The phrase “make your mark on history” is a commonplace one with several meanings and connotations.
It is one offered at many high school and college commencement speeches as an exhortation to graduates to have an impact beyond themselves–as future-President, then-Senator John F. Kennedy said when telling Northeastern’s graduating class in 1956 “to make your mark,” this is part of what “every commencement speaker has said since classes were held in caves or trees.”
The introduction of Law 4481/2017 into the Greek legislation aimed to regulate the collective management of IP and relative rights, thus amending the EU Collective Rights Management Directive. (1) Specifically, in its regulation of the public performance of musical works incorporated in legitimately released sound carriers, stores, and undertakings, article 24 of Law 4481/2017 introduced a reporting obligation for users.
Foreign entities wishing to register an Australian trademark should be aware that Australia is a ‘first-to-use’ jurisdiction. This means that the owner of a trademark is the first user of that trademark.
First to File
In some jurisdictions, the entity that is the first to file an application to register a particular trademark is the owner of that trademark. In a first to file jurisdictions the applicant will generally be the owner of the trademark regardless of whether the applicant has used the trademark prior to making an application for registration, and regardless of whether another entity (that has not previously applied to register the trademark) is already using it.
Decision 486 of 2000 of the Andean Community sets forth several events that may give rise to the rejection of trademark registration. Said events intend to protect the general interest that is involved in ensuring that no exclusive rights are granted over signs that are not appropriable by the applicant (absolute grounds for rejection) or to protect the private interest involved in prior registrations or other priority rights (relative grounds for rejection).
Suppose you have expressed your work in a tangible form, but it contains material generated by artificial intelligence (AI). Although your copyright exists at the moment of creation, does the work contain enough human authorship on which to base a claim for copyright registration? Should you register the copyright on the work with the U.S. Copyright Office? If there is enough human authorship, the answer is YES!
Exclusive rights over a trademark in Colombia arise from registration. Also, when holding a trademark registration in Colombia, the obligation arises for its owner to use the trademark in commerce, beginning three (3) years from the date when registration was granted.
This means that a trademark registration in Colombia may be canceled by the Trademark Office, if the trademark has not been effectively and publicly used, to identify in commerce, goods or services covered by the registration.
“Yes, the law is about words…,” says Ben Chiriboga in writing about the essential skills that lawyers must have. And Ken White noted more recently that “the entire project of the law is about words meaning specific things.” But our problem often is that the law, or lawyers, frequently use unfamiliar or exotic terms that others claim have no more understood meaning than a reference to a “vermicious knid,” and those or other lawyers may overuse a word that they do not seem to actually comprehend. Indeed, understanding and enforcing the rule of law is itself commonly about defining an undefined concept.
Graphical User Interface (GUI) refers to icons, windows, and/or menus to offer a mechanism to interact with electronic devices visually. There has been quite a bit of debate around the registrability of GUIs under industrial design law in India. While the Designs Act, 2002, recognised protection for GUIs, the Indian Patents Office has been reluctant to grant registration to GUIs.
The Design Rules underwent an amendment in 2008, pursuant to which the Locarno classification was officially adopted by India. Pursuant to this, Class 14-04 pertaining to ‘Screen Displays and Icons’ was officially included in the Indian design classification. Interestingly, some GUIs were granted registration by the Indian Patent Office prior to 2008 under Class 14-99 (titled as ‘Miscellaneous).
With the introduction of several readily available applications, artificial intelligence (AI) has leaped into the mainstream and brought with it a host of legal questions.
Following the release in November of the now popular generative AI platform ChatGPT by OpenAI, companies including Microsoft and Google are rushing to release their own generative AI services or integrate them into their existing offerings. With a growth in attention-grabbing AI antics, like actor Ryan Reynolds using ChatGPT to craft, in his words, a “mildly terrifying” ad for Mint Mobile, companies are increasingly contemplating how AI will change the nature of work.
Introduction
In the recent decision of the UK Patents Court in Oxford University Innovation v Oxford Nanoimaging Limited [2022] EWHC 3200 (Pat), the Court was asked to consider whether UK legislation protecting consumers from unfair contract terms applied to a contract made between Oxford University and a DPhil (doctorate) student. The Court held that the legislation in question – The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999/2083 (UTCCRs) – would apply in principle, but that the terms in question were ultimately not “unfair”. The detailed judgment included extensive analysis of the particular power dynamic between universities and their students, and the tension between the academic and commercial objectives pursued by each.
