Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets

When open access is transformed into a mandate, to be imposed to all types of knowledge or creation, such a blind application might trigger similar issues of commodification to an excessive copyright protection and exclusion. While supporting more openness in copyright and recognising its benefits, the conditions and practices of creation and how they will be impacted by an open access mandate, as well as the asymmetries of power between creators and users of works, need to be considered. Otherwise, the open access movement runs the risk, in some cases, to transform knowledge into marketable assets instead of creating an effective relational and collaborative approach of creation, production and transmission of knowledge and culture. This critique of an imposition of open access and its failure in some cases, to embrace collective conditions of creation, is illustrated by three examples: the evolution of open access publishing, the digitization of cultural artefacts returned by Western museums to their communities of origin, and the development of a new collaborative open license.

Mit Crowdsourcing und Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) haben sich innerhalb und außerhalb des Bildungsbereichs offene Schaffensprozesse entwickelt. Diese verlassen die dem Urheberrecht zugrunde liegende Konzeption einer klaren Zuordnung der geistigen Tätigkeit bei der Entstehung von Schutzgegenständen zugunsten einer offenen Partizipationskultur. Charakteristisch für offene Schaffensprozesse ist, dass ihre Teilnehmer die von ihnen erstellten Inhalte wechselseitig verändern. Zulässig ist dies aber nur dann, wenn eine urheberrechtliche Schrankenregelung eingreift oder die Teilnehmer sich hierfür untereinander die entsprechenden Nutzungsrechte einräumen. Die Nutzungsrechte den anderen Teilnehmern einräumen kann ein Urheber allerdings nur dann, wenn er über diese auch verfügen kann. Die Nutzungsrechtseinräumung kann daher insbesondere dann unwirksam sein, wenn die Schaffung der Inhalte im Rahmen eines Dienst- oder Arbeitsverhältnisses erfolgte oder der Urheber minderjährig ist. Es besteht daher eine Unsicherheit, ob die Akteure offener Schaffensprozesse die Inhalte anderer Teilnehmer verwenden dürfen. Ausgehend von der urheberrechtlichen Einordnung offener Schaffensprozesse analysiert der vorliegende Beitrag die Ursache dafür, dass offene Schaffensprozesse solchen Herausforderungen begegnen, und unterbreitet einen konkreten Regelungsvorschlag, wie sich diese bewältigen lassen. Neben dem nationalen Recht berücksichtigt er hierbei auch die Vorgaben des Unionsrechts und untersucht, welche Schlussfolgerungen sich hieraus für die Gestaltung des urheberrechtlichen Regelungsrahmens über offene Schaffensprozesse hinaus ergeben.

Ein urheberrechtlich schutzfähiges Werk setzt voraus, dass der Urheber einen Gestaltungsspielraum hat, in dem sich seine schöpferische Leistung entfalten kann und die Gestaltung nicht durch irgendwelche Zwänge vorgegeben ist. Für den Gestaltungsspielraum spielt die Aufgabenstellung eine maßgebliche Rolle. Bei einer fremdbestimmten Aufgabenstellung für die Gestaltung von Werken der angewandten Kunst kann die Aufgabe so eng beschrieben sein, dass der für die Ausführung bestehende Gestaltungsspielraum erheblich eingeschränkt oder auf null reduziert ist. Stellt sich dagegen der Gestaltende die Aufgabe selbst, indem er sich vornimmt, ein bestimmtes Werk zu schaffen, so ist bei der Bestimmung des Gestaltungsspielraums zu berücksichtigen, dass der Gestaltende die Möglichkeit hat, seine Aufgabenstellung abzuändern und damit den Gestaltungsspielraum zu erweitern, gegebenenfalls auch zu begründen.

Der Beitrag versucht, eine Methode zur Bestimmung des Schutzbereichs des Urheberrechts zu entwickeln. Ziel ist es, eine nicht nur theoretisch überzeugende, sondern auch praktisch leistungsfähige Methode vorzulegen, welche die heute bestehende Rechtsunsicherheit bei der Beurteilung von nicht-identischen Verletzungen zu verringern vermag. Da das Urheberrecht nicht nur die Form, sondern auch den Inhalt von Werken schützt, drängt es sich auf, auch den Eingriff in den Schutzbereich sowohl auf Ebene der konkreten Ausführungsform als auch auf Ebene des abstrakten Inhalts zu prüfen. Das für einen konkreten Fall gefundene Ergebnis ist dabei stets einer Gegenprobe zu unterziehen. Dabei ist zu prüfen, welche Gesamtheit potenzieller Verletzungsformen vom Schutzbereich umfasst wird, wenn dieser so weit gezogen wird, dass er (auch) die jeweils zu beurteilende Verletzungsform umfasst.

Die Urheberrechtstheorien des Monismus und Dualismus stammen aus dem 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Der Verfasser schlägt vor, diese Theorien zu aktualisieren und zu einem Trialismus zu erweitern, wonach das Urheberrecht aus (1) Immaterialgüterrechten am Werk, (2) Persönlichkeitsrechten und (3) Sachenrechten an den körperlichen Werkexemplaren besteht. Dies entspricht den heutigen Urheberrechtsgesetzen, die Regeln über alle diese drei Kategorien enthalten. So stellen etwa das Zutritts-, Ausstellungs- oder das Folgerecht Rechte der dritten Kategorie an körperlichen Werkexemplaren dar. Eine solche Theorie könnte auch den Blick schärfen, um klarer zwischen Online- und Offlinewelt und in diesem Kontext zwischen unkörperlichem Werk und physischen Werkexemplaren unterscheiden zu können.

As works are increasingly produced by machines using artificial intelligence (AI) systems, with a result often difficult to distinguish from that of a human creator, the question of what should be the appropriate response of the legal system and, in particular, of the copyright system has become central. If the creative input of the author has traditionally been the generator of copyright protection, AI forces to reassess what in the creative process is special in human creativity and where the creative input lies in AI-generated works. But it also poses more fundamental questions on what the copyright system should achieve and who/what it should protect. In particular, as many human authors will potentially face the competition of these AI machines on the market, new ways of remunerating human creators have to be imagined while making sure that the copyright system does not stand in the way of these important technological developments. This contribution analyses the copyright issues related to so-called “generative AI” systems and critically reviews the arguments currently advanced to change the copyright regime for AI-generated works. At the same time, it is argued that the development of AI systems should not be inhibited as these can have a many beneficial aspects (including for creators) if appropriately regulated. For this reason, this contribution suggests that the machine learning process using copyright-protected works to train the AI gives rise to a limitation-based remuneration right to the benefit of human creators.

The lack of works for educational and cultural literacy purposes in their own languages threatens the cultural survival of many vulnerable minority and indigenous groups worldwide. Translation could satisfy related access needs. A strict reading of international copyright law, however, does not facilitate the translation of works into other languages. Yet, it is often forgotten that, in accordance with the integration rule of treaty interpretation, the Berne Convention, and other relevant international intellectual property instruments, would have to be read in the light of internationally protected linguistic human rights in education and for cultural literacy. This mechanism could go some way towards assisting the easier translation of (parts of) works for the stated purposes into other languages. The argument made in this chapter, however, is that a harmonious reading of existing international copyright law with international human rights law cannot go as far as to sufficiently resolve the access needs of vulnerable groups speaking an endangered language, insofar as translated texts are concerned. In fact, it is contended that the existing regulation of translation under international copyright law is so inimical to the survival of vulnerable groups and their languages that it must be held to promote cultural or linguistic genocide. For that reason, the relevant copyright rules must be considered to conflict with ius cogens, that is, peremptory norms of international law, and to be void in their application to neglected languages. The chapter makes suggestions as to how countries could design national copyright law regulating translation rights and limitations and exceptions in a way that facilitates translation generally, and into neglected languages specifically. These suggestions are based on a reappraisal of the true character of translation, which must be seen to be highly transformative in nature and resulting in the creation of autonomous new works.

Articles (Arts.) 17 of Directive 98/71 and 96(2) of Regulation 6/2002 confirm that the extent and conditions under which protection is conferred under copyright to industrial products (i. e. works of applied art), including the level of originality, shall be determined by each Member State. It seems unlawful, if not elusive, to judicially set up an autonomous concept of ‘work’ based upon the (only partial) harmonisation of certain rights in Directive 2001/29 and, then, to extend this concept to any copyrightable subject matter even in presence of such derogations.

