The Legal Blog - المدونة القانونية

1. What is an industrial design?[1] In everyday language, an industrial de-sign generally refers to a product’s overall form and function. An armchair is said to have a “good design” when it is comfortable to sit in and we like the way it looks. For businesses, designing a product generally implies developing the product’s functional and aesthetic features, taking into consideration issues such as the product’s marketability, manufacturing costs, and ease of transport, storage, repair, and disposal. From a legal perspective, an industrial design refers to the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a product. If certain conditions are met, these aspects may be protected as industrial designs, a form of intellectual property (IP). Such protection does not cover the technical or functional aspects of a product. So in the example above, only the appearance of the armchair could be protected as an industrial design; any legal protection for technical or functional aspects would involve other…

INTRODUCTION[1] The following Member States (or territories) indicated that their applicable laws provided for exceptions and/or limitations related to compulsory licenses: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China and Hong Kong (China), Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United Republic of Tanzania, the United States of America, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe (87 in total). Public Policy Objectives…

INTRODUCTION[1] The following Member States indicated that their applicable laws provided for exceptions and/or limitations related to exhaustion of patent rights: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe (76 in total). PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES FOR PROVIDING THE EXCEPTION Many Member States emphasized the balancing aspect of the exhaustion of patent rights. For example, the public policy…

INTRODUCTION[1] 1.         The following Member States and patent Offices indicated that their applicable laws provided for exceptions and/or limitations related to the prior use exception: Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain,Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey,  Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Viet Nam, Zambia, and the Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO) (69 in total). PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES FOR PROVIDING THE EXCEPTION 2.         In responding to the question on the public policy objectives of the exception, some Member States stressed the balancing…

INTRODUCTION[1] 1- The following Member States and patent Offices indicated that their applicable laws provided for exceptions and/or limitations related to the prior use exception: Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe and the Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO) (61 in total). PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES FOR PROVIDING THE EXCEPTION 2- While multiple public policy objectives are pursued by the private and/or noncommercial use exception in some Member States, most Member States provided responses that described the following objectives. Balancing of legitimate interests 3- Many responses stated that…

A.        ANALYSIS [1] Out of the 17 countries studied, 12 make provisions for exceptions permitting educational establishments or research centers to reproduce copies of works, at the request of researchers or students, for purposes of teaching or research.  Some countries also allow educational establishments to reproduce excerpts from works for exam questions. The countries are as follows: –        Algeria (Article 45) –        Bahrain (Article 21(c) and 22(b)) –        Djibouti (Article 41(d)) –        Egypt (Article 171(7) and (8)) –        Jordan (Article 20) –        Lebanon (Article 25(2)) –        Morocco (Article 15(b)) –        Oman (Article 20) –        Qatar (Article 18(2)) –        Syria (Article 37(5)) –        Tunisia (Article 10 (c)) new and 12 (2) new –        United Arab Emirates (Article 22(4)(b) and 22(8)) Preliminary remark:  The Berne Convention does not make direct provision for this exception.  However, one could claim that the justification can be found in Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention, according to which: “It shall be…

1.         Article 10(2) of the Berne Convention, [1]   which provides the basis for the exception analyzed here, poses two conditions that limit the field of application of the exception.  Utilization is permitted “to the extent justified by the purpose” and “provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice”. Behind these requirements lies an implicit desire to safeguard the legitimate interests of the beneficiaries whose work has been used.  In actual fact, these two requirements end up by limiting the quantity used to a fragment, within the necessary limits for the purposes of the illustration. In practice, however, owing to the nature of the work, it is sometimes necessary to reproduce a work as a whole for the needs of illustration.  This is the case for example with photographs or with a short poem a few lines long.  Consequently, some authors consider that with borderline cases of this kind, the exception should be interpreted in such…