|"All things quite down-load-a-ble ..."|
"All things quite downloadable,
All content far and near,
Decrypted, ripped and shareable,
BitTorrent brought them here!
Each e-book we are reading,
Each HD film we see,
No DRM will stop us,
Set information free!
All things out of copyright,
(And also stuff that's not),
We'll never cease our sacred fight,
To duplicate the lot!"
Not actually a Cat, though she rhymes with one, is Pat: the IPKat's friend Pat Treacy, that is. Pat, who spearheads some pretty clever work at Bristows LLP at that delicate place where IP meets competition law, begs to remind readers that tomorrow is a Big Day in Luxembourg. She explains:
“The European Court of Justice will hear arguments in an appeal concerning the European Commission’s decision [noted by the IPKat here, all 920 paragraphs of it...] that found that AstraZeneca had breached competition rules by exercising certain regulatory rights and making certain representations to patent authorities. In particular, AstraZeneca was criticised for a ‘lack of transparency’ in its dealings with the authorities. AstraZeneca had failed to explain that certain submissions had been premised on a particular interpretation of an ambiguous supplementary protection certificate (SPC) regulation provision. This interpretation was later held to be incorrect.
The Commission’s decision to fine AstraZeneca remains highly controversial; the case raises issues of fundamental importance and may define the scope of competition law and its interaction with other areas of law. The General Court affirmed the Commission’s decision, although the fine imposed was reduced from €60m to €52.5m. AstraZeneca will argue that the Commission’s decision was incorrect and that the lower court’s judgment should be overturned. In particular, AstraZeneca argues that there should be no finding of abuse without a finding of deliberate fraud or deceit against the patent authorities. The outcome of the case is greatly anticipated, although a final judgment may not be delivered until early next year.”The IPKat hopes to provide at least a little news from the Duchy tomorrow.
Here's a good debating point. A reader asks whether the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR) might be suitable to be nominated as the applicable law to govern a contractual undertaking? She observes:
This Kat can't imagine that this is conclusion is wrong, but is curious to hear opinions to the contrary. Merpel wants to know if anyone has personal experience of any contract being stated to be governed by the Regulation rather than by the law of a Member State.
"I would not have thought so because, while Article 96 of the CTMR gives jurisdiction over infringement and validity of a trade mark, the CTMR and its Implementing Regulations do not directly govern contracts between parties in different jurisdictions. Also, Article 106 states that any “other disputes concerning Community trade marks” for which no court has jurisdiction may be heard before the courts of the Member State in which the Office has its seat- i.e. Spain".
The IPKat and Merpel exchange
views over the finer points of choice
of law in the European Union
here. Merpel says, "Gosh, I don't think that even I have seen the finalised text. Or, if I have, I might not have known that it was the finalised text. I do wish I were one of those lucky translators!"