In 2019, in the Cofemel case, the CJEU ruled that the originality requirement of the author’s own intellectual creation was the same for all copyright works including works of applied art, also called three-dimensional (3D) functional works. This originality requirement had been stated in a general way in the Infopaq case but it was never completely clear it applied to all authorial works so that many countries which had a higher originality requirement (such as artistic or aesthetic value, merit or character) carried on applying it. With the ruling in Cofemel, which was subsequently restated and further substantiated by the CJEU in Brompton, requiring aesthetic character for 3D functional works is now against EU law. This chapter examines whether national courts are respecting the CJEU case law in relation to the originality requirement for these 3D functional works in most of the Member States which had a requirement of artistic merit, namely Portugal, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Finland and Spain. The conclusion is that, over two years on, many courts in those Member States are still not complying with Cofemel, therefore not only breaching EU law but contributing to the state on disharmony across the EU.

After exposing the main variants of digital fashion, this paper studies the forms of protection of digital fashion creations. It examines the protection as industrial design and by copyright and indicates the possibility of protection by trademark law or the law relating to unfair competition.

Gleichsam über Nacht ist um Non Fungible Token (NFTs), die sich auf im Netz verfügbare digitale Kunstwerke beziehen, ein regelrechter Hype entstanden. Dabei handelt es sich bei NFTs lediglich um Einträge in einer Blockchain, mit denen allenfalls geringe und nur nichtexklusive Rechte in Bezug auf das referenzierte Kunstwerk verbunden sind. Dennoch wird von „Krypto-Kunst“ gesprochen, als handle es sich um eine neue Art von Kunstwerken. Das wirft zum einen die Frage nach der rechtlichen Einordnung dieser neuen Objekte auf. Zum anderen ist zu fragen, weshalb derartige Objekte von den Erwerbern in psychologischer, sozialer und ökonomischer Hinsicht als etwas Wertvolles angesehen werden.

„Crypto Art“ ist ein Sammelbegriff für vielfältige technologie-beeinflusste neue Kunstformen, die auch neue Märkte entstehen lassen. Kreative digitale Werkformen eröffnen zusätzliche Gestaltungsräume für Kunstschaffende mit Bezug auf mögliche Verwertungskonzepte, d. h. ein „Mehr“ an offenen Strukturen lebt auf und Kunstschaffende verfügen über erweiterte Angebotsoptionen. Künstliche Intelligenz und digitale Datenpakete führen aber auch zu normativen Herausforderungen, die insbesondere mit Blick auf den Schutz von Kreativität angepasste urheberrechtliche Konzepte als erforderlich erscheinen lassen.

The aim of this chapter is to analyze the digitization and digital modifications and adaptations of works in the light of the moral right to respect for the integrity of the work. Digital interventions on works could generally be divided into three categories in accordance with the type and degree of intervention on the work. First of all, in interventions that constitute the transformation of the work into digital form (digitization). In this case, an essential issue in terms of respect for the integrity of the work is the loss of quality. Secondly, in digital transformations where there is not only a change to digital form, but where the conditions of access to the work also substantially change. At this level, a fundamental element in protecting the integrity of the work is the perception of the work by the public. Finally, a third category could include digital adaptations that lead to the creation of a derivative work. The chapter analyses these three types of interventions and transformations in order to demonstrate the particularities and specific challenges of each intervention as a possible way of violating the moral right to respect the integrity of the work.

Der BGH hat 2022 den Fall „Der Idiot“ entschieden. Es geht um die Frage, ob eine Bühnenmusik, die für eine Theaterinszenierung erschienen ist, von der GEMA abgerechnet wird („Kleines Recht“) oder vom Komponisten selbst („Großes Recht“). Dies entscheidet sich danach, ob die Bühnenmusik „integrierender Bestandteil“ des Spielgeschehens ist. Der Beitrag zeichnet die Rechtsprechung nach und nimmt den Einzelfall, um Überforderungen des Urheberrechts und insbesondere des hier betroffenen Aufführungsrechts (§ 19 Abs. 2 UrhG) aufzuzeigen. Das postdramatische Theater lässt sich nicht mehr mit urheberrechtlichen Kategorien aus den 1960er-Jahren erfassen. Die Postmoderne, die sich auch in anderen künstlerischen Ausdrucksformen niederschlägt, verlangt nach zeitgemäßen Begriffen und Anknüpfungspunkten, um die Entlohnung der Kreativen angemessen zu gewährleisten. Wo es Vertragslösungen auf Augenhöhe gibt, sind diese am besten dafür geeignet.

In its transposition of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market, Belgium has included a system of direct remuneration for authors and artists in the case of transmissions by digital platforms. This article examines its compatibility with the rules of Union law. It compares the Belgian rules with those already existing in Germany.

This article offers an analysis of the recently adopted remuneration rights that are designed to enable authors and performers to participate in the revenues that operators of video-on-demand services, such as Netflix, generate by streaming their works and performances to Swiss consumers. The article first describes and explains the key features of the new system and the narratives used to justify it during the legislative process. It then critically examines selected elements of the new system, including the various exceptions, the reciprocity requirement, the relationship between statutory and contractual remuneration, and the exemption for music. The article concludes with an overall assessment of the new remuneration system, both in terms of policy and in terms of the drafting of the new provisions.

In view and support of Prof. Hilty’s statement that the legal concept of exhaustion in IP law is exhausted, at least outside the world of physical goods, this contribution discusses the possible reconstruction of the exhaustion term. It is argued that “exhaustion” should not be considered as a legal concept that carries specific legal consequences on certain conditions. Instead the term may have two functions: either as a mere terminological requisite describing the traditional exhaustion rules (primarily related to tangible copies) or as (part of the) justification of the delineation of rights. Discussing the latter, a line is drawn from the so-called “general exhaustion doctrine” found in German (BGH) case law of the 1980s to the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning different types of exploitation of copyright works. Whereas the former rightly was criticized for not having sufficient basis as a legal principle, the arguments put forward by the BGH resemble the CJEU’s justification of various legal solutions in cases concerning re-licensing of computer programs, cross-border TV transmission, linking on the Internet and retransmissions. Thus, it is claimed that CJEU case law gives sufficient support for a “reconstruction” of the exhaustion term from a legal concept to designating (part of) the justification of delineation (or non-delineation) of IP rights.

Die Konzeption des Urheberrechtsgesetzes fußt auf dem Leitbild, dass der Schutz durch Ausschließlichkeitsrechte der Vermittlung von Werkgenussmöglichkeiten dient. Mit dieser Vorstellung bricht insbesondere eine neue Form der Werknutzung: Das Text and Data Mining. Obwohl Text and Data Mining von urheberrechtlichen Schutzrechten erfasst wird, hat der Endnutzer in der Regel nicht die Möglichkeit zum Werkgenuss. Die detaillierten Vorgaben aus der DSM-Richtlinie zur Regulierung von Text and Data Mining lösen diese Inkohärenz nicht auf. Da auch der Softwareschutz und weitere Nutzungsformen neben dem Text and Data Mining nicht mit dem traditionellen, am Werkgenuss orientierten Schutzkonzept des Urheberrechtsgesetzes vereinbar sind, taugt jenes Konzept nicht mehr als Leitbild.

In recent years, the legitimacy of the activity known as “text and data mining” (TDM) in copyright law has generated a fair bit of debate: to what extent should this activity, which is particularly crucial to the research community, be permitted by a copyright exception/limitation? The response to this question varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some prefer to enact a specific exception with defined boundaries demarcating what is permitted TDM from what is not (e.g. the EU) whilst others prefer to leave this question to be determined by a general fair use exception (e.g. the US). The advantage of one approach over the other is obvious: certainty versus flexibility. In the case of Singapore, its navigation between these two values resulted in a hybrid approach: its new Copyright Act 2021 deals with TDM via a specific exception and the general fair use exception. This chapter compares and contrasts between these different approaches and provides some background to the Singapore model.

Video-On-Demand Angebote werden seit kurzem in der Schweiz durch spezifische Gesetzesanpassungen regulatorisch und urheberrechtlich in die Pflicht genommen. Der Kreis der von der Regulierung Betroffenen ist auf den ersten Blick einheitlich: Der Anbieter des entsprechenden Angebots. Allerdings sind die Geschäftsmodelle in der Realität vielfältiger, als es die aktuelle Regulierung suggeriert. Insbesondere können Angebote durch Dritte aggregiert oder über Plattformdienste zugänglich gemacht werden. Das kann zu Abgrenzungsproblemen in der Praxis führen. Zusätzliche Verwirrung schaffen dabei Gesetz- und der Verordnungsgeber, indem sie eine uneinheitliche Terminologie verwenden.Als aussagekräftiges Kriterium zur Abgrenzung der Verantwortlichkeiten erweist sich ein Kriterium, das zwar nicht explizit in den Gesetzen festgehalten ist, sich aber in der Praxis als treffsicher erweist: Das Kriterium der redaktionellen Kontrolle.

