Nicoleta Rodica Dominte*    



In this article, we will highlight the fact that the distinctiveness of the European Union trademark is a condition of registration validity, which must be fulfilled in each Member State. The „geographic representativeness” of the distinctive character of a trademark is laid down in European case law by judgments of the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, the applicants or the proprietors of the registered trademarks are trying to circumvent this criterion by claiming that the distinctiveness of their mark is recognized by a substantial part of the general public without a specific appreciation in every Member State of the European Union.

* 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.




Tiberiu Medeanu**


Two natural persons and a company from England have registered three trademarks with the names „Boca părintele”, „Arsenie” and „Imaginea lui Arsenie Boca” at the European Union Intellectual Property Office. After one year, they assigned the right of exploitation in Romania to a company from Arad. The representative of this company filed criminal complaints and notified a large number of entities to use these trademarks only after the purchase of holograms. Following repeated complaints by the holders of the trademarks, the police seized icons and souvenirs from this category and initiated criminal investigations for the illegal use of a trademark. Following documentation in this regard, the police applied administrative fines for the abusive calling of the emergency number 112 and trademark beneficiaries filed criminal complaints against a number of policemen. The phenomenon extended in several areas of the country, therefore it was decided that the files be referred to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The criminal investigations may not disregard the legality of the registration of these trademarks, which should be analyzed in the light of internal legislation, read in conjunction with the regulations of the European Union.

** Profesor universitar dr. ‑ Universitatea de Vest din Timişoara, Facultatea de drept, E‑mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Ana Maria Marinescu*


This article deals with certain categories of contracts applicable to the organization of shows. The most important aspects regarding contracts such as: the organization of performances contract, the artistic performance contract, the sponsorship contract, the advertising contract, etc. are considered. In the complex algorithm of concerts, the applicable contracts have a special meaning, because they regulate: the relations between the organizer and artists, the service providers, the advertising and sponsorship of the shows, the sale of tickets, etc.

* 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.

Teodor Bodoaşcă**


Articles 60‑61 of Law no. 64/1991 on patents[1] establish certain particular procedure rules for the settlement of disputes relating to the capacity of inventor or patent holder or having as object other rights derived from the granting of a patent. Specifically, article 60 contains a rule of material competence in the case of three categories of disputes [paragraph (1)] and the enforceability against third parties of court decisions delivered for the settlement of such disputes [paragraph (2)]. In exchange, article 61 lays down special rules in connection with the application of provisional measures, in the case of violation of the economic rights conferred by the patent. Given that article 60 paragraph (1) refers to „disputes”[2], while article 61 of Law no. 64/1991 regulates „provisional measures”[3], we conclude that we are in the presence of civil procedure rules that apply with priority in relation to the general legislation, in accordance with the incontestable principle specialia generalibus derogant. In fact, the reference made in article 61 paragraph (3) to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code reinforces this conclusion.

By this study we aim in particular to make a logical and legal analysis of the said provisions of Law no. 65/1991 and of the current Civil Procedure Code and to substantiate several de lege ferenda proposals for the improvement of legislative solutions in this field.


** Prof. univ. dr. Universitatea „Dimitrie Cantemir” din Târgu Mureş, E‑mail:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

[1] Law no. 64/1991 was published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 212 of 21 October 1991, and then republished in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 541 of 8 August 2007 and no. 471 of 26 June 2014; subsequently, it was amended and supplemented. Brevitatis causa, to avoid repetition and facilitate expression, hereinafter in this study the references to the various texts of Law no. 64/1991 will be made, as a rule, without indicating the legislative instrument.
[2] See articles 21 et seq. of the Civil Procedure Code.
[3] See articles 978‑979 of the Civil Procedure Code.


Bujorel Florea*


The author starts from the finding that the works treating the issue of plagiarism fail, to a significant extent, to draw the attention of plagiarists and, in particular, to correct their behavior in terms of intellectual creation. Having analyzed the causes of this situation, the author has reached the conclusion that these fall within the scope of the specialties of the authors of books on plagiarism and of the content treated by the works on plagiarism. More precisely, the author of this articles believes that the treatment of this issue by jurists only and, therefore, only from the legal perspective, would not be the most appropriate solution and that this issue should be examined, with specific arguments, in particular by specialists of other intellectual spheres than the legal one. At the same time, the author of this article considers that a work on plagiarism should contain certain basic ideas in order to be able to raise the interest of the general public and specialists. Therefore, this article intends to propose a minimum number of ideas that should be found in the content of any work that treats the issue of plagiarism.


* Conf. univ. dr. la Facultatea de Ştiinţe Juridice, Politice şi Administrative Bucureşti a Universităţii „Spiru Haret”, avocat Baroul Bucureşti, e‑mail:floreabujorel@