George Mihai Irimescu*
The British case law has developed a series of common law torts designed to supplement the lack of uniform rules on unfair competition. One of these is the tort of passing off, a legal institution that has been and is in constant evolution since its inception. In this article we will detail the relationship between passing off and registered trademarks, the British case law opting for the independence of the two trademark protection systems. We will also examine a few considerations regarding the relevance of the tort of passing off in the European context, namely the manner and conditions under which it may be successfully invoked by a UK rights holder against the registration of a European mark.
Sorin Eduard Pavel*
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the enforceability in Romania of final decisions fixing the amount of costs related to European trademarks, issued by European Union Intellectual Property Office.
According to art 110 (1) and (2) of EU Regulation 2017/1001, such decisions are titles enforceable in any Member State and enforcement proceedings are governed by applicable national civil law of the Member State in territory of which the enforcement is carried out. Apparently, the enforcement of these decisions in Member States should be a formal procedure devoid of issues. Things may be complex having in view that each Member State is compelled by the art 110 (2) of the EU Regulation 2017/1001, to designate a national authority responsible with the verification of the authenticity of respective decisions. Precisely, what happens when a Member State "forgot" to designate such national authority? Can enforcement proceedings regarding these decisions in respective Member State, be effective? Romania does not designate the national authority prescribed under art. 110 (2) of EU Regulation 2017/1001, fact that generates, at least from theoretical perspective, issues on the enforcement of this kind of decisions. In a nutshell, if no such national authority has been designated, the procedure on verification of authenticity of these decisions cannot be fulfilled, meaning that enforcement proceedings may be deemed as failing to comply with the national law.
The article aims to bring forward some practical issues surrounding jurisdiction in what concerns claims for provisional measures for the protection of intellectual property rights in Romania. These types of protection measures are essential, within the arsenal of procedural means needed by substantial law provisions, for the insuring of a proper defense of intellectual property rights. This is manifest in the importance such are given in international instruments (such as TRIPS) and EU instruments (such as the IP Enforcement Directive). As a component to the rights of access to a court, states must insure rules for jurisdiction that do not leave possible claimants with no reasonable and practical alternative. This should be further insured by Romanian civil procedural law. We proceed to analyze the law and practice to determine the general rule and the specifics of jurisdiction in Romania for intellectual property‑related claims. We then indicate the special rules applicable for provisional measures and their current interpretation in practice.
Abusive personally identifiable information (PII) processing and data breaches may result in significant physical, material, or non‑material damage to the victims. Consequently, the protection of PII must receive appropriate consideration from regulators and the organizations that process such information. Some of the most important aspects in this regard concern the consent to the processing of PII and the associated information security measures. This paper outlines the main aspects regarding consent, information security measures, and the implications for organizations.
The idea of this research derived from the fact that, in general, the specialized legal literature presents the “usefulness model” as a lower level invention and by no means as a protection title for the so‑called “technical invention”. This approach most probably results from the improper text of certain norms in the Convention regarding the protection of industrial property and in Law no. 350/2007 on the usefulness models. In our opinion, for the reasons to be presented in this research, we appreciate that both expressions, even though they are legally consecrated are erroneous and should be reformulated.
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.