Suchergebnisse

AbstractIt is old news that the world is facing growing environmental problems related to industrial manufacturing and waste management. Finally, consumers are demanding change due to the increasing threat of climate change, and industries are being forced to adapt. Repairing, reselling, upcycling, and recycling existing products are key activities to promote sustainability and a circular economy, but current intellectual property (IP) rules may stand in the way when these activities are not conducted by, or with the consent of IP owners. This opinion argues that IP cannot be used to prevent a greener and more sustainable economy. Instead, it needs to incentivize circular activities in the interest of everyone. New approaches, including bolder interpretation of existing limitations and exceptions, and adoption of new exceptions, are essential to rethink IP to support a sustainable future.

In this Article, I offer some considerations on a possible compromising solution for the controversy between the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.) on the regulation of geographical indications of origin (GIs) as part of the negotiations in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Notably, I advocate that the EU and the U.S. consider adopting a solution similar to that adopted in the Canada and European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). In particular, I note that, even though CETA accepted several of the EU's requests to claw-back names that were not previously protected in Canada, it also includes important exceptions to balance the effect of this claw-back process with respect to several (highly contested) names at issue. Thus, the solution adopted in CETA represents a win–win solution for Canada and the EU, and a similar solution could resolve the GI controversy in the TTIP. My position in this Article is that, far from being just an "EU thing," an appropriate level of GI protection can promote local businesses, high(er) quality products, and more accurate consumer information about products everywhere, including in the U.S. Notably, a rigorous system of GI protection—-one that is based on products grown and manufactured locally and where geographical names are protected against misuse from parties operating outside the geographical areas—-would provide more accurate product information to U.S. consumers and could motivate U.S. producers to invest in and maintain high(er) quality local products. In turn, this could lead to more innovation in the U.S. food and agricultural sectors and higher quality products for U.S. consumers.

This opinion analyzes the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons. In this decision, the Court ruled that the principle of copyright exhaustion as provided in Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act equally applies to products "lawfully made" in the United States as well as to products that have been "lawfully made" in foreign countries. This "revolutionary" decision came after almost two decades of conflicting positions, including two previous Supreme Court decisions that had failed to clarify the issue, notably Quality King v. L'anza and Costco v. Omega. Yet, a closer look at the decision, particularly at the concurring and dissenting opinions in the case, seems to show that Supreme Court's position may have been a necessary step that the Court had to take in order to redress the ambiguities that continued to linger on the issue, especially in light of the additional uncertainty that the Court itself had injected into the interpretation of Section 109(a) with its decision in Quality King. Accordingly, more chapters may be awaiting to be written in this American saga on the territorial application of the principle of copyright exhaustion. As the concurring opinion in the case directly suggested, Congress could overrule the Supreme Court and clarify with a legislative amendment that the application of copyright exhaustion in the United States is not international but instead national exhaustion for all products. Calls for copyright reforms not surprisingly, started just days after the decision in Kirtsaeng. Furthermore, even if the Court's decision would survive future reforms, copyright owners continue to have alternative means, such as contractual clauses and technical measures, to largely reduce the positive effects of the decision for international trade.

This Article explores the issue of secondary liability in Singapore trademark law, with particular attention to intermediaries on the Internet, including Internet service providers (ISPs), e-commerce companies, search engines, website operators, online financial service providers and social media sites. Section 27(5) of the Singapore Trade Marks Act attributes liability to those who use a mark "knowing or having reasons to believe" that such use is not authorized by the trademark owner or licensee. More precisely, the provision excludes trademark liability for those "persons" who use a trademark in the course of trade, namely "for labelling or packaging goods" or as "a sign" on commercial documents or in advertising, provided that they "do[] not know nor ha[ve] reason to believe" that the owner of the mark or his licensee has not consented to such use. Although the provision was adopted before widespread use of the Internet, its wording excludes Internet intermediaries from liability just as it excludes intermediaries in the brick- and-mortar world.