearing the Islamic dress while at a State school, doesthis amount to a violation of the teacher's right to work and/orthe teacher's right to manifest freedom of religion or belief?     

Duress, International Criminal Law and Literature

This paper uses parallels between Sophocles’ Theban Playsand the House of Lords decision in Dudley and Stephens, to questionthe decision in the Erdemovi case before the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia. One should distinguish betweencausal, moral and criminal responsibility. If a man who commitsa crime, not by the action of his free will, is to be foundguilty, we are essentially equating causal responsibility withcriminal guilt. This logic clearly does not correspond withthat of the rest of international criminal law. The storiesof Erdemovi, Oedipus, Dudley and Stephens are tragedies. Eachof the victims/perpetrators felt an overwhelming sense of remorse.Whether they should be considered morally guilty of murder isa matter of individual conscience. The International CriminalTribunal for the Former Yugoslavia majority erred in using anabsolute moral position in Erdemovi. The majority's moral condemnationof the killing of innocents was confused with the question ofwhether Erdemovi should have been criminally punished. The contentof the majority opinion is largely of an irreproachably moralisticnature, though shrouded and mystified by the discussion of precedent.More generally, the decision to try Erdemovi at the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was itself self-defeating.Erdemovi should never have stood trial at The Hague. The internationalcommunity should not aid in self-flagellation. While his actionscannot be approved of, they should not be punished internationally.He could have been helped, supported and reintegrated with fargreater benefit to all.         ‘Heroesare hard to find in an atmosphere of total terror.’¹     

Can We Protect How We Do What We Do? A Consideration of Business Method Patents in Australia and Europe

In the long history of monopolies, business method patents area novel and recent edition. In the Digital Age, where time ismoney and speed is everything, innovative methods for undertakingbusiness are as important to a business as the products or servicesit provides to its clients. In recent years several reviews,conducted in both Australia and internationally,⁴ have questionedthe appropriateness of patenting business methods. This paperreviews the availability of business method patents in Australiain light of the 2006 decision of the Full Court of the FederalCourt in Grant v Commissioner of Patents,⁵ which confirmed theneed in Australia for a ‘useful product’ to issuefrom the working of a method (business or otherwise) in orderfor the method to be patentable. This paper will review argumentsboth criticising and defending business method patents and considerwhether business methods warrant special treatment.     

Comment on Forni's "Using Stationarity Tests in Antitrust Market Definition"

Economic analyses of prospective mergers must typically be undertakenwith limited data. Often prices are the only available data,so it is tempting to use their time series alone. Certainly,simple and robust measures of the extent of the market basedon limited data would aid merger analysis immensely. However,a couple of examples show how Forni's suggested methodologycan lead one astray. Consider a differentiated products market with demand systemln D_i(p_i, p_j) = 1 – ln p_i + ln p_j, i, j = 1, 2, i j,with associated constant marginal costs c₁ = _t c, c₂     

Three IP blogs

Lessig Blog By Lawrence Lessig United States of America Archivedback to August 2002 http://www.lessig.org/blog/ Techno Llama ByAndres Guadamuz Scotland Archived back to October 2004 http://technollama.blogspot.com/ Patently-O:Patent Law Blog By Dennis Crouch United States of America Archivedback to April 2005 http://patentlaw.typepad.com/