Protection of competitors, consumers and the general public--The new German Act against Unfair Competition

Legal context. In 2004 the German legislature passed the newGerman Act Against Unfair Competition, replacing the old Actof 1909. By ensuring effective protection against unfair competitionpractices the Act promotes honest and conscionable conduct inthe marketplace for the benefit of competitors, consumers, andother market participants. Key points. The main provision of the Act in section 3 prohibitsunfair commercial practices in the marketplace which are capableof distorting competition to the detriment of competitors, consumers,and other market participants. The general clause is complementedby a non-exhaustive list of categories of commercial practicesconsidered to be unfair under the more recent 1909 Act caselaw. Further provisions deal separately with the categoriesof misleading, comparative, and intrusive advertising, transposingthe relevant provisions of several European Directives intoGerman law. The Act also encompasses provisions on civil remediesand on litigation such as procedural regulations concerninginjunctive relief actions, competence and jurisdiction, andthe role of mediation boards. Practical significance. The prime focus of the new Act is tofurther liberalize German unfair competition law after the repealof the laws governing discounts and bonuses in 2001. Furthermajor accomplishments of the new Act include the explicit emphasisof a high level of consumer protection: for the first time theconsumer is explicitly mentioned together with competitors andthe general public as a subject of protection under unfair competitionlaw in Germany (tripartite protection). Furthermore, the Actprovides greater transparency than the old Act by introducinga catalogue of definitions and by codifying established caselaw with respect to certain categories of commercial practicesconsidered to be unfair.     

The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1998: is it still afloat?

Legal context. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (‘VHDPA’or ‘Act’) is a unique form of industrial designprotection under US law, part of the Digital Millennium CopyrightAct 1998. Congress provided this sui generis form of protectionin response to the Supreme Court's decision in Bonito Boatsv Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. This statute has been underutilizeddue to the difficulty in proving infringement, as unintendedconsequences were caused by the way ‘hull’ was originallydefined under the Act. A bill is pending in Congress that addresseshow a ‘hull’ is defined, eliminating any inclusionof ‘deck’ features, when passed, registrants shouldbe able to pursue infringers with greater success. Key points. The recreational boat manufacturing industry hasbeen plagued by low-cost boat makers who think nothing of takinga competitor's boat hull design, and using it as a ‘plug’to make a casting for their own unauthorized manufacturing use,a counterfeiting technique known in the trade as ‘splashing’a hull. In the eight years since enactment, the boating industryhas generally overlooked this form of intellectual propertyprotection due to the difficulty in proving infringement—thatis likely to change soon. Practical significance. The Act includes the right to excludeothers from making, having made, importing, offering for sale,or using in any trade, any boat hull embodying the protectedhull design. The Act provides compensatory recovery for damagesas well as injunctive relief. The newly revised Act has thepotential to provide a low-cost and effective form of intellectualproperty protection for recreational boat manufacturers whobuild hulls from moulded fibreglass or similar materials.     

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     

Editors' Note

At the beginning of Act IV of Shakespeare's King Lear, Edgarcongratulates himself on the fact that, reduced to beggary,there is nothing worse that can happen to him. The discoverya few minutes later that his father has been blinded, ruinedand cast out quickly disabuses him of such a foolish notionand, enlightened as to the true nature of this uncertain world,he says

Who is't can say ‘I am at the worst?’... The     

AHRA does not protect device distributor against copyright claims arising from broadcaster role

In a case of first impression, and one of the few cases interpretingthe statute at issue, a district court in New York City hasheld that the Audio Home Recording Act, 17 USC sections 1001et seq. (‘AHRA’), does not immunize a distributorof digital audio recording devices (DARDs) from copyright liabilitywhen the infringement claims are based on the distributor'sallegedly infringing activity in its simultaneous role as asatellite radio broadcaster. The case illustrates the ambiguousnature of digital transmissions, which can be treated as distributionsof musical works as well as digital performances.     