Der deutsche und der europäische Gesetzgeber kodifizierten 2013 bzw. 2019 verwandte Schutzrechte zugunsten von Presseverlegern. 2021 und 2023 erließen Australien und Kanada Sondergesetze zum Schutz der Presse im Internet. In den USA und der Schweiz sind entsprechende Legislativvorhaben anhängig. Ultimatives Ziel all dieser Interventionen ist es, ein tragfähiges digitales Pressewesen zu gewährleisten. Presseverlegern soll zu Einnahmen verholfen werden, die von Betreibern von Suchmaschinen, News-Aggregatoren, Medienbeobachtungsdiensten und sozialen Netzwerken bezahlt werden sollen. Der Beitrag unterscheidet in rechtsvergleichender Betrachtung zunächst zwei Typen der Presseförderung im Internetzeitalter, nämlich einen klassisch-eigentumsmäßigen Ansatz – paradigmatisch realisiert im deutschen Recht – und einen systemisch-marktregulativen, von medienpolitischen Erwägungen geleiteten Ansatz – paradigmatisch verwirklicht im australischen und kanadischen Recht. Anschließend werden die sich spiegelbildlich verhaltenden Vor- und Nachteile dieser beiden Regulierungstypen benannt. Der folgende Abschnitt stellt hybride Lösungen im französischen, italienischen und schweizerischen Recht vor. Schlussbemerkungen führen zurück zur international-vergleichenden Perspektive und zur Frage, was ein wie auch immer gearteter Schutz der Presse in Anbetracht der tektonischen Verschiebungen, die die Online-Kommunikation mit sich bringt, zu bewirken vermag.

Since 1998, the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights has been discussing a possible Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations. The draft treaty would offer international protection to broadcasting organizations against the unauthorized retransmission of their broadcasts and related uses. Despite many years of discussion, stern opposition, countless redrafts and political setbacks, the controversial treaty project has never been abandoned. A Second Revised Draft Text, which was published in 2023, is now on the Committee’s agenda. This chapter critically discusses the history, rationales, and substantive content of the draft WIPO Broadcasting Treaty.

This contribution asks whether and to what extent right holders can use contracts to prevent users from engaging in uses of copyright protected works which are permitted by copyright’s limitations and exceptions. We first point out that where a statutory rule does not expressly state whether it is overridable or not, the question of overridability must be determined in a way that reflects both the private and individual interests and wishes of the parties and the public interest in maintaining the overall balance on which the legislation is based. Based on analyses of the EU’s copyright directives and case law from the Court of Justice of the EU, we identify two guiding principles for assessing whether a statutory rule in the grey zone, where the law is unclear should be considered overridable or not: (1) the more individualized the contractual terms are (in terms of conclusion and content) the greater the room for manoeuvre to deviate from the statutory point of departure; and (2) the more weighty the public interest considerations underlying the legal basis from which the agreement derogates, the less scope there is for derogating from that basis.

With the erosion of the traditional safe harbour for hosting and the introduction of licensing and filtering obligations in Art. 17 of the CDSM Directive, EU copyright law has substantially enhanced the risk of inroads into freedom of expression and information: users seeking to participate in the online debate may be confronted with filtering systems that block permissible parodies and pastiches even though no copyright infringement can be found. Instead of putting responsibility for detecting and remedying human rights deficits in the hands of the state, the EU legislature prefers to outsource this responsibility to private entities, in particular platforms for user-generated content. Moreover, the CDSM Directive conceals potential human rights violations by leaving countermeasures to users. A closer look at the human rights obligations imposed on platforms, and the reliance on user activism, reveals a worrying tendency to outsource the task of human rights protection and add a gloss of proportionality and diligence safeguards – without ensuring effective control by public authorities that are bound to foster and support freedom of expression and information. The risk of human rights encroachments is exacerbated by the fact that, instead of exposing and discussing the corrosive effect of human rights outsourcing, the CJEU has rubberstamped the regulatory approach in Art. 17 CDSMD. In its Poland decision, the Court has even qualified problematic features of the outsourcing and concealment strategy as valid safeguards against the erosion of freedom of expression and information. Using inspiring joint work with Reto Hilty as a basis, the analysis sheds light on these problematic developments in the area of platform liability and user-generated content.

When it comes to the interpretation of IP rights, recourse may be had to different human rights. Depending on their nature, the application of those human rights however may suggest conflicting results in the interpretation of the IP right. In order to avoid such conflicts, the principle of proportionality will have to be observed, in order to reconcile the different rights and principles at issue.In many respects, the decision of the CJEU in the Poland case offers an example of the correct use of the proportionality principle. However, there seems to be one exception. When it comes to the ban on a general monitoring obligation in Article 17(8) of the Directive, priority is given to the interpretation furthering the freedom of information, without proper consideration of the conflicting right of intellectual property. It is submitted that this can hardly be justified under the applicable principle of proportionality.

Spätestens seit der Entscheidung Cofemel steht fest, dass der vom EuGH entwickelte autonome Werkbegriff auch im Bereich der angewandten Kunst gilt. Dies erkennt auch der BGH an, der jedoch von einem Gleichlauf des Unionsrechts mit den schon bisher angewandten Beurteilungskriterien ausgeht. Dabei wird übersehen, dass es der EuGH in Cofemel nicht nur abgelehnt hat, den Urheberrechtsschutz an die ästhetische Wirkung von Design zu knüpfen, sondern dass er auch dem Erfordernis eines von sachkundigen Kreisen als „künstlerisch“ zu qualifizierenden Schöpfungsergebnisses eine Absage erteilt hat, indem er bereits die Befassung mit der entsprechenden, vom Ansatz des BGH lediglich graduell, nicht jedoch konzeptionell abweichenden Auffassung verweigert hat. Die Frage, wie bei dieser Sachlage die vom EuGH gleichfalls postulierte Begrenzung von Schutzrechtskumulationen auf „bestimmte Fälle“ zu bewerkstelligen ist, lässt sich kaum zufriedenstellend beantworten. Die angesichts dieser Schwierigkeiten zumindest längerfristig zu erwartende Tendenz einer verstärkten Kumulation von Urheber- und Designrechten dürfte zu praktischen Probleme führen, die auch durch die anstehende Novelle des europäischen Designschutzes nicht beseitigt werden.

This essay is about a dispute in which the central copyright issue is whether Lidl is infringing on the copyright for a Philips shaver. The problems must be considered as problems of copyright protection from continued product design development and, in connection with this, protection against slavish imitation. Philips initiated proceedings against Lidl, principally arguing, briefly put, that a Silvercrest shaver designed by Lidl infringes on the copyright for – or is a slavish imitation of – Philips’ design for its ST3D shaver. In conformity with the District Court, the Court of Appeal dismissed the copyright claims, and meted out the same treatment to the claims alleging slavish imitation. I provided commentary on the Court of Appeal’s decision. (Grosheide, Kanttekeningen naar aanleiding van en bij Hof Den Haag 6 april 2021, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2021:1371, IEF 20113 (Philips v Lidl). https://www.ie-forum.nl/artikelen/willem-grosheide-over-het-philips-lidl-arrest . Accessed 3 July 2023. See also Ringnalda, BIE 5:243–244; p. 247, Huydecoper, BIE 4:4, p. 4) In cassation the Advocate General issued his Opinion at the end of 2022. (Opinion of AG Van Peursem, AG Opinion no. 21/02827 dated 23 December 2022, ECLI:NL:PHR:2022:1239) Although the dispute will be adjudicated in accordance with Dutch law, there are other aspects of the dispute that may be of more general interest. (See, in this context, the following finding from the judgment: “4.16. The ruling above is based on Dutch copyright law. Partly in light of the fact that copyright law has been harmonised to a significant degree, the result is the same as it would be were the Court of Appeal to review the cross-border claims against Lidl Nederland in the context of the applicable national laws in the other countries to which those claims pertain (France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Portugal and Poland). Philips has also not asserted that those countries apply a lower threshold than the Netherlands in the context of establishing copyright protection.”) In the meantime, the DSC issued a judgment last year; see the addition in section 5

The conventional legal wisdom in the context of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) is that TCEs need formal IP protection (through sui generis rights) to ensure that the indigenous communities have authority and rights over their works. We show in this paper that this claim is built on an incomplete understanding of TCEs (which is perhaps one of the reasons why countries have hardly adopted WIPO’s framework). We advance three arguments, namely (1) IP protection discourages TCEs’ usage, deepening the vulnerabilities of these communities, in fact TCEs evolve through a culture of openness and free flow of ideas, which is antithetical to IP regimes; (2) the demand for IP protection is hardly universal because it stems from distinct colonial experiences the Americas and Australia had with their indigenous communities, a history not shared by most of the world; and (3) there is a need to differentiate 'know-how' and 'knowledge', and since TCEs belong to the former, they will elude any IP framework, by definition.

