{"title":"11. Absolute grounds for refusal of registration","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0011","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the absolute grounds for refusal of trade marks from registrability, which are found in s. 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA). The chapter lists objections to registrability based on the mark's own characteristics. To be refused registration, the mark should possess some innate quality which prevents registration. For instance, the mark applied for may be descriptive, generic, or it may lack distinctiveness. Marks that go against public policy or marks that are immoral will also be refused protection. The TMA also contains a number of negative objections in contrast to its predecessor, which required an applicant to show that the mark applied for was positively entitled to registration.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85483772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"34. Damage","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, P. Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0034","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines one element that a claimant must prove to sustain a passing off action: the requirement that they have suffered, or are likely to suffer, damage as a result of the defendant’s misrepresentation. It first considers four types of damage that have been recognized by the courts in connection with misrepresentation: loss of existing trade and profits; loss of potential trade and profits; damage to reputation; and dilution. It then discusses the notion of extended passing off and its three elements: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. It also looks at the principles of unfair competition and their relevance in the UK.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85620155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"21. Ownership","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, P. Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0021","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the issue of patent ownership and the related question of who is entitled to be granted the patent. It begins by considering aspects of British law dealing with ownership and who is properly entitled to the grant of a patent, particularly as stated in the Patents Act 1977, as well as the remedies available where the wrong person has applied for a patent or a patent has been granted to the wrong person. It then looks at the European Patent Office’s procedural role in determining disputes over entitlement before concluding with an analysis of ownership with respect to inventors, joint inventors, and employee inventions.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78467134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
{"title":"49. Civil and criminal remedies","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0049","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter deals with civil and criminal remedies that are available where intellectual property rights are violated. It first considers the civil relief available before a trial takes place, namely: interim injunctions and prevention of imports. It then outlines the civil remedies available at full trial: final injunction, delivery up or destruction, the awarding of damages, the account of profits, and publicity orders. Finally, it examines the various criminal remedies that intellectual property right holders may avail.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88656181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
{"title":"13. Rights associated with copyright","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0013","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter deals with regimes that are related to, but fall outside of, the remit of copyright law: performers’ rights; database right; public lending right; rights relating to technological protection measures and rights management information; the so-called droit de suite (artist’s resale royalty right); and proposals for a new press publishers right.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"336 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75326736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson
{"title":"46. Breach and Defences","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198769958.003.0046","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the defences available where a duty of confidence has been breached. It begins by considering the scope of the obligation that must be ascertained to determine whether the duty of confidence has been breached. It then discusses three factors for a breach of confidence to occur: derivation, the defendant’s state of mind, and whether the breach has caused damage. It also tackles secondary liability for breach of confidence before concluding with an examination of the Trade Secrets Directive.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"2013 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82708787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"1. Introduction","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, P. Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This introduction provides an overview of topics covered in this book which relate to all areas of intellectual property law, including the justifications that have been put forward for granting intellectual property rights. It also considers the key international and regional developments that have influenced intellectual property law in the UK, such as the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) negotiations, and European Union law. The chapter also discusses the ways in which the European Union is involved in intellectual property law, such as its involvement in negotiating and signing treaties. Finally, it looks at the European Economic Area and non-EU regional initiatives on intellectual property, as well as the implications of Brexit.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83378402","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"23. Exploitation","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, P. Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0023","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter looks at the many different ways in which patents may be exploited and some limits to exploitation. It first explains how patentees themselves can exploit the patent and considers two of the more common forms of voluntary uses: assignment and licence. It then describes situations in which compulsory licences are available and the compensation payable where the patent is used via a compulsory licence or by an employer or the Crown. Mortgages, testamentary dispositions, and registration of interests and transactions are also discussed, along with patent law in the UK and British and European competition law. The chapter concludes by assessing compulsory licences under section 48 of the Patents Act 1977, the licensing and cross-licensing of biotechnological inventions, and compulsory licences for public health.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"416 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76461132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"18. Novelty","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, P. Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0018","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter considers novelty as a prerequisite for an invention to be patentable under both the Patents Act 1977 and the European Patents Convention. More specifically, it tackles three questions to help decide whether an invention is novel: what the invention is; what information is disclosed by the prior art; and whether the invention is novel (part of the state of the art). It also looks at the so-called ‘right to work’ argument, whereby novelty helps to ensure that patents are not used to prevent people from doing what they had already done before the patent was granted, and its modification as a result of changes in the way in which novelty is determined. The chapter concludes by discussing three specific types of inventions and the problems that have arisen when evaluating their novelty: inventions relating to medical uses, non-medical uses, and so-called selection inventions.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78934905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"48. Litigation","authors":"L. Bently, B. Sherman, D. Gangjee, P. Johnson","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198769958.003.0048","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter introduces some of the more important aspects of intellectual property litigation. It begins by considering who can bring proceedings and who can be sued with respect to infringement before discussing how evidence is obtained and preserved, with particular reference to disclosure orders and search orders. In addition, the chapter looks at presumptions that alter the normal burden of proof; unjustified threats of infringement; special courts and tribunals that deal with the technical nature of intellectual property litigation; parallel proceedings and the problems that they raise; the use of experts in litigation; and jurisdictional issues and conflicts of law. Finally, it examines alternative dispute resolution as an approach to resolving disputes concerning intellectual property.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75476017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}