CASES Flashcards
what was BOLAR exemption case and what was the outcome
bolar - allowed use manufacutring sale without pantent holders consent so long as they dont sell it until the patent expires FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING REGULATORY APPROVAL
RESULT : they followed article 30 of trips to determine whether this was an exemption to rights conferred.
bolar
1. Allows manufacture, use or sale of patented invention without owners consent for the specific purpose of regulatory testing and approval before it expires. IT IS LIMITED
- no commercial sales take place under bolar until after it expires meaning IT DOES NOT CONFLICT W NORMAL EXPLOITATION
- balance of patent holders interests and public access to medicine. - focuses on a activity whilst not infringing patent holder means that IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS.
what was the stockpiling case and what was the outcome
stockpiling case = allowed generic drug manufacturers to stockpile a patentented good before the patent expires but not sell until after.
Article 30 TRIPS
1. not limited as there is no limitations on the quantity of production
2. it takes a huge amount of products out of the market effecting current market
what was the Australia plain packaging case and what was the outcome
whether Australias plain packaging requirements for tobacco violated TRIPS.
Australias plain packaging requirements meant that the must look as least attractive as possible.
Article 15(1) TRIPS - argument is that plain packaging makes it hard for tobacco companies to distinguish their products. does restrict the use of the trademark but how it is displayed.
Article 19 TRIPS - argument that by Beverly restricting the use of trademarks on packaging, the essence of trademark registration which is differentiation and marketing. However, if justified by government restrictions (which it is) it is allowed.
Article 20 - prohibits unjustiably encumbering the use of trademarks by preventing primary function of brand differentiation. However, on public health grounds it is not unjustified.
what was the US music bar case and what was the outcome
Concerns the Us copyright act section 110(5)
Discussion whether the house style exemption and the business exemption violated TRIPS. USE ARTICLE 13 of TRIPS
Homestyle
1. it is limited as concerns small businesses
2. as it concerns small number, it does no conflict with normal exploitation
3. unreasonable loss of income is not as a result
Business
1. limited is not satisfied here as it concerns a large chunk of the retail establishments in US
2. as a result of this it would constitute a large source of royalties - conflicts with normal exploitation
3. due to this it conflicts wtht he legitimate interests of the right holders.
what was the Neuschwanstein case and what was the outcome
raised the question of whether the castle could qualify as trademarks which are not distinctive and purely descriptive are not qualified.
The court ruled that it was distinctive and that the name didnt represent the goods and qualities.
What was the Sieckmann case and what was the outcome
referred to attempting to register a smell via chemical formula
graphical representation was not satisfied here as it must be clear and precise
what is the Shield Mark/Joost Kist case and what was the outcome
attempted registration of sounds
Was decided due to satisfying graphical representation though music notes that it was possible to trademark them.
what was the Pacogi v. Lacoste case and what was the outcome
determining whether there was confusion around the origin of the goods.
Aurally - cant hear it
visually - no
conceptual - both refer to the concept of a crocodile
was found to cause similarity
what was the Chevy case and what was the outcome
concerns well known marks and the requirement that within the EU they must have a reputation, confirmed that it must be known by a significant part of public concerned.
what was the Intel/CPM case and what was the outcome
To prove trademark dilution, it’s necessary to show that consumers associate the new mark with the established one and that the new mark’s use could harm or unfairly gain from the established mark’s unique character or reputation.
what was the L’Oréal/Bellure case and what was the outcome
advert featuring comparison to loreal showing that their product was cheaper.
the found that it attempted to ‘ride on the coattails’ of the boreal trademark in order to benefit from its power of attraction
what was the Louis
Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog case and what was the outcome
parody pet toy imitating a LV bag.
ruled not likely to cause confusion and not likely to harm their brand.
how are WTO panel reports adopted
by dispute settlement body when interpretation and application of WTO agreements are disputed
