• confusing similarity,
• risc of association
• risc of confusion
• registered mark
• confusion test
• similarity

Andreea Livădariu*

Abstract
In a simple and direct way, by the availability of the sign it is understood that the sign has not already been appropriated, occupied in the same geographical area and in the same economic sector, or that the sign does not affect another previous intellectual property right. Thus, a sign may be unavailable either because it was previously registered as a trademark, or because it is used as a trade name or unregistered trademark, or because it is protected by other intellectual property rights (copyright, design right, patent) or of the personality (right to the name and right to the image). In this paper we propose to examine the relevant jurisprudence of the General Court of the European Union and the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the confusion test applied in the analysis of the likelihood of confusion between two marks.

* Avocat partener în cadrul Societății Civile Profesionale de Avocați Roș și Asociații (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.). Asist univ. dr. Facultatea de Drept, Universitatea „Nicolae
Titulescu” din București.

• copyright,
• protection of computer programs,
• damages
• author's written permission
• unauthorized use

Nicoleta Boboc¹

Abstract
This article proposes an analysis of the patrimonial right of the author of a computer program to decide the way of exploitation of his work in the way of licensing. The article hosts personal contributions on general copyright transfer terminology and specific computer software copyright transfer terminology, with a focus on the perception of the courtroom practitioner. Peculiarities or difficulties of computer program licensing in relation to their support are also covered. The presentation of a case study on the lack of licensing of a computer program and the amputation of the author's exclusive rights constitutes the final part of this article.

¹ Nicoleta Boboc este avocat în cadrul Baroului București.

• remuneration,
• collective management bodies
• users
• penalties for delay
• methodology

Mihaela Tudorache¹

Abstract
The material aims to analyze the new legal obligations of collective management bodies in relation to users, introduced by Law no. 69/2022 for the amendment and changes of Law no. 8/1996 regarding copyright and related rights, published in the Official Gazette no. 321 of April 1, 2022. The objectives pursued by the author are:
– to identify the new legal obligations of collective management bodies in relation users;
– to analyze their impact on the process of collecting the remuneration owed to the rights holders;
– to identify the problems that may arise in the application of these legislative changes and to formulate the lege ferenda proposals.
According to the changes made by Law no. 69/20022, users (hotels, restaurants, commercial spaces, televisions, radios, etc.) have the obligation to pay the remuneration to the collective management bodies, only if, in advance, they have been notified by the collective management body about the amount the debt, the manner and term of payment and they were notified of the tax invoice.

¹ Mihaela Tudorache este Doctor în Drept și avocat în Baroul București; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

• computer programs
• Prior art
• significant improvement
• innovation
• abstract idea

Ramona Dumitrașcu¹

Abstract
The world is changing, the vision of what is new and inventive takes on extremely demanding values. Throughout history, from the industrial revolution to the present, from the Americas to Europe and Asia, the patentability of computer-aided inventions remains controversial. The major challenge remains to determine exactly the new and inventive part and to individualize it and separate it from simple automation. Furthermore, it is the criteria for judging newness and inventiveness that can make the difference. A historic decision, coming from the land of all patents/possibilities, changes the rule in computer software patenting. After a period of several decades in which notable steps have been taken to patent software under certain conditions, often with the conclusion that the very result of associating a computer program with mechanical equipment produces a new and inventive result, here is a new definition of the notion of inventiveness, surprising especially since it comes from a patent system recognized as very permissive, that of the USA. A historical analysis of patentability itself, in a current reinterpretation, concludes that simply automating a process, and thereby obtaining significant benefits that come from automation, does not provide an inventive concept. Prior practice, principally the Alice case, has become an objective benchmark for assessing inventive step. If a claim is directed to an abstract idea, then step two of the Alice framework requires a court to evaluate „what else is in the claims” by considering „the elements of each claim both individually” and „as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements „transform the nature of the claim” into a
patent-eligible application. The assessment is carried out in two essential stages: in the first stage, an examination of the abstract nature of the invention is required. The category of „abstract ideas” embodies „the longstanding rule that an idea by itself is not patentable”. In the next, more complex step, the „limitations of the claims are examined to determine whether they contain an `inventive concept` to `transform` the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”. A claim declaring an abstract idea must include „additional features” to ensure „that [the claim] is more than a drafting effort intended to monopolize the abstract idea”. These „additional features” must be more than a „conventional, routine, well-understood activity”. Neither „a mere instruction to apply an abstract idea to a computer” nor „a claim of improved speed or efficiency inherent in the application of the abstract idea to a computer” satisfies the requirement of an „inventive concept”. On the one hand, if a statement simply takes an abstract idea (say, something people have done for a long time) and does nothing more than use a generic computer to realize the abstract idea faster or more accurately
than it would could a human (the kind of „conventional” function any computer can perform), then the claim is ineligible. Some inventions that „automate tasks that humans are capable of” are patent-eligible if properly claimed. The specification indicates that prior to the patented invention, to complete the manufacturing process of a structure or device based on a CAD model, a human operator typically had to manually program the production machines associated with an assembly line.

¹ Ramona Dumitrașcu este Doctor în drept și avocat în cadrul Baroului București.