Die folgenden Zeilen wollen aufzeigen, warum die Beschäftigung mit Themen der Rechtspsychologie während meines langen Lebens für die Rechtswissenschaft nur eine untergeordnete Rolle spielen konnte. Gegenstand der Rechtspsychologie sind die psychischen Faktoren der Entstehung und Gestaltung des Rechts, kurz: die psychische Dimension des Rechts und nicht die Psychologie im Dienste der Rechtspflege (forensische Psychologie, Kriminalpsychologie). Als Grundlagenforschung im Recht hat Rechtspsychologie auf Dauer nur Erfolg, wenn sie organisatorisch als Hauptfach in den akademischen Betrieb eingegliedert und damit finanziell gesichert ist. Das zeigt die Begründung und das Ende des Europäischen Instituts für Rechtspsychologie zweier emeriti in Zürich.

This tribute focuses on a key contribution that Professor Reto Hilty has made to the intellectual property debate and scholarly community: the development of declarations, principles, and position statements through the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition. The essay briefly examines five collaborative documents on which the author can make first-hand observations: the Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step Test’ in Copyright Law, the Declaration on Patent Protection, the Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements, and two position statements relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This essay concludes by identifying four reasons why these collaborative documents have received wide attention and made an enduring impact.

The objective of this paper is to critically examine “Justifying Intellectual Property” by Robert P. Merges (Justifying intellectual property. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2011), which attempts to justify intellectual property rights based on moral deontology and/or rights theory. The book has already generated a lot of controversy.Some argue that the propriety of intellectual property rights should be demonstrated based on empirical research from the standpoint of utilitarianism. Others argue that disputes can only be resolved through appropriate mechanisms of social choice, such as democracy.This paper argues that the ultimate basis for intellectual property rights must depend on political legitimacy, i.e. democratic decision-making, and it is precisely for that reason that biases in the policy-making need to be addressed. Finally, the paper advocates that in order to mitigate this inherent problem of intellectual property rights, it is necessary to address the question of what intellectual “property” really is.

Conventional wisdom has it that intellectual property is essential to draw talent and effort into creative endeavour of various kinds. Does intellectual property suitably fulfil this noble mission? Is it indispensable in that role? Over the course of history, a variety of techniques have been deployed with a view to creating such a stimulus: first-mover advantage, secret, favouritism by the powerful, employment contracts, pensions, state procurement contracts, state subsidies, sponsorships, lotteries, prizes, to name just a few. (The argument that follows draws on the chapter on intellectual property in Rousseau et al. (Business law and economics for civil law systems, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2021), 66–150.) Recently, a new field of study has appeared: “IP without IP” (open content, open science, open source, creative commons), looking at a host of fields where creative effort appears to thrive in spite of the absence of IP.The article provides an overview of empirical research over the past half-century aimed at answering the question of how well these forms of stimuli work, historically and currently. It suggests that intellectual property is indispensable, yet that one must wonder whether copyright in particular has been stretched beyond its most appropriate range and at times may cause a slowdown in creativity.

As a doctoral student, my academic relationship with Reto Hilty was characterized by the shared interest in open models of governing intellectual property law and compulsory licensing with the notion of balance as the focal point. Later, his work investigated the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on intellectual property law (Lee et al., Artificial intelligence and intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021; Hilty et al., Intellectual property justification for artificial intelligence. In: Lee JA, Liu KC, Hilty RM (eds) Artificial intelligence and intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 50–72, 2021; Drexl et al., Technical aspects of artificial intelligence: an understanding from an intellectual property law perspective. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper 19-13. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3465577 , 2019; Drexl et al., Artificial intelligence and intellectual property law – position statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the current debate. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper 21-10. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3822924 , 2021)), whereas my post-doctoral research focused on socio-legal dimensions of AI. This contribution explores the role of patent protection in algorithmic surveillance. It evaluates whether ordre public exceptions from patentability should apply to such patents, due to their potential to enable human rights violations. It concludes that in most cases, it is undesirable to exclude such patents from patentability, as the patent system is ill-equipped to evaluate the impacts of the exploitation of such technologies. Furthermore, the disclosure of such patents has positive externalities from the societal perspective, by opening the black box of surveillance for public scrutiny.

Der Beitrag untersucht die patentrechtliche Schutzmöglichkeit von vorverbauten, aber deaktivierten Produktfeatures vor dem Hintergrund der Erschöpfungslehre. Ist der patentrechtlich geschützte Erfindungsgegenstand bereits (ganz oder teilweise) im Veräußerungsprodukt enthalten, stellt sich die Frage, ob die Ausschließlichkeitsrechte des Patentinhabers an jenem Erfindungsgegenstand – und damit auch an seinem Gebrauch bzw. seiner Infunktionssetzung – nicht bereits durch das Inverkehrbringen des Gesamtprodukts erschöpft sind. Der Beitrag untersucht dies für Erzeugnispatente an (i) teilverbauten und (ii) gänzlich verbauten, jedoch technisch deaktivierten Features. Abschießend geht er auf Besonderheiten der Erschöpfung bei Verfahrenspatenten ein. Das Thema ist von besonderer praktischer Bedeutung, weil neue Geschäftsmodelle auf sogenannte Features on Demand setzen. Ihr Vermarktungserfolg hängt wesentlich von der technischen und rechtlichen Sicherung ab.

The essay analyzes the rule of the Directive on the undisclosed know-how and business information and the relative National laws on the limitation term applicable to the claims and actions provided for by the same Directive. The limitation term, according to the Directive, “shall not exceed 6 years”. The author points out the existence of a strong interest in setting a second and different term to the trade secret rights, i.e., a duration term, a real time limit, underlining also that today the commercial secrets generally lose their economic value in a time span of few years. Even in the absence of such a rule, the essay suggests that any legal protection must be denied to the trade secrets that have lost their economic value.

Während im Zuge der COVID-Pandemie intensiv über eine Aussetzung des Schutzes pandemierelevanter Erfindungen und über patentrechtliche Zwangslizenzen diskutiert wurde, wurde nicht immer berücksichtigt, dass die Herstellung komplexer Pharmazeutika oft erhebliches Know-how voraussetzt, das als Geschäftsgeheimnis geschützt sein kann. Der Beitrag untersucht daher, ob Zwangslizenzen an Geschäftsgeheimnissen möglich und sinnvoll sind. Er identifiziert juristische, ökonomische und praktische Probleme und gelangt zu einem skeptischen Fazit. Das rechtspolitische Ziel kann nicht darin bestehen, einen Rechtsrahmen für Zwangslizenzen an Geschäftsgeheimnissen zu schaffen. Vielmehr gilt es, wirksame Anreize für einen freiwilligen Technologietransfer zu setzen.

Der Beitrag untersucht den Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission vom 27. April 2023 für eine Verordnung über Zwangslizenzen zur Krisenbewältigung. Für die Bewältigung von Krisensituationen wie der Covid 19-Pandemie würde die Verordnung erstmals die Möglichkeit unionsweiter Zwangslizenzen im Patentrecht eröffnen. Der Vorschlag enthält zudem weitere, innovative Elemente wie die Erstreckung von Zwangslizenzen auf mehrere Schutzrechte einschließlich Patentanmeldungen und eine Kooperationspflicht der Parteien. Das für die Herstellung krisenrelevanter Produkte erforderliche Know-how wird nicht erfasst. Jenseits von Krisensituationen bleibt es in der EU bei der Möglichkeit nationaler Zwangslizenzen und der damit einhergehenden unübersichtlichen Rechtslage. Der Beitrag kritisiert, dass die Chance einer breiter angelegten Reform, die auch Zwangslizenzen im (sonstigen) öffentlichen Interesse und zur Auflösung von Blockaden bei abhängigen Patenten adressiert, nicht ergriffen wurde.

