Search

Before the case of In re Elster, everyone in the United States had the right to place offensive phrases on t-shirts regarding former President Trump and sell them if they chose to do so. After the Federal Circuit's holding in Elster, no one in the nation may ever be able to put "TRUMP TOO SMALL" on clothing or else they might get sued for trademark infringement. Over the past few years, trademarks have become the subject of Supreme Court redlining: first through the elimination of the disparagement clause in § 1052(a) in Matal v. Tam and next through the immoral or scandalous clause of § 1052(a) in Iancu v. Brunetti. Denial of federal trademarks under the Lanham Act because of viewpoint has come under immense scrutiny and judicial review as a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. However, this line of cases speaks to proper viewpoint discrimination jurisprudence, and the Federal Circuit's opinion in Elster--overturning the denial of the proposed word mark "TRUMP TOO SMALL" on t-shirts as a violation of § 1052(c)--misapplies the law and stretches the policy of Matal and Brunetti incorrectly against content-based restrictions. Under the Federal Circuit's logic, the proposed mark could not be denied by the USPTO because that would constitute impermissible content-based restrictions on speech that served no compelling governmental interest. Under the court's logic, the First Amendment concerns about criticizing the government outweighed the government's concerns in limiting the speech. However, the court missed a critical fact: no speech was ever silenced. The salient question in a trademark application is whether to confer federal monopoly rights to one person. In this case, the salient question is whether the entire country should have the right to put "TRUMP TOO SMALL" on t-shirts, or whether only one trademark holder should have that right. Before the Federal Circuit's holding, Trump himself could have put that phrase on a t-shirt and placed it into the stream of commerce, along with everyone else. Now, both Trump and the rest of the country might be barred from using that phrase on t-shirts--else they will create a likelihood of confusion--even though Trump owns the rights to his name, image, and likeness, and the point of the Federal Circuit's opinion was to encourage more speech, not silence the rest of the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An arrangement to fix, control or maintain prices is the classic competition law per se offence, and is deemed to substantially lessen competition under s 30 of the Commerce Act 1986. However, it is currently unclear when arrangements that do not explicitly concern price fall within the ambit of s 30. This article examines the recent Court of Appeal decision in Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd which found that the defendants were liable under the per se offence provisions.1 It contends that the Court of Appeal took the overseas case law out of context, misunderstood key factual findings made by the High Court at first instance and overlooked important legal and policy considerations. As a result it is argued that Lodge sets an unfortunate precedent that should be overruled or strictly confined to its own facts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pro-life pregnancy centers have been criticized for attracting clients through false or misleading marketing and, once clients are through the door, for presenting false or misleading--or at least incomplete--information. A common contemporary means of regulating pregnancy centers is through statutes that require pregnancy centers to give notice that their services are not comprehensive. In 2018, in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Supreme Court held that California's version of such a disclosure statute likely amounted to compelled speech impermissible under the First Amendment. This Note argues that, separate from their constitutional validity, disclosure requirements are not necessarily the panacea that pro-choice advocates want them to be. Early attempts to regulate pregnancy centers relied on existing false advertising and unfair business practices statutes to prohibit pregnancy centers from engaging in misleading marketing that suggested the centers offered services they did not. When those suits were successful, the resulting injunctive relief often resembled contemporary notice regimes--and so is vulnerable to the same critiques. Both regulatory schemes are addressed primarily to pregnancy centers' deceptive marketing practices and do little to remedy the misinformation that awaits women inside pregnancy centers' doors. Furthermore, transparency literature teaches that even as to this narrow goal, disclosure-type regulation may be ineffective: Critiques of the efficacy of mandated disclosure as a regulatory tool generally likely apply with special force in the context of pregnancy centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After 8 years of investigation, the European Commission decided that Google has abused its market dominance by giving prominent placement in its search results to its own comparison shopping service, whilst demoting rival services. This paper discusses the first of these conducts. The paper will assess the harm arising from Google's conduct on consumers and merchants, and will discuss the importance of causality in proving that a conduct is abusive. The paper will also briefly present the remedies for Google's conduct. The argument made herein is that the Commission's decision enters uncharted territories in unilateral conduct enforcement and the decision is subject to criticisms which will be analysed herein. The paper shall assess the implications of the Commission's approach and remedies in this case for future enforcement in unilateral conduct cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been an on-going debate about restrictions of internet sales and vertical agreements during the last years. Producers started to impose restrictive rules for the distribution of their products via the internet, arguably due to the increase of "free-riders" negatively affecting fair price competition (as the so-called free-riders benefit from, for example, "no cost" expert advice given in brick and mortar shops). In this respect, it has been subject to controversy, whether online restrictions imposed by producers operating a selective distribution network on their retailers qualify as restrictions by object or restrictions by effect. In this respect, the European Court of Justice's judgement in Pierre Fabre as well as the German decisions in Adidas and Asics fuelled controversial debates. However, the ECJ's ruling in Coty might have shed light on restrictions of online sales in selective distribution agreements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Directive 2014/104/UE has been recently implemented into national law through Royal Decree 9/2017, which introduces certain amendments to the Spanish Litigation Act, on the one hand, and to the Spanish Competition Act, on the other. Even though this new legal framework entails an important progress regarding claims for damages caused by competition law infringements, many of the aspects introduced in our legislation were already being applied by national courts based on principles of European Law. However, other aspects of the new regulation remain ambiguous and will have to be clarified either by the Spanish legislator --who is currently processing amendments to the Royal Decree 9/2017-- or by means of case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

El artículo discute resoluciones relativas al derecho de la competencia en la Unión Europea (UE) y España. Sentencias de la corte de Justicia de la UE en los casos de SA CEPSA, Repsol SA y Productos Asfalticos S.A. (PROAS) se discuten. Sentencias del Tribunal General en los casos de Portugal Telecom y Telefónica SA se discuten. También se incluye es la sentencia del Tribunal Supremo español relativa a la defensa de la competencia.

Since its launch in 2007, Android has become the dominant mobile device operating system worldwide. In light of this commercial success and certain disputed business practices, Android has come under substantial attention from competition authorities. We present key aspects of Google’s strategy in mobile, focusing on Android-related practices that may have exclusionary effects. We then assess Google’s practices under competition law and, where appropriate, suggest remedies to right the violations we uncover. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the trade secret law of Utah. Topic discussed include Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Acts, definition as the federal Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), laws to protect the secrecy of the products; determination of trade secret misappropriation; and the 2010 Utah Supreme Court's decision in the case 'USA Power LLC v. PacifiCorp.'

The recently concluded independent review of Australian competition policy, law and institutions led by Professor Ian Harper examined proposals in relation to private enforcement of the competition rules. That private actions for damages were even on the review agenda is a positive development in an area that has long escaped the attention of policy-makers and enforcement leaders in this country. However, the Harper recommendations for private enforcement-related reforms are sparse and, in general terms, the Harper panel's treatment of the topic fails to grapple with many of the major challenges facing private litigants -- especially small businesses and consumers. This article is a critical analysis of the panel's consideration of private competition law enforcement. It explains the significant impediments hampering private litigation in this field, critically analyses the panel's examination of the issues, and compares the approaches that have been taken in overseas jurisdictions -- Europe particularly. It concludes that in the absence of a more concerted effort to confront and overcome the obstacles, the potential of private enforcement to compensate for past harm and deter future harm from anticompetitive conduct is likely to remain largely untapped. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of private enforcement in the different Competition Law legal systems, has been after a long and consolidated development of public enforcement, which see damages actions as a complement, rather than considering it as its detractor. In this sense, this article pretends to analyze the public enforcement in the Andean Community and their members, in order to identify their main characteristics, and to evaluate the advantages to keeping the application of this model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses American taxation, trademark, and intellectual property laws in relation to the role that branding plays in business as of 2016, and it mentions the various U.S. tax rules that are associated with branding activities. Legal claims filed against trademark and copyright infringers are examined, along with the U.S. Lanham Act, a trademark anti-dilusion theory, and unfair competition in America. The tax aspects of usual brand advertising and advertising campaigns are examined.

El artículo analiza sentencias en Derecho de la Competencia de la Unión Europea (UE) y España emitidas entre julio 2013 y enero 2015. Los temas tratados incluyen la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la EU en un caso del grupo de crédito Cartes Bancaires por canon protector, decisión de la Comisión Europea con respecto a la farmacéutica danesa Lundbeck por acuerdos sobre medicamentos genéricos y varias decisiones de tribunales españoles en materia de control de concentraciones.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling in the 2013 case Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp. which deals with legal protections for consumers and the court's interpretations of the Proposition 64 legislative amendments to California's False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws. According to the article, the Hinojos case involves allegations that a department store misrepresented the prices of various consumer goods.

El artículo analiza diversos decretos y sentencias en el área de Derecho de la Competencia emitidos en la Unión Europea (UE) y España entre junio y septiembre de 2014. Entre los temas tratados se encuentran la legislación sobre acuerdos que no restringen la competencia en la UE, sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de España en un caso relativo a comercialización de electricidad con sanción a la empresas Endesa Distribución Eléctrica S.L. y sentencia sobre la base del principio de proporcionalidad.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S Court of International Trade (CIT) in cases involving U.S governmental decisions involving imports such as the International Trade Commission (ITC) and Department of Commerce in unfair trade case. Topics discussed include the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States and the U.S Administrative Procedure Act.

