George‑Mihai Irimescu*
Abstract
This paper aims at analyzing the possibilities of protection of unregistered trademarks in the European Union. The first chapter analyzes the relevant legal provisions, highlighting the European legislator's approach with respect to the protection of unregistered trademarks. Then, the main provisions regarding the opposability of national unregistered marks at European level and the conditions they have to meet are also analyzed, also reviewing the relevant case‑law. Last but not least, the article concludes with short considerations regarding the opposability of unregistered trademarks by Romanian holders, as well as with short conclusions regarding the opposability of unregistered trademarks at European level.
Andreea LIVĂDARIU**
Abstract
This paper is dedicated to the registration of unconventional trademarks, with focus on olfactory trademarks. After analyzing the Romanian trademark law, we analyzed the European regulations ‑ old and new ‑ and then the cases of some registered olfactory trademarks or, as the case may be, trademarks which have registration refused. The Romanian law can not be interpreted other than by the prohibition and practical impossibility of registering an olfactory or taste mark. The new European regulations redefine the mark and basically state in preamble that any trademark will have to respect the so‑called Sieckermann Criteria, ie: be clear, precise, autonomous, easily accessible, comprehensible, durable and objective, these criteria having the role of ensuring the legal certainty that registration of a trade mark must provide. The new European regulations appear to open the way for the registration of these atypical signs even though life has shown that the mark can be anything but a perceptible mark to the senses of sight and hearing, even in the absence of the broad legal framework for defining brand established by the new European normative acts.
Key Words: olfactory trademark, sign, graphic representation, trademark register, absolute ground for registration refusal.
** Doctorand şi asistent de cercetare în domeniul Dreptului proprietăţii intelectuale, în cadrul Universităţii „Nicolae Titulescu” din Bucureşti. Avocat colaborator în cadrul SCPA Roş şi Asociaţii.
Ana‑Maria Marinescu*
Abstract
Organization of shows involves many aspects of copyright and related rights: from the artistic performance contract to be concluded between the organizer and the artists, up to the non‑exclusive licenses authorizations to be concluded with the collective management organizations for the use of music. The use of music and other protected works in concerts, performances, festivals and other like is one of the most beautiful forms of expression of works and artists, and from the point of view of copyright it highlights one of the most complex patrimonial rights, namely the communication to the public, to a public which is present at the place of origin of the communication, of any communication of a work done directly, made in a place open to the public, by any public means of execution or direct presentation of the work. At the same time, the organization of shows has an important contribution to the creative industries both in terms of organizational budgets and the contributions they bring to local and state budgets. At present, the first three music festivals in Romania, Electric Castle, Neversea, or Untold, have a significant financial impact on local budgets through their capital infusion of over 20 million euros, and their total budgets that are around the same amount.
* Drd., Director General Societatea Autorilor şi Editorilor Români de Opere Ştiinţifice ‑ PERGAM, e‑mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., mobil: 0723.241.399.
Nicoleta Rodica Dominte*
Abstract
In this article, we present the importance of the correct translation of juridical notions referring to the European trademark, without using a rich synonymy. In the first part, we analyze the translation in Romanian language of art. 58, paragraph 1 (a) from Regulation (UE) 2017/1001 in comparison with the translation of art. 51, paragraph 1 (a) from Regulation (CE) 207/2009 from a comparative perspective. The main subjects of our study are the syntagms used in the translations of the above mentioned articles, in Romanian language: “bona fide use” and “genuine use”. The second part of the article, we illustrate that art. 45, paragraph 1 from Regulation nr. 2017/1001 stipulates that written observations from third parties will be submitted to the European Union Intellectual Property Office explaining why a trademark registration should not be rejected ex officio, in the translation in Romanian language. This is an error of translation because art. 45, paragraph 1, in English and French versions, refer to the fact that written observations from third parties will be submitted to the European Office of Intellectual Property explaining why a trademark should not be registered ex officio.
* Lector univ. dr., Facultatea de Drept, Universitatea „Al. I. Cuza” Iaşi, E‑mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Bucura Ionescu*
Anca‑Simona Deaconu**
Abstract
In the current context of the digital era, Notorious Knowledge ‑ a relatively new concept in the field of patents represent a part of the prior art, taken into account when analysing the inventive step. The concept has its legal basis in the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office in the field of Information and Communication Technology and especially in the field of Computer Implemented Inventions. The claims of these inventions are overly broad and contain a mixture of technical and non‑technical elements. Considered as a special category of the common general knowledge, the notoriety defines the knowledge so well known in the specific field of the inventions that it does not require an evidence or a written proof. From a procedural point of view, an additional search can be dispensed, enabling the acceleration of the examining procedure. This article presents some case law of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal relatig to the notorious knowlede as interpred by the Examination Division.
Partners
Conținutul acestui site este proprietatea ASDPI. Nu este permisă folosirea unor pasaje, articole sau orice parte din conținutul acestui site, fără acordul scris din partea ASDPI.