Papers by Katja Weckström
Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, 2020
Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, Mar 26, 2021
European Food and Feed Law Review, 2017
Social Science Research Network, 2010
... 10 C-228/03 The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy [2005... more ... 10 C-228/03 The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy [2005] ECR I-2337 at 35. Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in C-228/03 The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, 9.12.2004, at 64-72. ...
Social Science Research Network, 2010
the trademark's value in order to sell the pirate's own products. Article 6bis of the Paris Conve... more the trademark's value in order to sell the pirate's own products. Article 6bis of the Paris Convention offers a remedy for holders of globally well-known marks who are victims of trademark piracy and allows them to prevent registration and use of identical or similar marks for identical or similar products, despite the mark not being used or registered in the country in question. 4 Counterfeiting, a second form of illegitimate trade, can be defined as "the unlawful forgery, copying, or imitation of an item,. .. or the unauthorized possession of such an item, with the intent to deceive or defraud by claiming or passing the item as genuine." 5 While trademark counterfeiting often involves copying of the trademark itself, the primary object of copying is the product that is sold under a particular brand. 6 An element of deceit is present because the goal of the counterfeiter is to tap into the market of the brand and, to some extent, pass off the fakes as the real merchandise. 7 Unlike traditional trademark infringement and trademark dilution, which are sanctioned by civil remedies, trademark counterfeiting and piracy are universally criminally sanctioned. 8 For purposes of discussion in this article, reference to illegitimate trade refers solely to instances of trademark counterfeiting. Illegal trade such as the buying, selling, soliciting, or trading in unauthorized copying of copyright materials for commercial purposes and the unauthorized commercial dealing in copied materials." Id. at § 2.232. Copyright, which is based on the exclusive right of authorization, is thus completely hijacked. 3. It could be argued that keyword advertising fits the theoretical definition of trademark piracy, since the trademark in one sense is hijacked. Trademark piracy is, however, narrowly tailored and understood as an exception that is closely tied to the specific remedy in Article 6bis of the Paris Convention. Treaty provisions cannot be interpreted expansively under customary norms of international law.
Ius comparatum, 2017
Finnish copyright law has been in the spotlight of public debate during the last decade. The Finn... more Finnish copyright law has been in the spotlight of public debate during the last decade. The Finnreactor and Pirate Bay cases tackled intermediary liability for file-sharing through peer-to-peer technology. While public debate and legal reform arises naturally in common law countries, change in the law requires legislative intervention in Finland. The Finnish “copyleft” has worked hard to formalize the debate in order to influence a series of legislative proposals that have sought to further cement right-holder interests in the Finnish Copyright Act. These proposals extended and expanded the rights of copyright holders in the digital setting. Arguments for strong protection (“copyright”) advance remedies against ISPs that are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” preventive measures against copyright infringement according to Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive and Article 8 of the INFOSOC Directive. Arguments against strong protection (copyleft) advance narrowly-tailored or no remedies against ISPs relying on Article 9 of the Enforcement Directive, fundamental rights of ISPs and users and the prohibition against imposing an obligation to monitor the internet contrary to Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive. After 5 years of intense parliamentary debate, new Sections 60a–60g of the Finnish Copyright Act, which strikes a balance between competing fundamental rights on the internet, entered into force in June 2015.
Social Science Research Network, 2006
The author would like to thank Graeme Dinwoodie, Sungjoon Cho, and Sarah Harding for valuable com... more The author would like to thank Graeme Dinwoodie, Sungjoon Cho, and Sarah Harding for valuable comments and discussions during the writing process.
Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, Jan 31, 2012
... 10 C-228/03 The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy [2005... more ... 10 C-228/03 The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy [2005] ECR I-2337 at 35. Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in C-228/03 The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, 9.12.2004, at 64-72. ...
Social Science Research Network, 2018
Social Science Research Network, Aug 21, 2018
The conflicts between fundamental rights are increasing in the digital environment and demands fo... more The conflicts between fundamental rights are increasing in the digital environment and demands for less or more intervention by authorities are placed on courts, officials and legislatures. Legal traditions differ. Yet, the United States’ constitutional tradition has great impact on activity and ideology, if not law, on the internet. Depending on personal conviction, online acts are viewed as criticism of the regime, mere civil disobedience or criminal activity. These convictions fuel fundamental rights discourses in judicial processes. This chapter aims at revealing general principles underlying the practical resolution of fundamental rights conflicts. It discusses policing online activity in preventing criminal activity. It covers some measures against the spread of child abuse material (CAM) and securing fundamental rights in public administration. It also discusses enforcement against illegal sharing of copyrighted works and the consequences of shifting from public to private enforcement against criminal acts.
Social Science Research Network, Feb 17, 2011
The Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications ... more The Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications ("SCLT") of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") adopted a Joint Recommendation on the protection of trademarks on the Internet in 2001. It generally stated that there must be liability for uses of a sign on the Internet, but at the same time countries must apply the exceptions to liability and the limitations to the scope of the rights that exist under various national trademark laws. In order for the use of a sign on the Internet to be infringing under Article 6 of the Joint Recommendation it must have commercial effect. The Joint Recommendation, does not specify any conditions for determining whether the use is infringing and does not address the issue of liability for Internet intermediaries. The SCLT met in November 2010 to discuss the revision and expansion of the Joint Recommendation. Of particular concern was the liability of Internet auction sites, search engines, and the hosts of virtual worlds and social networking sites. The WIPO Secretariat highlighted two legal questions, one of policy and one of passivity. The policy question centers around which party should bear the burden of policing the mark. While the WIPO Secretariat focuses on Internet auction sites, this question is relevant to all categories of Internet intermediaries. The same is true for the question of passivity; whether and when intermediaries can be liable for failure to act. This Article reviews the discussion in a sample of the relevant case law on these questions in the United States and argues that both questions should presumptively be resolved in favor of the Internet intermediary, unless the trademark owner can overcome the high burden of proving a positive act directly attributable to the intermediary that amounts to contributory infringement. This Article also highlights the problems involved in using technical ability or technical standards for deciding issues of contributory trademark infringement on the Internet. The WIPO Secretariat focuses on reasons why there should or should not be liability. Although focusing on the core issue is often advisable, this Article argues that such an approach oversimplifies an inherently complicated question, fixes a dynamic question into a static solution, and disconnects decision making from reality on the national level. On the other hand, overly fact-based decision making on this question fails on the same ground, since the key argument against liability for Internet intermediaries is neither intermediary-specific nor backward looking. Instead, decision making should reach a higher level of abstraction, i.e., consider the overall effects on the particular intermediary, the overall effect on the particular electronic market, and the analogous consequences of the ruling. After all, the Internet intermediary does not fail to act in relation to only one trademark or one trademark owner as an established duty to act favors all trademarks and all trademark owners. Only based on such a general inquiry may the decision maker reach the question of policy, and accurately reflect the societal counterweight to the vested interests of trademark owners. Diminishing the question to one of whether trademark use has occurred, whether there is commercial effect, or whether the intermediary has failed to act, inherently favors the trademark owner and should not be disguised as deciding a question of policy and performing a legitimate weighing of the interests at hand.
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals), 2013
Social Science Research Network, 2018
Marquette intellectual property law review, 2012
For purposes of discussion in this article, reference to illegitimate trade refers solely to inst... more For purposes of discussion in this article, reference to illegitimate trade refers solely to instances of trademark counterfeiting. Illegal trade such as the buying, selling, soliciting, or trading in unauthorized copying of copyright materials for commercial purposes and the unauthorized commercial dealing in copied materials." Id. at § 2.232. Copyright, which is based on the exclusive right of authorization, is thus completely hijacked. 3. It could be argued that keyword advertising fits the theoretical definition of trademark piracy, since the trademark in one sense is hijacked. Trademark piracy is, however, narrowly tailored and understood as an exception that is closely tied to the specific remedy in Article 6bis of the Paris Convention. Treaty provisions cannot be interpreted expansively under customary norms of international law.
Handbook on Originality in Copyright
Uploads
Papers by Katja Weckström