El artículo analiza diversos decretos y sentencias en el área de Derecho de la Competencia de la Unión Europea (UE) y España emitidos entre julio y diciembre de 2013. Los temas discutidos incluyen la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE en el caso la aerolínea Deutsche Lufthansa AG contra la Comisión Europea por ayuda con el mercado interior, un caso de cártel en el comercio de sacos industriales y un caso de la empresa de telecomunicaciones Telefónica S.A. sobre la ayuda de Estado.

El artículo analiza decretos y sentencias en Derecho de la Competencia de España y la Unión Europea emitidos entre febrero y julio de 2013. Se incluye la creación de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia de España, la decisión de la Comisión Europea sobre la adquisición de la aerolínea Aer Lingus por Ryanair, así como la autorización al operador bursátil InterContinental Exchange para adquirir NYSE Euronext.

The article focuses on issues concerning Great Britain's competition law, exploring the development of the already existing right to bring follow-on actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), introduced into the Competition Act 1998 (CA98) by the Enterprise Act 2002 (EA02). It discusses the introduction of a private litigation route which would facilitate significantly litigation filed by claimants who had suffered from infringements. It mentions that the tribunal has defined its jurisdiction in such actions as being limited to causation and quantum.

The article discusses tort reform laws and the scope of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) as of February 2013, focusing on the Tennessee General Assembly's reported circumscription of the private right of action under the TCPA. The state's Civil Justice Act of 2011 (Tort Reform Act) is addressed, along with unfair and deceptive trade practices under Section 47-18-104(b) of the TCPA. The Tennessee Supreme Court’s ruling in Myint v. Allstate Insurance Company is also mentioned.

The article presents information on the interplay between the law enforcement of the public and private law with respect to the disclosure of the files and documents regarding the cases of the cartel agreement of the European Union and the European communities. The enforcement of the combination of the public law and the private law is for the purpose of accomplishing the objectives of the enforcement of the antitrust law. Information on the role of the European Commission in the cases regarding the infringement of the cartel agreement is also presented.

The article presents information on the role of voidness in the infringement of the Article 101 under the treaty on the functioning of the European Union on the related contracts with respect to the cartel agreement and the cartel markets in the European communities and Europe. The cartel activities are considered as harmful infringements of the competition law due to its impact on the prices and the innovations. Information on the role of the Court of Justice of the European Communities with respect to the decisions and judgments regarding the competition law and the contract law under the cartel agreements is also presented.

The article presents information on the requirement of criminal law for the purpose of enforcing the competition law against the cartels in Europe and the European Union. The use of criminal law is on the focuses on the regulations against the cartels, the economic harm caused by the cartel activity and also the effectiveness of the law regime of the competition law. The law is based on the cartel policy that is practiced by the European communities. Information on the cases regarding the issue cartel activity in the Great Britain and the decisions under the jurisdiction of Europe is also presented.

The article discusses the Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling in the 2010 case Cheramie Services v. Shell Deepwater Production which deals with conspiracy claims and private actions under Louisiana's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (LUTPA). The U.S. Federal Trade Commission Act and deceptive business practices are mentioned, along with summary judgments and breach of contract claims. According to the article, the Louisiana Legislature enacted the LUTPA in 1972.

In this article, the author discusses the changing role of judge and jury on trade secret cases. He cites two recent Supreme court decisions, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, that altered the standard by which court review motions to dismiss at the pleadings stage. He emphasizes the Court's decisions demonstrate a changing attitude regarding the allocation of authority between judge and jury.

This Note explores various theories of patent misuse as they relate to patent pools. Taking into account varying ideological underpinnings of misuse, this Note proposes a framework for rule of reason analysis of anticompetitive foreclosure of alternative technologies. The framework offers a phased analysis, borrowed from antitrust law, to focus the inquiry on the harms patent misuse seeks to deter in patent-pool licensing practices. The goal of the proposed framework is to increase operational clarity to modern, innovative firms and provide guidance to courts when applying rule of reason analysis to determine whether anticompetitive foreclosure could result from a challenged use of a patent pool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Circular priority problems are endemic in secured transaction law. A circular priority situation arises when there are three or more parties with competing claims to the same asset and there is no clear ranking of priority among them. There are multiple approaches applied by courts or advanced by commentators to resolve circular priority problems. The different mechanisms used by the courts to resolve a circular priority problem are evaluated using criteria that reflect the general values and goals of commercial law, and the mechanism that best accords with this criteria is identified. Although consensus on the best way of breaking a circularity will reduce litigation costs, it does not provide a complete solution, as it can be undermined by ex post bargaining among creditors. Given this instability, priority rules should be designed so as to limit the occasions when such problems can arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses key litigation considerations for companies facing trade secret misappropriation in the U.S. It offers an overview of trade secret law from the perspective of a plaintiff. It concentrates on issues with regards to complaints such as whether to engage alternative theories and who to name. It examines key defenses from the point of view of a plaintiff.

