Improvement of myrosinase activity of Aspergillus sp. NR4617 by chemical mutagenesis

A myrosinase (thioglucoside glucohydrolase or thioglucosidase, EC 3.2.3.147) producing fungus, Aspergillus sp. NR4617, was newly isolated from decayed soil sample obtained in Thailand and was subjected to single exposure to two chemical mutagens, ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) and N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG). Its myrosinase production was selected on low cost medium prepared from mustard seed cake ( Brassica juncea ). Studies of production and stability of the enzyme showed that EMS mutagenesis increased myrosinase activity. Aspergillus sp. NR4617E1 produced myrosinase 1.90 U ml-1 at 36 hrs of the cultivation equivalent to 171% of the enzyme production in wild-type. The stability studies revealed that myrosinase from the mutant strains retained activity similar to wild-type at 30\ub0C. Aspergillus sp. NR4617E1 degraded 10 mM of glucosinolate completely in 36 hrs. Enhanced myrosinase production and high yields of products (allylisothiocyanate) demonstrated that this mutant could be a new found candidate for feed detoxification and industrial allylisothiocyanate production

Infringement of intellectual property rights : a comparative study in french law and thai law

La contrefaçon est un phénomène de dimension internationale qui constitue aujourd’hui plus qu’hier un véritable fléau. Il apparaît que les principaux pays de provenance des contrefaçons saisies dans l’Union Européenne sont les pays d’Asie,notamment la Thaïlande. Cette recherche a pour but d'étudier les problèmes juridiques relatifs à la contrefaçon des droits de propriété intellectuelle. Ceci nous amène à poursuivre la recherche suivant deux axes. La première partie a pour but de mettre en évidence la comparaison de la définition de la contrefaçon en France et en Thaïlande. Elle se décompose en deux sous-parties, la première s'attachant à décrire la qualification de l’atteinte constitutive de contrefaçon selon les droits concernés (le terme « contrefaçon » en lui-même, tant en France qu’en Thaïlande, désignant différentes formes d’atteintes à un droit patrimonial de propriété intellectuelle). Pour identifier les atteintes constitutives de contrefaçon, notamment l’élément matériel, nous mettons l’accent sur 4 points: l’existence de la création, la diffusion de la création, l’usage de la création et la participation à l’action contrefaisante. S’agissant de l’élément intentionnel de contrefaçon, il semble présenter de multiples facettes. La seconde définit la preuve de la contrefaçon. On observe alors les moyens de preuve de la contrefaçon : la loi prévoit deux séries de mesures principales que nous pouvons regrouper en moyens de preuve en matière civile et pénale. Par ailleurs, il y a des moyens de preuve alternatifs entre les deux régimes. Ce sont des procédures douanières.La seconde partie a pour objet la prise en considération de la répression par les juridictions civiles et pénales. Elle se décompose donc en deux sous-parties : la première concerne les sanctions prononcées par les juridictions pénales. Nous avons déjà étudié la procédure pénale et les sanctions applicables à la contrefaçon. Il se trouve que la situation en Thaïlande est totalement différente de la situation française, notamment concernant la jurisprudence en matière pénale. Il semblerait que la majorité des décisions soient des sanctions prononcées par les juridictions pénales. La seconde sous-partie concerne quant à elle la réparation des atteintes à la propriété intellectuelle. Nous constatons que le préjudice subi, en France tout comme en Thaïlande constitue en un gain manqué . En outre l’évaluation du préjudice en France et en Thaïlande est difficile (préjudice subi en matière de marque, préjudice moral et fixation de l’indemnisation de peine privée).Counterfeiting is an international problem. It appears that the main countries of origin of counterfeit goods seized in the European Union are the Asian countries, including Thailand. The research explains concisely the entire key factors to this whole problem. The research is divided into two parts; in the first place, I will outline pointly the definition of Intellectual Property Rights law (IPRs law) infringement between French and Thailand. Firstly, we focus on the structure of IPRs infringement. The term "counterfeit" in himself both in France and Thailand indicating different forms of an intellectual property rights liability conception. To identify violations constitute infringements, including the material element, we focus on four points, the existence of the creation, dissemination of the creation, use of creation, participation in the infringing action . With regard to the intentional element of infringement, iconcerned the intention of counterfeiter by the civil and criminal aspects as well as the objectives of my research would analysis on two components. First, the application of substantive issues embodies in the civil action. The second is the criminal action. The intention of counterfeiter are also intersect into two parts of action. The secondly,, we research to the proof of infringement. There provides two measures of proof in civil matters and evidence incriminal matters. In addition, there are a customs procedures as an alternative measure of proof . In the second place, we mainly concerned the IPRs law enforcement: Firstly we concerns the penalties imposed by criminal courts. We have already studied the criminal proceedings. In addition, we studied the penaltiesfor counterfeiting. We find that the criminal proceedings in Thailand is totally different from the criminal proceedings in France. In addition, we studied the penalization of IPRs law. We find that the situation in Thailand is totally different from a France, especially in criminal jurisprudence. It seems that the majority of decisions are the penalties imposed by criminal courts. Secondly were search about categories of damages and criteria for proof of damages. We find that the damages, in France as well as in Thailand, is the recovery of profit. Also the difficulty of assessing the damage, in France as well as in Thailand, are the damage of Trademark law, moral right damage and punitive damage