Similar Facts in Civil Cases

This essay evaluates the recent restatement in O’Brienv Chief Constable of South Wales Police of the law on similarfacts in civil proceedings. The two-stage approach propoundedin O’Brien contains a number of conceptual problems. Apparentsimplicity was achieved by avoiding fundamental issues underlyingthis area. Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, judges recognizedthat the common law similar facts rule had a role to play inboth civil and criminal trials; but they gave the rule a widerexclusionary scope in criminal than in civil cases. Adoptionof a moral perspective helps to explain this state of affairs.The rule, so it will be argued, protects the legitimacy of trialdeliberation by forbidding reliance on an assumption that disrespectsthe moral autonomy of the person whose conduct is being judged.This moral objection can arise in civil cases; but it arisesmore frequently and usually with greater force in criminal proceedings.Hence, while there is a need to reserve some judicial powerto disallow proof of similar incidents in the civil context,there is usually less reason for the exercise of that powerin civil cases than at criminal trials.     

Irish Matrimonial Property Division in Practice: a Case Study

This article analyses patterns of property division on maritalbreakdown in Ireland. At present, little information is availableon the operation of marital breakdown legislation (the FamilyLaw Act 1995 and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996). This isprimarily due to a strict in camera rule, which has preventedproper study of judicial decisions; lack of reporting and ofwritten judgments are also problems. Little information is availableon the nature or frequency of property orders or agreements.Consequently, practical evaluation and informed policy discussionhave been severely curtailed. In an attempt to fill this gap,this study analyses 89 divorce, separation and judicial separationcases, using data collected from 44 private and Legal Aid familylaw practitioners in multiple locations. The principal focusis on the types of orders or agreements made and the reasons(if any) given for those orders. Differences between privatepractice and Legal Aid cases are considered, as are regionalvariations in orders. Consent and contested outcomes are contrasted,as are divorce and judicial separation cases. The impact offactors such as gender, age, employment status, dependent childrenand marriage duration is analysed. The conclusion highlightskey issues and discrepancies which may give rise to concern.     

Influence of WTO decisions on international intellectual property

Legal context: The task of harmonization in the IP framework is currently atrisk. This conclusion is shown by the way EU Member States have recentlyenacted Directive 2001/29 on the harmonization of certain aspectsof copyright and related rights on the information society.Particularly, no Member State seems to have considered the interpretationof the three-step test of the Berne Convention given in 2000by the WTO panel, notwithstanding its importance. Moreover, three recent opinions of the French Cour de Cassation,the French Conseil Constitutionnel, and the German Federal Courtof Justice appear not to have endorsed the WTO's interpretationof the three-step test. This scenario confirms the impressionthat the international framework is devoid of any degree ofharmonization. Key points: Although the aims of certainty and predictability in the internationaltrading system are among its main tasks, the World Trade Organizationhas not yet tackled the plight of harmonization, preferringa political approach to smooth conflicts and disputes. Yet,the World Trade Organization has recently taken important stepsthat seem to herald a new attitude. In United States—Sections301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, the World Trade Organizationdismissed the traditional deference towards national legislations.In addition, at international and national levels, the AlleghenyLudlum and Softwood Lumber cases aligned their interpretationsto that of the World Trade Organization.     

The Tide in Favour of Equality: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and England and Wales

The tide in favour of legal equality for gay and lesbian individualsand couples continues to roll forward on both sides of the Atlantic.In Canada, the federal Parliament recently passed legislation(the Civil Marriage Act) (CMA) that extends the legal capacityto marry for civil purposes to same-sex couples throughout thecountry. This change in the law was driven not by the executiveand legislative branches of government but by the courts, interpretingand applying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (theCharter). On the other side of the Atlantic, in England andWales, the Westminster Parliament in 2004 passed legislation(the Civil Partnership Act) (CPA) that will enable same-sexcouples to obtain legal recognition of their relationships,and to access most of the legal rights and responsibilitiesoffered to married couples. However, unlike the Canadian legislation,civil marriages between same-sex couples will still not be legallyrecognized. This article considers whether the English courtswill also facilitate the legal recognition of same-sex civilmarriage, like their Canadian counterparts. The author concludesthat, in light of recent case law, there is an increasinglystrong argument that the opposite-sex marriage requirement inEngland and Wales violates Article 14 (the equality provision)of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which isincorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act, 1998. However,the author also concludes that there are a number of reasonsto be cautious that a positive result would flow, at this point,from a domestic court challenge to the opposite-sex marriagerequirement.     

