Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

55 results

Page 1 of 3

  • 6 - Global Intellectual Property: Transition and Coherence Through Rules of Interpretation

  • from B - International Commitments and Constraints
  • Edited by Niklas Bruun, Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Marianne Levin, Ansgar Ohly
  • Book:
    Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law
    Published online:
    29 December 2020
    Print publication:
    07 January 2021, pp 85-95

  • Summary

    The transition of intellectual property into the World Trade Organization (WTO) trade regime, through the vehicle of the TRIPS Agreement,2 not only took intellectual property protection to a new level of protection and with greater reach globally, it also placed intellectual property in a forum where it would be subject to binding dispute resolution. As part of that process, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention)3 would be applied to the interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement provisions in disputes brought to the WTO.4 The Vienna Convention applies to the interpretation of all treaties (and other treaty-related matters) both within and outside the WTO dispute settlement context. Therefore, even prior to the conclusion of the TRIPS Agreement and the formation of the WTO in 1995, the Vienna Convention should have been the mechanism through which international treaties about intellectual property were interpreted by members of other international organisations, particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and also by national and regional courts and policymakers.

  • 4 - The Trademark Provisions in Post-TRIPS Mega-Regional Trade Agreements

  • from Part One - International Aspects of Trademark Protection
  • Edited by Irene Calboli, Jane C. Ginsburg
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law
    Published online:
    18 September 2020
    Print publication:
    24 September 2020, pp 65-83

  • Summary

    Those nations that seek more extensive protection for trademarks, beyond the levels of protection that are the required minimum standards of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)1 and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property,2 utilise free trade agreements (FTAs) to achieve these goals. The TRIPS Agreement anticipated that some members would provide more extensive protection, both because many already did provide a higher standard of protection, even at the time the TRIPS Agreement was signed, and because the United States openly stated that it intended to continue to negotiate for more extensive intellectual property standards in bilateral trade agreements post-TRIPS.

  • 17 - Trade Marks and Cultural Identity

  • from Part III - Across Disciplines
  • Edited by Graeme W. Austin, Victoria University of Wellington, Andrew F. Christie, Andrew T. Kenyon, Megan Richardson
  • Book:
    Across Intellectual Property
    Published online:
    27 March 2020
    Print publication:
    12 March 2020, pp 227-239

  • Summary

    In a 2017 decision, theUS Supreme Court held that constitutional commitments to free expression barred the Patent and Trademark Office from rejecting the registration of 'The Slants' for an Asian rock band, even though the term is understood to disparage Asians. Because we do not agree with the Court’s view that true speech can always correct false speech, we argue that the US can learn from the ways in which New Zealand trade mark jurisprudence protects cultural integrity while ensuring free speech. In so doing, we follow Sam Ricketson’s admonition that common law jurisdictions learn from one another.

Page 1 of 3