Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Law review

The Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 Business Guidance – Permitted communication and Remedies

The Act introduces a ‘safe harbour’ of ‘permitted communications’ which allow parties to communicate and take some steps towards resolving disputes without running the risk of triggering litigation. The provisions allow rights holders to attempt to identify the source of infringement by engaging with those further down the supply chain under a clear framework.

Comments closed

Public comment by National Music Publishers Association on collective rights management rules review

NMPA believes the consent decrees have become a significant impediment to a well-functioning market for licencing the performances of musical works, resulting in inefficient licencing and failing to provide fair market-based compensation for songwriters and music publishers.

Comments closed

The Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 Business Guidance – statutory test

This guidance gives a general overview of the changes, almost all of which are expected to come into effect on 1 October 2017. The Act aims to improve the balance between a rights holder’s ability to protect their IP right while providing adequate protection to persons affected by unjustified threats.

Comments closed

Draft third edition of USA copyright office compendium – short description of registration process

Under the current copyright law, a work of authorship is protected by copyright from the moment it is created, provided that the work is original and has been fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Although registration is not required for a work to be protected by copyright, it does provide several important benefits.

Comments closed

Draft evaluation and review of the IPR enforcement directive – Towards an internal market for IP enforcement

Due to the lack of a European right (except for trademarks and designs), obtaining interlocutory or permanent injunctions for the same infringement against infringers or intermediaries from several jurisdictions in the EU is often cumbersome for certain IPR, in particular copyright.

Comments closed

Draft evaluation and review of the IPR enforcement directive – Making IP enforcement fit for the digital age

Different stakeholders ask for a clarification of the scope of provisional and permanent injunctions, in particular with regard to intermediaries. A broad call is also made to generally strengthen the involvement of intermediaries in IPR enforcement.

Comments closed

Draft evaluation and review of the IPR enforcement directive – Strengthening fairness and balance in the IPR civil enforcement framework

Many stakeholders ask for more legal clarity on the calculation of damages and their fairer allocation arguing that the amount of damages ordered by the courts often does not cover the harm suffered by the right holder, does not sufficiently deter the infringer from carrying out the infringement and thus provides no incentive to seek legal redress in the first place. In practice this can provide a competitive advantage to the infringer.

Comments closed

Draft evaluation and review of the IPR enforcement directive – quo vadis?

In the Digital Single Market and the Single Market Strategies the Commission announced that it will review the EU intellectual property enforcement framework. In response to this announcement DG GROW evaluated the functioning of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and prepared a review of the Directive. Recent discussions between the relevant Cabinets and services involved revealed a fundamental disagreement on the general orientation of the initiative.

Comments closed

Australian copyright law review – alternative to fair use exception, specific exceptions and orphan works

An alternative exception, should fair use not be enacted, is also recommended: a ‘new fair dealing’ exception that consolidates the existing fair dealing exceptions and provides that fair dealings for certain new purposes do not infringe copyright.

Comments closed