Last Wednesday the Court of Appeal affirmed December 2002 decision of Neuberger J in Peer International v Termidor [2003] ECDR 221. In that decision the judge refused to give legal effect in the United Kingdom to a Cuban law which purported to invalidate an earlier copyright assignment made by two Cuban composers, Ignacio Pineiro and Antonio Fernandez (a.k.a Nico Saquito), to Peer International, a Los Angeles-based publishing house. After that law was passed in Cuba, the copyright was vested in a state entity which purported to grant an exclusive licence to the defendants, a German company.
The Court could see no public policy grounds for allowing the application of a law which was in effect confiscatory, retrospectively depriving assignors of their intellectual property rights without compensation. This was one decision that was never going to go the other way, either at first instance or on appeal.
Listen to the music of Ignacio Pineiro and Nico Saquito
Dance the salsa here
Facts about Cuba here
The Court could see no public policy grounds for allowing the application of a law which was in effect confiscatory, retrospectively depriving assignors of their intellectual property rights without compensation. This was one decision that was never going to go the other way, either at first instance or on appeal.
Listen to the music of Ignacio Pineiro and Nico Saquito
Dance the salsa here
Facts about Cuba here
CUBAN COPYRIGHT LAW INAPPLICABLE IN UNITED KINGDOM
![<strong>CUBAN COPYRIGHT LAW INAPPLICABLE IN UNITED KINGDOM</strong>]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, August 01, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html