When Museums Go Online

A report on the ICOM — UNIGE online conference “The Law & Digital Cultural Heritage Day”, 11 December 2020

The internationalization of industrial design protection

Ce travail vise à saisir la dynamique du droit qui assure la protection internationale des dessins et modèles. Il propose une approche partant des normes internationales, et introduit des éléments de comparaison des ordres juridiques, d’analyse institutionnelle, historique et de politique économique. Si un premier constat de faiblesse de la portée de l’internationalisation par le biais des conventions internationales est indéniable, un changement de perspective permet non seulement d’y apporter un ensemble de justifications, mais également de percevoir des tendances à la convergence portées par d’autres vecteurs. Parmi ceux-ci, on dénombre notamment la convergence informelle vers un modèle normatif, l’action du juge ou encore l’intégration régionale. Cet inévitable mouvement d’internationalisation doit poursuivre la cohérence dans le respect de la diversité. Au lieu de bâtir un projet d’intégration normative du droit substantiel, c’est l’amélioration des aspects procéduraux et la coopération dans un cadre multilatéral sur des projets concrets qu’il convient de porter.This thesis uncovers the legal dynamics which contribute to the international protection of industrial designs. To that end it analyses the conventional international framework and brings together comparative insights, as well as institutional, historical and economic analysis. Whereas the defects of past substantive harmonisation efforts are clear at first sight, a shift in perspective allows not only to bring a set of justifications, but also to evidentiate converging tendencies which are driven through other vectors. Among those are the informal convergence towards a normative model, the activity of the Judiciary as well as regional integration. Further efforts of such internationalisation will have to comply with a need for coherence and respect for diversity. Instead of further substantial harmonisation, additional procedural coordination, as well as international cooperation on specific projects find endorsement

The internationalization of industrial design protection

Ce travail vise à saisir la dynamique du droit qui assure la protection internationale des dessins et modèles. Il propose une approche partant des normes internationales, et introduit des éléments de comparaison des ordres juridiques, d’analyse institutionnelle, historique et de politique économique. Si un premier constat de faiblesse de la portée de l’internationalisation par le biais des conventions internationales est indéniable, un changement de perspective permet non seulement d’y apporter un ensemble de justifications, mais également de percevoir des tendances à la convergence portées par d’autres vecteurs. Parmi ceux-ci, on dénombre notamment la convergence informelle vers un modèle normatif, l’action du juge ou encore l’intégration régionale. Cet inévitable mouvement d’internationalisation doit poursuivre la cohérence dans le respect de la diversité. Au lieu de bâtir un projet d’intégration normative du droit substantiel, c’est l’amélioration des aspects procéduraux et la coopération dans un cadre multilatéral sur des projets concrets qu’il convient de porter.This thesis uncovers the legal dynamics which contribute to the international protection of industrial designs. To that end it analyses the conventional international framework and brings together comparative insights, as well as institutional, historical and economic analysis. Whereas the defects of past substantive harmonisation efforts are clear at first sight, a shift in perspective allows not only to bring a set of justifications, but also to evidentiate converging tendencies which are driven through other vectors. Among those are the informal convergence towards a normative model, the activity of the Judiciary as well as regional integration. Further efforts of such internationalisation will have to comply with a need for coherence and respect for diversity. Instead of further substantial harmonisation, additional procedural coordination, as well as international cooperation on specific projects find endorsement

Review of Key Positions of the Presidium of Intellectual Property Court of the Russian Federation

The comment reviews key positions issued in the rulings of September and October 2021 by the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC). This Cham -ber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of validity of registered intellectual propertyrights. Therefore, this review primarily deals with substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as with procedural issues both in the adminis-trative adjudicating mechanism at the Patent office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself. The current review covers such issues as appeals against patent term extension(supplementary patent), appeals against partial refusals of trademark applications, distinctive character of trademark elements, a party’s interest in judicial proceed -ings on unfair competition involving trademarks, and conflicts between trademarks and company names

Key Issues in the Intellectual Property Court’s Presidium Rulings

The comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued between January and March 2022. This Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of registration and validity of industrial propertyrights. Therefore, this review predominantly covers substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrativeadjudicating mechanism at the Patent office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself. The current review encompasses a variety of topics related to trademark law, such as theassessment of the risk of confusion, invalidity grounds based on a prior well-known trademark or on an appellation of origin, the application of art. 6.septies of the ParisConvention, early termination of the legal protection of a trademark, unfair competition. This review also highlights several procedural points, such as the suspensionof administrative proceeding in parallel trademark litigation and the limits of a third party’s intervention in patent invalidity proceedings. Regarding patents, the review deals with prior art, encompassing unpublished patent applications, and the rules for determining claims’ features

Key Issues in the Intellectual Property Court’s Presidium Rulings

The comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued in December 2021 and January 2022. This Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of registration and validity of industrial property rights. Therefore, this review predominantly covers substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrative adjudicating mechanism at the Patent office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself.The current review encompasses a variety of topics related to trademark law: signs that are contrary to the public interest, signs conflicting with an earlier trademark or an appellation of origin, signs using a geographical name, deceptive signs, the comparison of signs, trademark revocation for lack of use, unfair competition, procedural challenges, etc. The review further considers one patent case, in which the IPC Presidium resolved the issue of establishing priority date for a divisional application for a utility model derived from an application initially filed for an invention

Key Issues in the Intellectual Property Court’ Presidium Rulings

The comment reviews key positions in the rulings of the Presidium of the Russian Intellectual Property Court (IPC) issued in October and November 2021. This Chamber hears cassation appeals against the decisions of the IPC first instance and deals primarily, but not only, with matters of validity of registered intellectual property rights. Therefore, this review predominantly covers substantive requirements for patent and trademark protection, as well as procedural issues both in the administrative adjudicating mechanism at the Patent office (Rospatent) and at the IPC itself. The current review covers such issues as the procedure for challenging a Eurasian patent term extension (supplementary patent), legal costs, appeals against the decisions in the areas of unfair competition, well-known trademarks, signs that are contrary to general interests, challenging the validity of a utility model, the adoption of interim measures, the registration of a trademark under Article 6. septies of the Paris Convention