期刊,International review of intellectual property and competition law: IIC 2025年56卷4期_国家学术搜索

Competition Law Enforcement at a Crossroad: Setting Enforcement Priorities in the Era of Digital Markets

Or BrookKatalin Cseres

687-691页

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature

Competition Law Enforcement at a Crossroad: Setting Enforcement Priorities in the Era of Digital Markets

Or BrookKatalin Cseres

687-691页

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature

Harmonized Standards in the Public Domain? Better Not …

Eleni Tzoulia

692-712页

查看更多>>摘要：Abstract This study critically examines the CJEU’s judgment in the case Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Right to Know CLG v European Commission on public access to harmonized standards. The study argues that these standards, as private documents held by the European Commission, are in principle subject to IP rights and should not be made unconditionally accessible for product safety or other sustainability-related purposes. The Court’s decision in this case reflects an overly permissive interpretation of the “overriding interest” concept under Art. 4(2) in fine of Regulation 1049/2001, deviating from established case law and raising competitive concerns. Determining whether an interest justifies the disclosure of an IP-protected EU institution document requires case-by-case assessments through a three-step test. This interest must be “public”, concrete, and “pressing”, without negating the underlying IP rights, while also adhering to the principle of proportionality.

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature

Harmonized Standards in the Public Domain? Better Not …

Eleni Tzoulia

692-712页

查看更多>>摘要：Abstract This study critically examines the CJEU’s judgment in the case Public.Resource.Org, Inc., Right to Know CLG v European Commission on public access to harmonized standards. The study argues that these standards, as private documents held by the European Commission, are in principle subject to IP rights and should not be made unconditionally accessible for product safety or other sustainability-related purposes. The Court’s decision in this case reflects an overly permissive interpretation of the “overriding interest” concept under Art. 4(2) in fine of Regulation 1049/2001, deviating from established case law and raising competitive concerns. Determining whether an interest justifies the disclosure of an IP-protected EU institution document requires case-by-case assessments through a three-step test. This interest must be “public”, concrete, and “pressing”, without negating the underlying IP rights, while also adhering to the principle of proportionality.

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature

The Search for an Optimal Framework for Licensing Standard-Essential Patents: Is Collective Licensing a Solution?

Fidelice Opany

713-736页

查看更多>>摘要：Abstract The emergence of new technological paradigms, particularly the Internet of Things, has given rise to doubts about whether the current framework for licensing standard-essential patents (SEPs) will be effective in the near future. Consequently, there is a renewed interest in exploring multilateral licensing schemes. One such proposal seeks to establish a public quasi-pool Agency to administer SEP licensing by issuing licences, and collecting and distributing royalties among SEP holders. This article analyses the suitability of the said Agency. It finds that the envisaged Agency could improve SEP licensing by, inter alia, alleviating patent holdout and patent holdup, and reducing transactions costs. Weighed against the pursued general interests, i.e. improving SEP licensing and promoting the dissemination of standardised technologies across the EU, we find that licensing SEPs via the envisioned Agency is unlikely to disproportionately interfere with the fundamental rights of patentees.

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature

The Search for an Optimal Framework for Licensing Standard-Essential Patents: Is Collective Licensing a Solution?

Fidelice Opany

713-736页

查看更多>>摘要：Abstract The emergence of new technological paradigms, particularly the Internet of Things, has given rise to doubts about whether the current framework for licensing standard-essential patents (SEPs) will be effective in the near future. Consequently, there is a renewed interest in exploring multilateral licensing schemes. One such proposal seeks to establish a public quasi-pool Agency to administer SEP licensing by issuing licences, and collecting and distributing royalties among SEP holders. This article analyses the suitability of the said Agency. It finds that the envisaged Agency could improve SEP licensing by, inter alia, alleviating patent holdout and patent holdup, and reducing transactions costs. Weighed against the pursued general interests, i.e. improving SEP licensing and promoting the dissemination of standardised technologies across the EU, we find that licensing SEPs via the envisioned Agency is unlikely to disproportionately interfere with the fundamental rights of patentees.

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature

Control and Compensation. A Comparative Analysis of Copyright Exceptions for Training Generative AI

Katharina de la Durantaye

737-770页

查看更多>>摘要：Abstract Lawmakers and administrative agencies around the globe are debating whether the use of copyrighted content for AI training does or should require the rights holder’s consent. This article examines legislation and policy debates in the U.S., Canada, the UK, the EU, Israel, China, Singapore, and Japan. Issues of control, compensation, transparency and legal certainty dominate the discussion. Countries are trying to recalibrate the balance of interests, either in favour of AI companies, or by supporting rights holders – for example, with copyright-related transparency obligations. EU copyright law offers a relatively favourable environment for AI companies. Ultimately, however, copyright law is not the decisive factor when AI companies choose the location of their training facilities.

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature

Control and Compensation. A Comparative Analysis of Copyright Exceptions for Training Generative AI

Katharina de la Durantaye

737-770页

查看更多>>摘要：Abstract Lawmakers and administrative agencies around the globe are debating whether the use of copyrighted content for AI training does or should require the rights holder’s consent. This article examines legislation and policy debates in the U.S., Canada, the UK, the EU, Israel, China, Singapore, and Japan. Issues of control, compensation, transparency and legal certainty dominate the discussion. Countries are trying to recalibrate the balance of interests, either in favour of AI companies, or by supporting rights holders – for example, with copyright-related transparency obligations. EU copyright law offers a relatively favourable environment for AI companies. Ultimately, however, copyright law is not the decisive factor when AI companies choose the location of their training facilities.

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature

Referential Use – A Limitation or Expansion of the Right to a Trademark

Krystyna Szczepanowska-Kozłowska

771-797页

查看更多>>摘要：Abstract Directive (EU) 2015/2436 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks significantly expanded the scope of permissible use of another’s trademark. It allows a third party to use someone else’s trademark to indicate or refer to the goods or services of the trademark owner, provided that such use is consistent with fair practices in industrial and commercial matters. The allowance for a third party to use another’s trademark to indicate or refer to the goods or services of the trademark holder introduces uncertainty regarding whether such use constitutes “use” of the trademark as interpreted by the CJEU jurisprudence. Consequently, questions arise about whether referential use is encompassed by the exclusivity granted by registration, and whether infringement should be assessed by different criteria, or if such use is outside the scope of exclusivity conferred by the trademark right. Furthermore, the decision on whether to prohibit such use could potentially broaden this exclusivity in specific instances. Depending on the resolution, the burden of proof incumbent upon the parties in any legal proceedings concerning the referential use of a trademark may differ.

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature

Referential Use – A Limitation or Expansion of the Right to a Trademark

Krystyna Szczepanowska-Kozłowska

771-797页

查看更多>>摘要：Abstract Directive (EU) 2015/2436 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks significantly expanded the scope of permissible use of another’s trademark. It allows a third party to use someone else’s trademark to indicate or refer to the goods or services of the trademark owner, provided that such use is consistent with fair practices in industrial and commercial matters. The allowance for a third party to use another’s trademark to indicate or refer to the goods or services of the trademark holder introduces uncertainty regarding whether such use constitutes “use” of the trademark as interpreted by the CJEU jurisprudence. Consequently, questions arise about whether referential use is encompassed by the exclusivity granted by registration, and whether infringement should be assessed by different criteria, or if such use is outside the scope of exclusivity conferred by the trademark right. Furthermore, the decision on whether to prohibit such use could potentially broaden this exclusivity in specific instances. Depending on the resolution, the burden of proof incumbent upon the parties in any legal proceedings concerning the referential use of a trademark may differ.

原文链接:

NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature