The July issue of Sweet & Maxwell's bimonthly European Copyright and Design Reports has now been published. It contains, among other cases, English translations of the following:
* Vereniging Buma an Stichting Stemra v KaZaA (Netherlands Supreme Court): supplier of peer-to-peer software for exchange of software held not liable for copyright infringements carried out by users of that software; appeal dismissed.
* Public Prosecutor v Jon Lech Johansen (Bogarting Appellate Court, Norway): the prosecutor's appeal against the dismissal of criminal charges against a celebrated DVD security system decoder dismissed.
* Tachon Diffusion SA v Marshoes (Cour de Cassation, France): whether a contract for the sale of a consignment of shoes is invalid on the ground that the shoes' lacing infringes design right;
* Sami v Hotell Du Nord (Supreme Court, Sweden): reasonable remuneration and restraint of trade in respect of the levying of retransmission rights;
* SISRO v Ampersand Software (Cour de Cassation, France): exclusive jurisdiction where copyright infringement proceedings are commenced in France in respect of infringing acts done outside France.
If you know of any interesting or important copyright case that you'd like to see reported in the ECDR, please mail us.
LATEST EUROPEAN COPYRIGHT CASES
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Rating:
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