Legal reflections on the Google Print Library Project

Legal context. IP lawyers need a better understanding of theimplications of new technology when advising their clients onlegal strategies for appropriating rents from the exploitationof intellectual property rights in the digital environment.Conversely, clients seeking to ascertain the permissible limitsfor accessing material on the Internet must be made aware ofthe critical distinction between contractual and copyright issues. Key points. Licensing of copyright will continue to be an efficientinstrument for resolving issues relating to compensation andboundaries for permissible use. A sound understanding of thedigital environment will ensure that potential problems associatedwith the scope of the restricted acts under the Copyright, Designsand Patents Act 1988 can be avoided. Lawyers should also beaware of the possible policy developments relating to the exploitationof digital content following the deliberations in the GowersReview. Lawyers should also re-examine the submissions in boththe Grokster and Perfect 10 cases, recognizing the circumstanceswhen copyright arguments raised in other jurisdictions may beimported into the United Kingdom. Practical significance. The absence of any UK legal precedentwith regard to the copyright issues arising from the disputebetween search engine providers and copyright owners providesno excuse for failing to consider how contractual instrumentsmay efficiently resolve issues relating to the appropriationof rents from intellectual property rights. The absence of a‘fair dealing’ exception does not inevitably meanthat, should a similar dispute as that in Google v The Author'sGuild arise in the United Kingdom, a copyright infringementwill have taken place.     

Protection of databases in India and sui generis protection

Legal context: Historically, databases are protected under copyright law. India(which has been a major beneficiary of electronic commerce)provides copyright protection to databases. The adequacy ofthis protection is analysed in this paper, which considers thedevelopments in digital technology that make most of the databasemanufacturers susceptible to free-rider competition. The paperaims to demonstrate that adoption of the Feist doctrine by theIndian courts leads to inequitable results. The solution advocatedis the adoption of a sui generis legislation which clearly prescribesthe property rights and limitations, to database creators inIndia. Key points: The present legal environment in India grants protection todatabases under the Copyright Act 1957. The judiciary has interpretedthis protection utilizing the ‘sweat of the brow’theory as applied in Feist Publications, Inc. v Rural TelephoneService Co. The article argues that this is a thin layer ofprotection and acts as a significant deterrent to a databaseauthor's economic interests. The solution which the articlesuggests is a statutory sui generis database right. Practical significance: With the increased digitization of data, India is increasinglyseen as the back office of the world. This outsourcing of workto India has brought in an economic boom particularly in InformationTechnology Enabled Services. The creation and exploitation ofdatabases is a natural component of such services. Without thegranting of an adequate standard of protection to the authorsof the databases, the economic boom will not be sustainable.     

Implementing Community obligations in the realms of intellectual property

Legal context. The various Acts of Parliament governing UK intellectualproperty law have been significantly amended to give effectto Community law. This article discusses the powers used bythe Secretary of State to implement Community obligations andthe Court of Appeal's recent clarification of the scope of thosepowers. Key points. This article describes the concerns expressed bysome commentators on the scope of the powers under the EuropeanCommunities Act 1972 and the key cases on that scope, includingOakley v Animal. The article uses the implementation of performers'moral rights as an example of where going beyond strict Communityobligations is necessary. Practical significance. The article will be useful to anyoneconsidering the validity of the changes made to domestic law,including amendments to primary legislation, to implement Directivesor other Community obligations.     

