2001年国际法学研究的回顾与展望

一、概述 2001年是新世纪开始的第一年,我国国际法学研究继续保持良好势头,在基础研究、运用研究和交叉研究方面都有进步,反映出如下特点: (1)学术活动活跃.中国国际法学会4月16-18日在武汉大学举行了题为"展望21世纪国际法发展"研讨会,12月14日在北京举行了国际法教学研讨会.5月15日和8月14日,中国海洋法学会和中国国际法学会在北京分别联合举行了纪念我国批准<联合国海洋法公约>五周年座谈会和"钓鱼岛问题的研究现状及相关问题"学术座谈会.     

2001年国际经济法学研究的回顾与展望

新世纪的第一年,伴随着中国人世和经济全球化进程的加快,调整国际经济关系的各种法律规范,包括调整平等当事人之间关系、国家与外国国民之间关系、以及国家之间关系的法律规范不断增加,并且在逐步地协调和统一.今年我国学者对国际经法法研究的特点是以中国入世为中心,运用理论与实践相结合的方法,对国际经济法的热点问题进行了比较深入的研究.2001年4月和11月分别在武汉大学和复旦大学召开的国际法年会和国际经济法年会上所受到的200多篇论文中,绝大多数均涉及世界贸易组织法的研究.现将今年研究的热点问题综述如下.     

Community trade mark case law round-up 2006

Legal Context: This article looks at the important decisions of 2006 on theCommunity Trade Mark made by the Court of First Instance, theEuropean Court of Justice and the OHIM. These cases concernthe application of Council Regulation 40/94 on the CommunityTrade Mark, and also preliminary rulings from the European Courtof Justice on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/104(the Trade Mark Directive). Key Points: The volume of case law relating to Community trade marks, notto mention the variety of official languages in which the lawis interpreted, makes it almost impossible for even the conscientiouspractitioner to keep abreast with developments as they occur. This article provides an overview of the shifts in Communitytrade mark practice, in terms of not only the relatively accessiblesubstantive law but also the far more diffuse areas of procedurallaw and Office practice. In seeking to review and explain these shifts, the authors haveadopted a view of the case law that is functional rather thanphilosophical. In doing so, they lay bare the manner in whichthe institutions that administer and adjudicate Community trademark issues interrelate to one another. Practical Significance: Practitioners can quickly find the important decisions from2006 relating to particular articles of the Council Regulation40/94 on the Community Trade Mark. This article provides an overview of the most significant trademark cases decided in 2006 by the European Courts of Justiceand the OHIM Boards of Appeal. The article enables practitionersto access rapidly the key decisions of 2006. The cases discussed concern the application of Council Regulation40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘CTMR’), CommissionRegulation 2868/95 implementing the CTMR (‘CTMIR’),and Council Directive 89/104 (the ‘Trade Mark Directive’).     

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     

英国法院对中国《海商法》和《对外贸易法》的适用和评价

通过介绍两个与中国法律或中国法院判决有关的案例,对中国法在外国的适用以及外国法院尤其是英国法院如何看待中国法院的判决进行了介绍和评析。     

国际法与维护世界和平

本文从国际法基本原则及联合国安全体制着手,分析了国际法在促进国际社会和平与稳定方面的作用与成就,并探讨在当前国际形势下国际法存在的问题与危机,同时肯定了国际法的存在是不可或缺的,只要国际社会加强协作,它将继续在维护世界和平方面起到积极作用。     

Strong trade marks and the likelihood of confusion in European law

Legal context. One of the fundamental assumptions of trade marklaw is that provision should be made to prevent the registrationor commercial exploitation of trade marks that are likely tobe confused with earlier marks. The justification for this assumptionis however unclear. Is it to protect the expectation of itsowner that a trade mark will provide a comfort zone, an areawithin which other traders simply may not enter? Is it to encourageinvestment in the development of a relationship between thetrade mark owner and his prospective customers by offering interference-freemarketing opportunities? Is it to protect the efficiency ofthe market by facilitating the making of decisions by consumersas to which product or process they wish to purchase? Or isit to protect the vulnerable consumer against the personal consequencesof his inattention or inability to discern the differences betweenproducts or services? Key points. This article examines the development of Europeanlaw relating to the protection of strong trade marks, thosewhich are highly distinctive or well known, against similarmarks that may or may not be likely to cause consumer confusion.It demonstrates the manner in which the European Court of Justiceseeks to address the likelihood of confusion in terms whichappear to draw more from legal abstractions than from marketrealities. After giving a favourable review of the controversialdecision of that court in the PICARO/PICASSO case, the articlelists further issues which European trade mark litigation hasso far failed to address. Practical significance. Armed with an understanding of the principlesemployed by the European Court of Justice, trade mark proprietorsin Europe will obtain a better appreciation of the strategiesto be used in either challenging competitors' marks in courtor adopting commercial measures to combat them.