Despite an unprecedented level of global economic integration, which has also led to a record volume of intellectual property flowing across borders, the world finds itself amid serious global conflicts once again. With an increasing emphasis on national security, states are adopting interventionist approaches to achieve non-economic objectives such as maintaining technological superiority. The growing tendency to intervene in the diffusion of technology for security reasons poses challenges to innovation. The article discusses various instruments states use to intervene in innovation processes, including investment control, patent secrecy orders, and export controls. Such strategic behaviour by a state, however justified it may appear to be, is alien to the market-based innovation system. The relationship is further complicated by the unique security needs of each state, the immense complexity of the innovation ecosystem, and the information asymmetry between the market participants and the state. The article provides policy suggestions to help mitigate the issue, such as promoting cooperation and transparency, and enhancing judicial effectiveness.„Es ist der Handelsgeist, der mit dem Kriege nicht zusammen bestehen kann.“ (“It is the spirit of commerce that cannot coexist with war.”)

This contribution reflects on two technologies enabling cumulative innovation – new genomic techniques (NGTs) and machine learning (ML). These broadly applicable enabling technologies illustrate a persistent dilemma in patent policy and the economics of knowledge: How to reconcile the expected incentive effect of patents on knowledge creation with their apparent restrictive effect on knowledge dissemination? After reviewing the theoretical premises and insights from empirical literature, the paper offers preliminary observations on why NGTs and ML, while sharing many similarities, markedly differ in terms of diffusion through their downstream applications. In conclusion, it suggests that compulsory licensing of patents for enabling technologies, such as research tools, should be considered as an instrument for promoting cumulative research and innovation.

The TRIPS Agreement established minimum standards of protection for intellectual property rights, which restricted the room for manoeuvre of states to set policies according to their national needs. There is a growing need to address major global challenges, where intellectual property, in particular patent law, plays a prominent role. However, TRIPS has not been able to resolve the interference of patent rights in addressing major global issues, a clear example of this is the handling of the pandemic where a limited waiver was belatedly agreed. This chapter discusses the room for manoeuvre available to implement patent law to deal with these global needs.

Climate change poses a significant challenge to humanity. Spurring innovation in Europe is critical to the revitalisation of the European economy to create long-term sustainable prosperity. Providing incentives for innovation is one of the key priorities of the EU climate policy. Yet, it is crucial to determine, which legal measures provide the right incentives for developing technology that supports the transition to a low-carbon economy. Market-based incentive mechanisms enabled by patent law and maintained by competition law may foster innovation. Does this hold true for a required green and resilient transition of the European economy currently proclaimed under the EU climate policy? What are the drawbacks and the limits? What guideposts should the EU follow in order to meet its climate goals? This contribution sheds light on those questions. It argues that the reasons that hold back patent and competition laws’ potential in accelerating ‘green’ innovation are rather old wine in new bottles. The multiple crises do not require a specific redesign of patent and competition law and its dogmatic foundations in order to attain the EU climate goals. One needs action and must address the still existing legal issues. This contribution outlines specific recommendations in this regard.

The food and agriculture sector faces significant challenges in ensuring sustainable innovation and technology transfer to promote food security and support the transition to a net-zero emissions economy. Patents are an essential mechanism for promoting innovation and technology transfer in the sector, but they also pose challenges, such as limited access to patented technologies for small-scale farmers. This chapter deals with the challenges and opportunities for promoting sustainable innovation and technology transfer in the food and agriculture sector, including case studies of successful patents and technology transfer. The key findings suggest that sustainable innovation and technology transfer can be facilitated through policies prioritising sustainable agriculture, improving access to patented technologies, and promoting stakeholder collaboration.

Over the past years, two passions have guided the academic efforts of the distinguished Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Reto M. Hilty as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition: the unfolding of the economic and innovative potential of Latin America and the solution of grand challenges to humanity. Few topics fit so well into the intersection of these endeavors as the protection of genetic resources. The unique biodiversity of Latin American countries not only needs to be protected in order for environmental goals to be achieved, but it also provides them with great potential for innovation and use of technologies. The realization of this untapped potential, however, requires appropriate regulations. By assigning countries sovereign rights over genetic resources and supporting the sharing of the benefits that arise from their use, the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol have opened an important gateway to this. Nevertheless, its objectives have not been achieved in the last decades. This article presents some of the main factors determining the failure of these international instruments and analyzes regulatory alternatives at the regional and plurilateral levels that countries interested in obtaining a fair and equitable benefit sharing for the use of their resources may adopt.

This article discusses whether and in what form the UPC has discretion with regard to the granting of injunctive relief. The argument is based on international and EU law, in particular the general proportionality principle, embedded in the Enforcement Directive, as well as on the text and context of the UPC itself. The author proposes an approach of limited discretion including appropriate compensation measures, namely payment in lieu of an injunction. These proposals are in line with the historically hybrid nature of the UPC as well as its internal and external context. Furthermore, the article explains how this proposal can be implemented during the transitional period in the UPC as well as in national courts.

Die wichtigen Initiativen einiger Münchener Patentanwaltskanzleien sowie einiger Großanmelder von 2018 und 2022 haben das Thema Patentqualität wieder auf die Tagesordnung gebracht. Das Interesse der Patentöffentlichkeit galt dabei lange weniger der Arbeit der Patentämter. Tatsächlich weisen Patentämter aber ebenso wie das Patentwesen Merkmale auf, die sie erheblich von anderen staatlichen Behörden unterscheiden: In vielen Staaten wurde ihnen die Rolle eines Profitcenters zugewiesen, weil sie selbst ihren Unterhalt sichern und überdies nicht unerhebliche Beiträge zu den nationalen Haushalten ihrer Staaten beitragen müssen. Interessanterweise sind Patentämter im Gegensatz zu anderen Stakeholdern des Patentsystems von der Qualität der von ihnen erteilten Patente kaum betroffen. Statt Qualitätsdruck besteht eher Erteilungsdruck, der der Qualität abträglich sein kann. Der vorliegende Beitrag adressiert die Bedeutung der Patentämter im Patentsystem und untersucht neben den Interessen der beteiligten Stakeholder die teils kritisch zu würdigenden Dynamiken des „Geschäftsmodells“ zahlreicher, wenngleich nicht aller Patentämter sowie der von ihnen gelieferten Patentqualität. Einige Fragen empfiehlt der Beitrag ausdrücklich zur weiterführenden Bearbeitung.

Invalidation trials in Japan Patent Office are inter parte proceedings between the petitioner and the patentee. The Patent Act allows only “an interested person” to file invalidation trials because it primarily aims to settle private disputes. At the same time, invalidation trials may contribute to the public interest because removing invalid patents would be beneficial to the public. Therefore, not only the private interest but also the public interest may be taken into account in interpreting “an interested person.”Against this background, this article analyzes and review case law by different categories. In general, “an interested person” has been broadly interpreted and it should continue to be so. This article further examined how broadly “an interested person” may be interpreted and pointed out the remaining issues.

This joint article tries to identify yet another factor that shapes IP laws and regimes in some major Asian economies. It finds that it is the actual use or overuse of criminal punishment for protecting IP rights that distinguishes Asian IP laws and regimes from Western ones typified by Germany. After introducing the two major research questions, this article first surveys the Asian IP landscape, in the order of when IP laws were introduced into the civil law jurisdictions (Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China), and into the common law jurisdictions (India, Malaysia, and Hong Kong) respectively. This article then examines German experiences in having the statutory principle of criminal prosecution following civil or administrative law procedure, the prosecution of IP criminal cases, and its judicial practice. This is followed by comparative study between Asian economies and Germany and critical policy analysis of IP crimes. It ends with some suggestions for Asian economies, IP leading economies, and the WTO community.

