In periods of recession there is a great temptation for case law and the legislator to yield to formalism and contractual protectionism.
This temptation does not spare either competition law or European or national distribution laws which can establish rules which are contrary to the objectives of competition law.
It is therefore necessary to be vigilant to ensure that the law continues to allow the development of undertakings without subjecting them either to prohibitions which are unjustified in principle or to the constraints of formalistic rules which excessively hinder their activity.
Margin squeeze as a stand-alone category of abuse of dominant position appears to be redundant.
The imputation rule used in EU competition law in margin squeeze cases does include opportunity costs and is often a good proxy for the relevant costs of the dominant firm, although it does not only protect equally efficient competitors, but also reasonably efficient competitors.
Including opportunity costs in EU competition law assessment of exclusionary practices distils every abusive margin squeeze to a predatory pricing case, caught by the Court’s predatory pricing-test laid down in AKZO.
The Argentine Supreme Court has held that search engine liability arising from third parties’ infringing content must not be determined under a strict liability regime but should be decided on the principles of fault-based liability.
Many authors and right holders use Creative Commons licences (CC licences) in order to determine who is permitted to use their works and material protected by copyright, and how. In practice, CC licences with the non-commercial (“NC”) restriction are becoming increasingly important. Many photographers and authors who upload contents to online portals (e.g. “flickr”) or private internet sites allow third parties to use those contents, provided that certain CC licensing terms are observed. However, the German courts have not yet handed down many decisions on this issue.1 Apparently only the Regional Court (LG) Cologne2 and the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Cologne3 have addressed the question of CC licences permitting non-commercial use in detail.
Conclusive evidence brought Birss J to hold a UK company responsible for targeting the UK public by communicating infringing content on a website issued through its services in South Africa.
Introduction to the National IPR Center, and the U.S. government’s response to IP crime.
Overview of the IPR Center’s ongoing operations and targeted initiatives.
How to report allegations of intellectual property theft.
The Finnish government has proposed that new provisions on online storage services, amendments for reasons of equity and blocking injunctions be added to the Copyright Act.
Manufacturers of cars and motorcycles are no strangers to the importance of protecting their intellectual property rights against counterfeiters and the counterfeits they produce. To date, much European and national case law has been developed to assist vehicle manufacturers in their fight against counterfeiters.
This article examines the internet as a distribution platform for counterfeit ‘generic’ and genuine parts and 3D printing, which opens new perspectives for legitimate and shady businesses alike.
It further highlights some of the recent notable case law in this area and discusses some of the major problems with counterfeiting that are faced by vehicle manufacturers in their never-ending war against counterfeiters and counterfeits.
Following a trial before the High Court, England and Wales, Mr Justice Birss held that use by Victoria’s Secret of the sign PINK infringed trade marks owed by Thomas Pink.