Analisis Kualitas Pelayanan Perpanjangan Surat Izin Mengemudi (SIM) Keliling Satlantas Polres Rokan Hilir Dalam Upaya Meningkatkan Mutu Pelayanan Publik

The purpose of this study was to analyze the service quality of mobile driver's license renewal (SIM) at the Rokan Hilir Polres SATLANTAS Unit. Formulation of the research problem "How is the Implementation of Public Services at the Rokan Hilir POLRES SATLANTAS Unit?. Government Administration Bureaucratic Reform including the Republic of Indonesia National Police aims to build Profiles and Behaviors of State Apparatuses who have integrity, productivity and responsibility and have the ability to provide excellent service to the community. However, in its development after the reform took place, there were several complaints from the public about the services they received. This study attempts to answer these problems by formulating a research problem using quantitative methods with descriptive analysis of 98 community respondents who are taking care of extending mobile driver's licenses, which determines the size of the number of respondents using a Likert scale. This study is based on the Theory of Public Service Satisfaction Level Dimensions by Philip Kotler (2012; 294) using 5 indicators, namely Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Emphaty and Tangibles with each of 4 sub-indicators with a Likert scale measurement scale, namely Very Good, Good, Enough Good, Less Good and Not Good. The results of the responses of community respondents obtained a total of 8.930 results with an acquisition share of 71.44% percent. This means that the number is included in the group between 67 percent and 100 percent, including in the Good category. So it can be concluded that the results of this study show that the performance of public services at the Rokan Hilir POLRES SATLANTAS Unit is good

ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE COMMON WORDS AS TRADEMARKS IN MARK REGISTRATION IN INDONESIA (STUDY OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION NUMBER 332 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2021)

Merek adalah simbol, tanda, rancangan ataupun sebuah kombinasi dari tiga hal tersebut sebagai identitas dari penjual yang memiliki pembeda sebagai persaingan usaha yang ada di pasar. Penggunaan kata umum dalam bahasa asing sebagai merek banyak ditemui dalam pendaftaran merek di Indonesia. Bahkan tidak banyak pendaftar merek yang mendaftarkan merek hanya dengan kata tunggal berupa kata umum yang memiliki sifat deskriptif. Permasalahan yang timbul dalam hal ini adalah terdapat sebuah kasus yaitu antara Hardwood Private Limited dengan PT. Unilever Indonesia yang mempermasalahkan adanya kata “Strong”. Dalam Pasal 20 huruf f Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis hanya mengatur mengenai merek tidak dapat didaftar apabila merupakan nama umum. Hal ini dapat menimbulkan sebuah permasalahan, apakah nama umum sama halnya dengan kata umum. Dan apakah kata umum dalam Bahasa Asing dapat dikatakan umum di Indonesia. Tujuan dari penelitian ini yakni untuk menganalisis dasar pertimbangan Putusan Hakim Mahkamah Agung Nomor 332 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2021 dan menganalisis penggunaan kata “Strong” yang merupakan kata umum berbahasa asing sah untuk didaftarkan dalam pendaftaran merek di Indonesia.Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konsep, dan pendekatan kasus. Bahan hukum yang digunakan yakni bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Tek nik analisis bahan hukum menggunakan metode preskriptif. Penggunaan kata umum dalam merek baik menggunakan Bahasa Asing ataupun Bahasa Indonesia merek deskriptif tetap lemah karena tidak memiliki daya pembeda. Apabila ingin mendaftarkan merek deskriptif tersebut dalam pendaftaran merek di Indonesia diperlukan adanya etiket merek agar memiliki daya pembeda. Kata Kunci : Bahasa Asing, Kata Umum, Merek Deskripti

THROMBOPHLEBITE CEREBRALE COMPLIQUANT UN TRAITEMENT CORTICOIDE INTRAVEINEUX AU COURS D'UNE SCLEROSE EN PLAQUES PROBABLE

AMIENS-BU Santé (800212102) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Propos introductifs

International audienc

Propos introductifs

International audienc

Propos introductifs

International audienc