In the post-pandemic period, exclusivity rights such as patents have gained special attention. Patents are intended as a tool to prevent potential market failure in intangible goods and entice investment in innovation. At the same time, recently they have been accused of blocking access to COVID-19 vaccines and have even fuelled public debate on introducing various measures to limit exclusivity rights (compulsory licence, IP waiver) (See: Hilty et al. (Covid-19 and the role of intellectual property position statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 7 May 2021, 1–11, 2021), Médecins sans Frontières (Médecins sans Frontières, Lack of a real IP waiver on COVID-19 tools is a disappointing failure for people, 17 June 2022, available at: https://www.msf.org/lack-real-ip-waiver-covid-19-tools-disappointing-failure-people . Accessed 27 Feb 2023, 2022), Davies (Legal Stud: 1–18, 2022)., Sven Bostyn, Why a COVID IP waiver is not a good strategy, Position Paper, 10 May 2021, 1 -17.) which has even resulted in a Proposal for a new Regulation on compulsory licensing for crisis management (Proposal of 27 April 2023 for a Regulation on the European Parliament and of the Council on compulsory licensing for crisis management and amending Regulation (EC) 816/2006, Brussels, 27.4.2023 COM(2023) 224 final 2023/0129 (COD) (Further - Proposal for a Regulation on compulsory licensing).). However, patents are not the only exclusivity rights available to (bio)pharmaceuticals. Regulatory exclusivities, although less known to broader society, are no less important than patents and no less relied on by the pharmaceutical industry.The (bio)pharmaceutical industry receives incentives in the form of different exclusivity rights that vary in scope, length and availability (There are nine different exclusivity rights in Europe available to the pharma industry while other fields of technology only have patents available.). Regulatory exclusivities due to their flexibility are attractive as an innovation policy tool while potentially undermining interests which the patent system intends to take into account.This contribution provides a comparative view on patents and the less explored “8+2+1” regulatory exclusivities. And finally, the contribution concludes with some preliminary considerations on potential legislative adjustments, without which much-discussed compulsory licensing may potentially turn out to make little sense (The contribution was submitted on 1 June 2023 considering also the EU proposals concerning regulatory exclusivities. See Proposal of 26 April 2023 for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Union code relating to medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/83/EC and Directive 2009/35/EC, Brussels, 26.4.2023 COM(2023) 192 final 2023/0132 (COD) (Further – Proposal for a Directive of the Union code).).

Zunehmend komplexe Fragestellungen zur Anreizsetzung für Innovationen in Bereichen wie der Künstlichen Intelligenz, der Geneditierung oder des Klimawandels stellen eine Herausforderung für die Rechtswissenschaft dar. Will diese die Sachverhalte tatsächlich durchdringen und rechtlich greifen, zwingt dies zu einem Aufbrechen von Silodenken und zu einer stärkeren Nutzung inter- und intradisziplinärer Ansätze. Diese neuen Herausforderungen für die Rechtswissenschaft zwingen zugleich zu einem Umdenken bei der Ausbildung künftiger Generationen von Rechtswissenschaftlerinnen und Rechtswissenschaftlern.

Market failure is an all-time favourite of legal scholars dealing with economic law. It is used to express a sentiment of discomfort with economic reality, often without any consciousness of the fact that markets are just a reflection of our own aggregate preferences. The following pages are an attempt to assess whether the sociological analysis of economic systems can be employed to add another dimension to the concept of market failure—with no claim whatsoever to having correctly interpreted the sociological theories referred to.

A “verdict” on the economic value of the patent system of the US economist Fritz Machlup published in 1958 still has an important impact on assessing the economic effects of the patent system on economic development by academic intellectual property (IP) scholars worldwide. This contribution analysis Machlup’s study as is and in the light of subsequent US and global legal and economic developments. Based on empirical data, it pays attention to the impact of the US Bayh-Dole type legislation on the translation of basic research into innovative products and processes, as well as to the impact of the new world economic order under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on economic development of developing and emerging economies. All largely ignored in critical academic writings, discussing, e.g. the specific problem of patenting human genes. The case of China, which adopted its first Patent Law in 1984, addressed in the context of Machlup’s verdict and in light of the subsequent economic, scientific and technological development of that country. Concluding thoughts consider today’s value of Machlup’s “verdict.”

Since 1995, the TRIPs Agreement has provided an international framework for domestic patent law. Reto Hilty and the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition have led an effort among patent scholars to map patent ‘flexibilities’ included in the TRIPs Agreement. These flexibilities allow developing countries to adapt their national patent law to their developmental needs.Said legal scholars have argued in favour of regulatory sovereignty and room for manoeuvre under TRIPs but they have seldom stated for what purpose this policy space should be preserved. In this contribution, we draw on the work of Raul Prebisch to explore one possible, productive way of using the flexibility of the TRIPs Agreement.Prebisch was a twentieth century Argentinian structuralist economist and a leading specialist of economic development in Latin America. Over the past 15 years, Prebisch’s work has received renewed attention. Prebisch’s structural analysis deviates from the dominant schools of neoclassical economics, institutional economic analysis in legal scholarship and free trade ideology in international economic law. Nevertheless, Prebisch's writings remain relevant to patent theory.We derive a patent policy from Prebisch’s economic writings and subsequently argue that Prebisch’s patent vision can be implemented under today’s TRIPs Agreement as interpreted by Reto Hilty.

Erfindungen, Schöpfungen der Literatur und Kunst sowie Kennzeichen können nicht nur zu schwach, sondern auch zu stark geschützt werden. Ist das Immaterialgüterrecht unterentwickelt, sind möglicherweise die Innovationsanreize eingeschränkt oder wird der Marktauftritt gestört. Geht der Schutz zu weit, werden andere in ihren Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten eingeschränkt. Es gilt also, die richtige Mitte zu finden, damit das Wettbewerbssystem seine grundlegenden Funktionen erfüllen kann. Immaterialgüterrecht und Wettbewerb gehören nicht zwei unterschiedlichen Sphären an, sondern sind aufeinander zu beziehen. Für die Ausgestaltung des Immaterialgüterrechts bedeutet dies, dass sowohl bei der Bestimmung des Schutzgegenstands als auch bei der Definition der weiteren Schutzvoraussetzungen und der Schutzschranken das Gesamtsystem im Blick gehalten werden muss. Eine isolierte Betrachtung der Wirkungen auf den Rechtsinhaber verbietet sich also. Auch ist es nicht statthaft, Übertreibungen des Immaterialgüterschutzes damit zu rechtfertigen, dass Schutzexzesse durch immaterialgüterrechtsexterne Instrumente wie zum Beispiel das Kartellrecht korrigiert werden können. Der Beitrag kommt nach Auswertung zahlreicher Beispiele aus Gesetzgebung und Fallrecht zum Ergebnis, dass der Grundsatz der Wettbewerbsorientierung des Immaterialgüterrechts heute ganz überwiegend anerkannt ist, auch wenn nicht immer die richtigen Schlüsse hieraus gezogen werden.

The present chapter analyses the intersection of intellectual property law and meta-regulation with a particular focus on current regulatory challenges of the globalized digital economy. It sets out how the interaction of state IP law, informal social norms, corporate codes of conduct and regulatory effects of technology forms a complex, multi-level system of innovation governance, and proposes to link IP jurisprudence and meta-regulation within the framework of IP law’s Fairness principle.

This chapter discusses a hypothesis according to which the IP system needs to be responsive, i.e. to have the ability to quick and positive reactions when confronted with some form of challenge. The question of responsiveness goes above the question of the correct calibration of IP rights in two ways. First, it is more dynamic, presuming that this correct calibration is not a fixed equilibrium but evolves because of structural reasons or circumstantial occurrences. Second, the question relates not only to the endogenous flexibility of these rights (i.e., the flexibility of the IP rules themselves) but also exogenous flexibility (i.e., the adaptability of the legal framework itself). The chapter first describes the assumptions upon which this hypothesis relies: namely, the IP framework appears ill-adapted to face the upcoming technological, economic, and societal challenges. Indeed, even though the correct calibration of most IP rights is not a fixed but a moving target (the speed of which is accelerating), the IP framework is shaped around rigid and monolithic rights. Responsiveness is then investigated as a potential response, starting with a presentation of the existing legal literature before explaining more in detail the different dimensions that a responsive legal system encompasses and lastly taking competition law as an example of a responsive area of law. Lastly, the chapter reflects on the needed changes and challenges and risks raised by a more responsive IP system.

Erweist sich nach Ablauf eines Patents oder Designs das zugrunde liegende Produkt oder die Produktgestaltung als weiterhin erfolgreich im Markt, suchen Unternehmen regelmäßig nach Möglichkeiten, den zuvor genossenen absoluten Schutz zu verlängern, um sich auch in Zukunft vor gewinnschmälerndem, manchmal sogar ruinösem Wettbewerb zu schützen. Seit geraumer Zeit ist verstärkt zu beobachten, dass Unternehmen in solchen Konstellationen versuchen, über einen urheberrechtlichen oder gar markenrechtlichen Schutz für ihre Produkte und Produktgestaltungen etwaige Wettbewerber auch künftig auf Abstand zu halten. Nicht selten gelingt ihnen das auch, da sowohl das Urheberrecht als auch das Markenrecht vielfältige Möglichkeiten bieten, den Eintritt einer umfassenden Gemeinfreiheit, wie er nach Ablauf von Patent- und Designrechten normalerweise zu erwarten wäre, effektiv zu verhindern. Die damit einhergehenden Beeinträchtigungen des freien Wettbewerbs, der Gemeinfreiheit und auch der Rechtssicherheit ließen sich jedoch durchaus verhindern, wenn man die Funktion befristeter Registerrechte stets im Auge behielte und der Gemeinfreiheit, die ein zentrales Element für die Gewährung von Patent- und Designrechten ist, einen absoluten, schutzrechtsübergreifenden Stellenwert einräumen würde.

