In order to protect copyright effectively, the Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights envisages that royalties for copyright and neighbouring rights may be collected by licensed collection management agencies. 'Collection management agencies' are defined as legal entities which may be authorised to collect royalties for copyright and neighbouring rights on behalf of the rights holders, who grant such right to the agency.
The recently approved Law on Industrial Property includes provisions which carefully delineate the proprietary rights granted to holders and users of IP rights. IP rights are increasingly crucial to all sectors of the economy. As such, the use and circulation of IP rights in the market are resulting in an unavoidable intersection with competition policy.
Algeria has made increasing efforts to impose strict IP controls on merchandise entering the domestic market. As brands have assumed ever-greater significance nationally and globally, a trademark registration regime has been developed for the benefit of rights owners and consumers alike.
The Court of Appeal has recently issued an unprecedented and unusual decision, confirming a first instance decision which ordered the Trademark Office to pay for damages caused to the owners of a mistakenly granted trademark.
In December 1999, the regulatory body in charge of the application of antitrust law issued a resolution of significance to trademark owners. The resolution establishes that those acts of economic concentration that imply the acquisition of control must be filed with the commission for approval. 'Economic concentration' may include the use of trademarks.
The Argentinian courts have looked at the situation whereby a domain-name is registered on the Internet by a party that is unconnected to the equivalent registered trade-name/trademark. As a precautionary measure, the name can be temporarily assigned to the allegedly 'legitmate' claimant until the dispute is settled.
Including: Patents; Industrial Models and Designs Certificates; Trademarks; Changes in Ownership
A number of injunctions have recently been granted in cases involving trademark piracy and unfair competiton. These decisions reflect the principles of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Agreement.
In the last few years three subject matters have been lurking on the fringes of patentability: methods of treatment, genes and software. The High Court recently considered methods of treatment (which are generally patentable) and isolated naturally occurring genes (which are not). Now the High Court may have the opportunity to consider the extent to which software is properly the subject of patent protection.
'Location' is the catchcry of the real estate industry, but a recent case shows that where a particular location is trademarked, other parties wishing to mention that location in their advertising must tread a fine line between legitimate descriptive use and infringing trademark use.
If your sweet tooth has you wandering the confectionery aisle in your local supermarket, you have probably noticed the range of imitation chocolate confectionery products. A recent decision suggests that in some cases there is little a well-known confectionery manufacturer can do to prevent this activity, no matter how famous the product or how closely the imitation product replicates non-distinctive elements of its packaging.
Have you ever picked up a new brand of your favourite product in the supermarket and noticed that its packaging looks suspiciously similar to that of your trusted old brand? A recent case between the producers of NutrientWater and Grassroots Enhanced Water acts as a reminder that it is difficult to stop a little shrewd copying of packaging unless it infringes registered rights or is likely to confuse customers.
The Designs Act 1906 (Cth) was replaced by the Designs Act 2003 (Cth), in part because of concerns about the weak protection for design registrations under the old act. However, since the new act came into force, decisions in old act infringement cases have taken a sudden turnaround in favour of registered design rights. After a century of weak protection, a number of cases have shown that old act design registrations have teeth.
In a welcome development of Austrian copyright law, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a combination of works by two artists does not constitute a joint work if it can be separated, even if the works involved were created for the sole purpose of being combined as a jointly planned contribution. Strong indicators of whether parts of a work are separable are the individual marketability and possible depreciation of the separated parts.
Parliament recently transposed parts of EU Directive 2015/2436 into national law. Most important is the introduction of certification marks, which did not previously exist under Austrian law. Other provisions of the bill concern the division of trademark applications, the shortening of the validity period of a registration and the reduction of the registration fee.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the producer of a photograph who marks his or her name in the photograph's metadata must be credited as the producer on copies of the photograph made by other persons and intended for distribution. This judgment is good news for producers of digital photographs who wish to safeguard their copyright. Persons reproducing and distributing digital photographs should routinely check the metadata to ensure that the producer's name is listed on any reproduction.
The Supreme Court recently confirmed its view that the issuance of contradicting decisions in, on the one hand, infringement proceedings and, on the other hand, opposition proceedings by different panels of the same appellate court is no reason to admit an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision stresses that, in principle, the appellate courts must consider the issue of likelihood of confusion, and that it will step in only if the appealing party can demonstrate gross misjudgment.
In light of a European Court of Justice ruling, the Supreme Court recently overturned its earlier interpretation of an author's exclusive distribution right in relation to his or her work of art. The court found that any kind of distribution – regardless of whether it is a transfer of ownership – falls under the author's exclusive distribution right. Further, it held that this distribution right is violated only if ownership in the work is actually transferred.