THE STOCHASTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PATENTS AND ANTITRUST

This article develops a novel theory by which to construe theinteraction between the patent and antitrust laws. The rulesof these respective disciplines are often portrayed as conflictingin means, yet harmonious in purpose. Although the intellectualproperty and antitrust laws have ostensibly divergent viewson the role of competition, their interaction is typically limitedto one of constraint. More specifically, antitrust rules havebeen (poorly) designed to limit the exclusivity inherent ina patent grant to the claimed invention alone. This article,however, articulates a new vision for the role of antitrust:it posits that competition rules operate as a stochastic regulatorof exclusionary patent rights. The Sherman Act constrains patentees'efforts to positively transform the probabilistic nature oftheir intellectual property rights through contract. Yet, becausethe empirical calculation of optimal innovation rates is anelusive, if not Sisyphean, task, the normative desirabilityof the foregoing fact is abstruse. Nevertheless, policymakers'inability to pinpoint precisely the ex post rewards requiredto trigger ideal levels of ex ante investment need not bindour hands to inaction. If contemporary rates of innovation aredeemed acceptable (even if not necessarily perfect), there maybe ways to trigger equivalent levels of ex ante investment withlower social cost. In this regard, it is clear that currentlyenacted competition rules significantly accentuate the uncertaintysurrounding patents' apotropaic effect. Concluding that contractssecuring otherwise stochastic rights may be highly desirable,the article calls for the incorporation of this concern intocontemporary rules, with modest substantive effect, and furtheradvocates a qualified antitrust immunity for "gold-plated" patentsif and when they are introduced.     

Dilution in the US, Europe, and beyond: international obligations and basic definitions

Legal context. The efficacy of trade mark dilution as a causeof action has been cast into doubt by the Supreme Court's actualdilution standard. However, Congress is currently consideringthe Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2005, removing the actualdilution standard and resolving other difficulties under thepresent Lanham Act 43(c). This should breathe new life intoblurring and tarnishment. It should also be recalled that theEU already has strong laws against dilution and unfair advantage. Key points. This article identifies international dilution obligationsin order to determine (in Part II) whether the US and EU arecompliant. It identifies problems under the present US dilutionlaw and the solutions offered by the Revision Act. It comparesthe US proposals with EU dilution protection to determiningwhat the two jurisdictions have to learn from each other. Thistheme will be continued in the next part of this article, whichfocuses specifically on blurring/detriment to distinctive character. Practical significance. The introduction of new US legislationwill make successful dilution claims easier and will increasethe frequency of actions under 43(c). It is vital that trademark lawyers are familiar with the changes. At the same time,it should be remembered that many of the same outcomes can beachieved under the current European legislative provisions.To the extent that the jurisdictions do not live up to theirinternational dilution obligations, there is scope for proprietorsto lobby for even stronger protection.     

Dishonestly and without due cause

Legal context: UK trade mark law was harmonised with the laws of other EU memberstates pursuant to the Trade Marks Directive (89/104/EEC) withthe coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Since then,the English courts have sought to absorb into English jurisprudencecontinental concepts of unfair competition, and a new code relatingto the use of another's trade mark in comparative advertising.Traditionally, the English approach has been more liberal andless protective of a trade mark owner's rights than that ofcontinental jurisdictions, but since 1994 the ECJ has been calledupon to provide frequent guidance on the interpretation of expressionssuch as the "essential function" of a trade mark and the "dutyto act fairly" in relation to the legitimate interests of thetrade mark proprietor. Key points: This article examines the way in which some recent decisionsof the ECJ have led to the English courts having greater regardto the property interests of the trade mark owner and less regardto the concepts of free market competition and consumer protection.In the recent High Court case of L'Oréal and others vBellure NV and others, Lewison J made findings of infringementunder s.10(1) and (3) Trade Marks Act 1994 where he found thatthere was "free riding" on the back of the reputation of certainof L'Oreal's trade marks without there being any evidence ofconfusion or association between the trade marks and the defendants'signs. Practical significance: For trade mark owners, this change in the approach of the Englishcourts opens up new opportunities to combat look-alike productsand comparative advertisements which take unfair advantage ofthe reputation of established marks.     

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.