Garantiemarken können in Bezug auf Waren und Dienstleistungen gezielt Werte wie beispielsweise Nachhaltigkeit, Klimaverträglichkeit, Sozialverträglichkeit oder das Wohl von Kindern und Tieren berücksichtigen. Die dadurch geschaffene Transparenz über qualitative Merkmale der Waren und Dienstleistungen ermöglicht es den Unternehmen, innerhalb vergleichbarer Qualitätsstandards miteinander in den Wettbewerb zu treten. Die Garantiemarke hat damit das Potenzial, im Rahmen der Marktordnung Qualitätswettbewerb zu verwirklichen.Dieser Aufgabe wird sie heute allerdings aus verschiedenen Gründen nicht gerecht, vor allem weil sie hinsichtlich Funktion, Rechtsnatur und der von ihr geschützten Interessen nur ungenügend von anderen Markenarten wie der Individual- und der Kollektivmarke unterschieden wird. Falls sie nicht sogar den Wettbewerb verzerrt, trägt die Garantiemarke auf diese Weise jedenfalls nicht zur Marktordnung, sondern lediglich zu einem diffusen „Grundrauschen“ von Informationen bei, welches gekennzeichnete Waren und Dienstleistungen von sich geben.Auf der Grundlage dieser Erkenntnis entwickelt der Beitrag eine Zukunftsperspektive für die Garantiemarke und zeigt auf, was notwendig ist, damit sie ihre Marktordnungsfunktion erfüllen kann.

The registration of a trademark grants an exclusive right to its owner in two ways: on the one hand, the exclusive right to use it (ius utendi), and on the other hand, to prevent any third party from using his trademark without his consent (ius prohibendi). However, this exclusive right is not absolute, since European trademark law provides for “limitations to the rights of the trademark”, i.e. exceptions that limit the extent to which the ius prohibendi that the trademark grants to its owner can be exercised. Based on the above, the purpose of this article is to analyse what limitations should be taken into account with respect to the limits regulated by the Law: how far can the ius prohibendi of the trademark owner be limited by making use of the limits legally regulated in the trademark laws of the EU Member States?

Das in der immaterialgüterrechtlichen Forschung am Rande stehende Rechtsgebiet der geografischen Angaben verdient mehr Aufmerksamkeit. Das Max-Planck-Institut hat ihm ein empirisches Forschungsprojekt gewidmet, das die Produktspezifikationen sämtlicher geografischen Angaben für Agrarerzeugnisse und Lebensmittel erfasst und ausgewertet hat, die seit Inkrafttreten des Unionsschutzsystems für diese Produkte im Jahre 1994 bis Ende Mai 2019 eingetragen worden sind. Die Ergebnisse dieser Studie belegen, dass im Agrar- und Lebensmittelsektor ein wertvoller Bestand an Immaterialgüterrechten zum Schutz authentischer Produkte geografischen Ursprungs entstanden ist. Die Weiterentwicklung dieses Schutzsystems steht gegenwärtig auf der Reformagenda der Europäischen Union. Es wird zu Änderungen aller sektorenspezifischen EU-Verordnungen zum Schutz von geografischen Angaben, d. h. für Weine, Spirituosen und landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse kommen, die u. a. die Durchsetzung des Schutzes verbessern sollen. Und es wird ein neues Schutzsystem für geografische Angaben für handwerkliche und industrielle Erzeugnisse entstehen.

The Commission has tabled proposals for a GI reform that breathe the spirit of long-forgotten times: Whereas IP legislation in recent years has become increasingly sensitive to the functions and effects of protection, GIs are largely unaffected by IP-intrinsic logics. Protection is continuously driven forward and expanded following other concerns, essentially of agricultural and industrial policy. This contribution argues that it is time to admit that GIs are really not part of IP and that modifications of the regime should not sail under the guise of providing incentives for investments in product innovation or quality. Both the EU legislator and the IP community could deploy some of the honesty, ambition and courage in that regard that are characteristic for Reto M. Hilty’s legal scholarship and legacy.

The EU’s extraterritoriality strategy of geographical indication (GI) protection through free trade agreements (FTAs) generates a conflict of rights between the cross-border protection of GIs and the prior user rights in the rest of the world. It constitutes a more specific attempt by the EU to obtain additional protection outside its territory for agricultural products. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provides for specific exceptions to GI exclusive rights. The exceptions enable the continuity of use of protected terms under certain conditions.Although the different forms of protection are welcome to distinguish and add value to products, extraterritorial protection through FTAs collides with pre-existing private rights modifying the principle of non-retroactivity of international treaties, affects competition and constitutes a market access restriction for local and imported products.The concerns relate to the request for exclusivity for common names that have become part of the public domain, trademarks obtained in good faith, and names of plant varieties and animal breeds. In short, the objection is to undermine the rights of producers outside European territory, granted under the TRIPS exceptions, affecting GATT/WTO principles and the balance of rights and obligations resulting from the Uruguay Round.

The EU legislature is currently adopting a number of legal instruments to regulate the data economy. As part of this emerging data law, the legislature allocates private rights in data. There is common understanding that modern data law should promote free flow of data to increase the availability and level of use of data. However, there is less consensus on the concrete legal design of the emerging new rules. This Chapter emphasises the need to coordinate modern data law with intellectual property law and relies on principles of the latter as guidance for the design of data rights to promote innovation in the digital economy in the interest of society and to reach a fair balance of interests among different stakeholders.

Vor 30 Jahren wurde das umstrittene EU-Datenbankherstellerrecht als Ausschließlichkeitsrecht konzipiert. Seitdem haben sich die Technik, die Gesellschaft und die Wissenschaft selbst erheblich verändert. Auf der Suche nach dem Proprium der Immaterialgüterrechtswissenschaft wirft dieser Beitrag Schlaglichter auf neun vom Datenbankherstellerrecht berührte Problemkreise. Diese werden zum Anlass genommen, um grundlegender über die Grenzen, aber auch über den Selbstanspruch, die Anschlussfähigkeit und den Integrationsbedarf der Immaterialgüterrechtswissenschaft zu reflektieren.

Compliance obligations imposed by the Digital Markets Act and general competition law frequently require the employment of algorithmic software, especially where they address the handling of data. Such algorithmic software must, itself, be controlled for compliance through audits. Auditing algorithms will, hence, become a major part of future law enforcement. This is true not only for the DMA and general competition law, but also for many other areas, such as AI risk regulation or the responsibilities of digital service providers. Through comparative benchmarking across legislative areas and systematical interpretation, this contribution tries to identify key features of an appropriate algo auditing regime for competition-related obligations and discusses how they could be established, in particular, under the DMA. Such features include lifecycle stages at which algorithms should be audited, the appropriate legal bases for the audits, methodologies and agents as well as compliance assessment parameters and the possibility for safe harbors. The contribution also briefly highlights that IP and data protection rules may require modification to allow for appropriate algo auditing.

In the era of digitization, datafication and computational uses of works, new EU legislative initiatives on data regulation, while aiming in principle at granting access to data, increasingly recognise and reinforce private control over data through Technological Protection Measures (TPMs). After the introduction of the Text and Data Mining (TDM) regime by the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSM Directive), the new rules on access to IoT data laid down in the EU Data Act constitute the second most significant example of such an emerging trend. This contribution focuses on the impact of the protection of TPMs, under both EU copyright law and the Data Act, on the effectiveness of the data access regimes. The analyses shows how the shift toward propertisation of information is taking place without balanced consideration of all the interests involved. Finally the article offers suggestions for more effective data access rules fostering data-driven innovation.

In 2018, the Japanese government introduced protection of certain types of “big data” by revising the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. The necessity and the possible consequences of this globally novel type of protection was rather vigorously debated at that time, including at a conference at Waseda University at which Professor Hilty actively participated. This chapter aims to provide a recap of the background and the contours of the Japanese big data protection. Five years after the implementation, the impact of the Japanese protection of big data seems to remain limited, very much in line with the prognosis that Professor Hilty gave back at the time the legislative package was introduced. At the same time, the Japanese system of big data protection remains somewhat a unique policy instrument, especially when compared with the direction that European policy makers seem to be taking when it comes to the “promotion” of innovation in the area of data-driven artificial intelligence.

