Often invoked together, the absolute grounds for refusal to register an European Union trade mark, provided by article 7 (1) b) and c) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark are the most common not only in the General Court`s case-law, but also in the Romanian courts` case-law. The purpose of this article is to offer a practical perspective on the criteria for examining the trade marks, when the lack of distinctiveness and the descriptiveness are invoked. Therefore, we will examine the recent case-law of the General Court regarding trademarks in relation to criteria such as the relevant public (as regard the products and services concerned and the territory where the verbal elements of the trade mark might be understood), the level of attention of the relevant public, the overall impression produced by the trade mark, the direct relationship or link with the goods or services concerned.
Marinescu Ana-Maria 
The public lending right is one of the patrimonial rights recognized in favor of the authors of written works, but which, from its regulation in Law no. 8/1996 on copyright and related rights in 2004 and so far, has not been effectively implemented in practice. Therefore, the authors of the written works were not remunerated for the use of their works made by the public lending from libraries. The article follows the legislative regulations in Romania regarding the public lending right, the proposals to amend and supplement Law no. 8/1996 and the controversies in the field.
The remuneration subject of negotiation of the methodologies which are established under the provisions of articles 164 and 165 of Law no. 8/1996 reflects the patrimonial rights of the copyright and related rights holders, i.e. in this case, of the performers and phonogram producers. Such rights are comparable to the private property rights protected by the provisions of article 44 of the Constitution of Romania, as contained also in the case‑law of the Constitutional Court, by the CCR Decision no. 571/2010 respectively. The possibility of requesting lump‑sum payments from the broadcasting and television organizations, in addition to or alternatively to the percentage ones, represents an expression of the freedom to negotiate and to exercise the private rights in their entirety.
* Director executiv CREDIDAM.
Mariana Liliana Savu*
According to Law no. 8/1996 („the Law”), the performers are required to exercise their rights through collective management for a number of patrimonial rights as provided by articles 1231 and 1232 of the Law. A number of non-profit associations of the various intellectual property rights holders were set up for their exercise. The collective management organizations have their activity strictly regulated by Law, the responsibilities and activities that we can carry out being circumscribed by the provisions of the special law, the Law no. 8/1996 on copyright and related rights and by our Statutes as endorsed by ORDA (the Romanian Copyright Office) and by the Courts. CREDIDAM’s activity, as a collective management organization acting as Agent, consists of collecting the remuneration due to performers by the economic agents that use their artistic performances, and distributing such remuneration due to performers depending on the actual use of the repertoire for which CREDIDAM has been mandated.