In December 2008, the Commission published a ‘Guidance on the Commission's Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 EC Treaty to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings’. The communication appears to conclude a debate on a ‘more economic approach’ towards Article 82 which has occupied the competition law community for the last three years. This article reviews the proposals contained in the ‘Priorities Paper’ in the light of the important judgments on the abuse of single-firm dominance which the CFI and the ECJ have issued between 2006 and 2008, including the Microsoft judgment. It strives to ascertain the current state of the law on Article 82, and the room it leaves for a ‘more economic approach’. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers updates on commercial policy cases in Germany. It states that the Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has established an additional panel, which will facilitate the establishment of abuse in the energy sector. Meanwhile, majority of the proceedings of FCO have been settled by the gas suppliers, who are suspected of charging high prices in 2007 and 2008, by paying their customers a total of 127 million euros in the next annual invoice and delaying planned price increases. Furthermore, the Federal Court of Justice confirms the decision of FCO that E.ON and RWE have a collective dominant position on the German market for the sale of electricity.

The article offers updates on commercial policy cases in Denmark. It states that the commitments of Carlsberg in relation to competition policy are bound legally by the Competition Council according to 16a of the Danish Competition Act. Meanwhile, the appeal of the Competition Council, which cites the dominant position of Biblioteksmedier in the market for the distribution of films and computer games to public libraries, is annulled by the Competition Appeal Board. Furthermore, the Danish Competition Authority restrain Unimerco from demanding use of original fasteners and must approve the use of all kind of tools that met the specifications required by the European Committee for Standardization.

The article offers updates on commercial policy cases in Poland. It states that the Polish Supreme Court has ruled that the abuse of a dominant position findings issued by the Chairman of the Office for the Protection of Competition and Consumers (OPCC Chairman) is bound upon courts that are petitioned by civil litigants to assess the validity of conduct. Meanwhile, the State Treasury, represented by Panstwowe Gospodarstwo Lesne Lasy Panstwowe (the State Forests) has been fined by the OPCC Chairman with PLN 1.5 million for abusing its dominant position in the national market of wood wholesale.

The article offers updates on commercial policy cases in Lithuania. It states that State Enterprise Tarptautinis Vilniaus oro uostas (TVOU) has been fined by the Lithuanian Competition Council with LTL 171,000 for infringing Article 82 EC and preventing entry of its potential competitor in the downstream fuel supply markets. Meanwhile, the judgment of Vilnius District Administrative Court (VDAC) in annulling the Competition Council's Article 82 EC infringement decision in the Mazeikiu nafta II case upheld by the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court (LSAC).

The article offers updates on commercial policy cases in Latvia. It states that the Latvian Competition Council has closed its investigation against AKKA/LAA on the alleged abuse of dominant position by the Latvian Broadcasters Association (LRA) since the applied tariffs are defined with sufficient clarity and applied in a non-discriminatory manner. However, the Competition Council has held a second decision against the AKKA/LAA for its abuse on its dominant position by applying unfair and excessive royalty tariffs for public performances of musical works.

The article offers updates on commercial policy cases in Italy. It states that Antitrust Authority AGCM has fined Aeroporti di Roma SpA (AdR) with 1.67 million euros and SEA SpA with 1.55 million euros for setting excessive airport fees for access to certain airport facilities in Italy. Meanwhile, the investigation against Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA (RFI) and its holding company Ferrovie dello Stato SpA (FS) has been closed by AGCM under Article 82 European Commission (EC) Treaty. Furthermore, the investigation against Acquedotto Pugliese (AQP) has been closed since AGCM has found a non-infringement of Article 82 EC Treaty.

The article offers updates on commercial policy cases in Ireland. It states that the Circle Line Bus Co. Ltd. has filed a complaint at the High Court on the abuse of Dublin Bus on its dominant position in violation of section 5 of the Competition Act 2002. Meanwhile, an enforcement decision on the alleged anti-competitive conduct of the Health Service Executive (HSE) in relation to the administration of community drugs schemes is published by the Irish Competition Authority (ICA). Furthermore, Nurendale, a private waste collection operator, challenged the decision of Dublin's four local authorities to alter their joint Waste Management Plan for the Dublin Region for 2005-2010 at the High Court.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS Inc. case on June 28, 2007, in which the court held that it was legal for a franchisor or manufacturer to control the resale pricing of its franchisees, distributors, or dealers. The ruling stated that all such pricing agreements were subject to the rule of reason, under which the claimant must show that the arrangement substantially harms competition in the market as a whole.

The article discusses the California Supreme Court case Edwards versus Arthur Andersen LLP in California. It notes that the court rejected the Ninth Circuit's exception as an improper understanding of the California law. It mentions that the case ruling represents the California state courts' strong preference for employee mobility over employers' interest in unfair competition. It presents the case law and legislation applicable to the Edwards decision.