In an era where a significant percentage of consumers are willing, at least in principle, to pay a higher price for eco-sustainable products, many companies are keen on demonstrating their environmental sensitivity to consumers, often using “green trademarks.” However, recent surveys indicate a prevalent issue of companies engaging in greenwashing, providing consumers with vague, misleading, or unsupported information regarding the environmental credentials of their products. The European Union trademark law encompasses inherent measures to counteract greenwashing. Both Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 and Directive (EU) 2015/2436 stipulate that trademarks cannot be registered or used if they have the potential to deceive the public, and the Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified that these rules also apply when the public is misled about a product’s environmental qualities. Despite this, the application of provisions on deceptive trademarks to reject the registration of green trademarks remains exceptionally rare. In this essay, the author delves into the reasons behind the limited use of provisions on deceptive trademarks, analyses the phenomenon of greenwashing in light of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, and proposes the application of principles from that directive, as interpreted by the European Commission, to strengthen trademark law in combating corporate greenwashing.

The paper starts from the premise that digital vulnerability is universal, structural, and architectural. Digital vulnerability is to be translated into the legal concept of digital asymmetry, so as to avoid confusion with existing concepts of vulnerability, which build on individual deficiencies in capacity. Digital asymmetry cannot be overcome through more and better information, nor can it be controlled by the prohibition of misleading advertising. It has to be classified as a form of aggression in the meaning of Arts. 8 and 9 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. The burden of demonstrating compliance by digital architecture with consumer law lies with the supplier.

Bei der Anwendung von Art. 102 AEUV, dem Verbot missbräuchlicher Ausnutzung einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung, geht der Gerichtshof der EU in ständiger Rechtsprechung davon aus, dass Unternehmen, die eine marktbeherrschende Stellung innehaben, unabhängig von den Ursachen einer solchen Stellung eine besondere Verantwortung dafür tragen, dass sie durch ihr Verhalten einen wirksamen und unverfälschten Wettbewerb auf dem Binnenmarkt nicht beeinträchtigen. Der Beitrag geht den Gründen und Folgen dieser besonderen Verantwortung nach.

When antitrust provisions regarding coordinated and unilateral conduct are enforced in markets where such behavior is already covered by specific ex-ante or ex-post regulation, risks associated with overstepping arise: non bis in idem concerns, duplication of efforts, infringement of rule of law and separation of powers principles, and error costs due to lack of technical expertise in a specific market, among others. The present contribution presents cases in which these risks arise and attempts to propose standards that allow to balance them against the effective protection of competition taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of competition advocacy as an alternative. The contribution uses a normative approach based on the political economy literature, which introduces into the discussion an aspect that is neglected in previous work on the relationship between antitrust and regulation that is an important determinant of market dynamics: the mutual feedback between market power and political activism of firms seeking to shape regulation and its implementation to their benefit. Finally, although a prominent part of this paper covers EU law, it also considers developments in other jurisdictions in order to take advantage of the rich experience and lessons that can be gained by widening the geographic horizon.

While over the centuries Intellectual Property has been based on exclusivity, and therefore on the balancing between competing interests provided by legislation, in the last few decades a double metamorphosis of IP appears to have set in which replaces exclusivity with de facto powers of holders of informational resources over the content they control. A rebalancing of the asymmetry of powers thus created via regulation appears necessary but faces several obstacles. Antitrust and access regimes are municipal or, at best, regional, while de facto powers rest on global infrastructures. The paper suggests that, in quest for a rebalancing, we may also look at remedies based on private law and more specifically on the laws of contracts, torts and of collective action, to foster the emergence of countervailing powers and to contrast the exorbitant might of de facto powers, and to overcome their current fragmentation and dispersion.

Am 19. März 2023 wurde bekannt, dass sich die UBS – dank einer staatlichen Milliardengarantie – bereit erklärt hatte, die in Schwierigkeiten geratene CS zu übernehmen. Die Behörden begründeten den sofort bewilligten Zusammenschluss mit dem Schutz der Schweizer Volkswirtschaft und dem schweizerischen Finanzsystem. Im Beitrag wird zunächst dargelegt, dass bei Zusammenschlüssen von Banken, die „aus Gründen des Gläubigerschutzes als notwendig erscheinen“, zur Beurteilung der Fälle die Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA) an die Stelle der Wettbewerbskommission tritt. Nach Kartellgesetz sind in solchen Fällen „die Interessen der Gläubiger vorrangig“ zu berücksichtigen. Das heisst nun aber – entgegen verbreiteter Meinung – nicht, dass die in solchen Fällen zuständige FINMA nicht verpflichtet ist, solche Zusammenschlüsse möglichst wettbewerbsfreundlich zu gestalten. Sodann wird aufgezeigt, wie allgemein in Fällen drohender Insolvenz, in denen über Zusammenschlüsse rasch zu entscheiden ist, der Wettbewerb und bisweilen auch Arbeitsplätze geschützt werden können, und zwar selbst dann, wenn noch nicht erwiesen ist, dass die Eingriffsvoraussetzungen gemäss Kartellgesetz gegeben sind.

Der Beitrag untersucht die in der Rechtspraxis anzutreffenden, aber im Schweizer Schrifttum spärlich untersuchten Phänomene der Unterlizenz und der verlängerten Werkbank und grenzt diese ab. Eine Abgrenzung ist notwendig, weil gemäss der herrschenden Lehre der Lizenznehmer, welcher mit einem Dritten zusammenarbeiten will, unterscheiden muss: Während der Lizenznehmer in der Regel nicht berechtigt ist, einem Dritten eine Unterlizenz einzuräumen, ist es ihm möglich, ohne Einwilligung des Lizenzgebers im Rahmen einer verlängerten Werkbank mit einem Dritten zusammenarbeiten zu dürfen.

This short article explores selected facets of legal transplants – more precisely contractual transplants – dealing with the availability of equitable remedies (as granted under common law systems) in contracts that are governed by civil law. The discussion focuses on certain clauses on equitable remedies that can be found in international intellectual property license agreements, including in the US McKesson Corp. v. Health Robotics, S.R. case relating to an international IP license agreement that provided for equitable remedies and that was however governed by Swiss law.Beyond this case, this article analyzes the legal relevance under Swiss law of contractual clauses by which the parties would acknowledge the existence of irreparable harm resulting from the breach of certain contractual provisions, specifically in case of breach of the terms of the license by the licensee or in case of breach of confidentiality obligations. The article concludes by recognizing the interest in harmonizing further IP contract law including by developing a common understanding of contractual practices that are standard in global IP transactions, such as contractual clauses relating to equitable remedies.

Internationale Sanktionen bzw. Verbote bestimmter Transaktionen werden zu einem immer wichtigeren politischen Druckmittel; sie wirken sich auch auf zivilrechtliche Vertragsbeziehungen aus. Aufgrund des Territorialitätsprinzips sind nur Schweizer Sanktionsmassnahmen auf Vertragsbeziehungen in der Schweiz direkt anwendbar. Für ausländische Sanktionsmassnahmen gilt dies nur in Bezug auf allfällige Leistungen im Territorium des jeweiligen Erlassstaates. Ausländische Sanktionsmassnahmen sehen bisweilen aber eine extraterritoriale Wirkung vor, sodass Vertragsbeziehungen international agierender Schweizer Unternehmen durchaus in den Anwendungsbereich einer ausländischen Sanktionsmassnahme fallen können. Entsprechend können auch ausländische Sanktionen (unmittelbar oder mittelbar) in bestehende Vertragsverhältnisse eingreifen und einen ungestörten Leistungsaustausch verunmöglichen.Die Rechtsfolgen ergeben sich aufgrund der Vertragsfreiheit primär aus den jeweiligen vertraglichen Regelungen. Immer mehr Verträge enthalten sog. Force Majeure- oder Hardship-Klauseln. Fehlen entsprechende vertragliche Regelungen, so sind die Rechtsfolgen nach den einschlägigen gesetzlichen Regelungen zu eruieren, wobei zwischen dem jeweiligen Vertrag als Ganzem und den daraus resultierenden einzelnen Leistungspflichten zu unterscheiden ist. Im Zusammenhang mit Leistungsstörungen aufgrund der (faktischen) Auswirkungen ausländischer Sanktionsmassnahmen – bzw. unvermeidbarer höherer Gewalt – besteht bisweilen Rechtsunsicherheit.