Baker & McKenzie''s regular article tracking developments in EU law relating to IP, IT & telecommunications

This is the latest edition of Baker & McKenzie's column on developments in EU law relating to IP, IT and telecommunications. This article summarises recent developments that are considered important for practitioners, students and academics in a wide range of information technology, e-commerce, telecommunications and intellectual property areas. It cannot be exhaustive but intends to address the important points. This is a hard copy reference guide, but links to outside web sites are included where possible. No responsibility is assumed for the accuracy of information contained in these links.     

Who Owns Your Body? A Patient''s Perspective on Washington University v. Catalona

Washington University v. Catalona revolves around ownership of tissue samples provided by patients for research purposes, raising significant ethical and legal questions concerning patient rights, current human research practices, and the treatment of samples as capital resources by the research institution.     

Bubbles! The indispensability of the Comparative Advertising Directive to trade mark law

The use by H3G of bubbles in a television advertisement comparingmobile telephone prices complied with the Comparative AdvertisingDirective and thus did not infringe O2's trade mark registrationsfor bubbles. Supplementary data in the form of a clip of theadvertisement discussed in this article is available at www.jiplp.oxfordjournals.org.     

Dispute Settlement under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Article 119 and the Possible Role of the International Court of Justice

This paper examines the dispute settlement procedure establishedby Article 119 of the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt, with particular attention paid to whether that provisioncreates any relationship between the International CriminalCourt and the International Court of Justice. The paper firstdiscusses the jurisdictional reach of Article 119, detailingthe types of disputes addressed in its two subsections and themanner in which such disputes are to be handled. Secondly, itfocuses on the possibility of referral of disputes covered inArticle 119(2) to the International Court of Justice. Althoughthe provision expressly contemplates such a referral, it remainsunclear whether the provision adequately supports the jurisdictionof the International Court of Justice in accordance with theStatute of that Court. The paper goes on to suggest ways inwhich the International Criminal Court Assembly of States Partiescan take steps to improve the likelihood that such referralwould be deemed proper in order to enhance the possible andfinal settlement of disputes.