The IPKat's translation watch continues to spot intellectual property cases from the European Court of Justice that are not being translated into English (or, in most cases, most of the other official languages of the European Union. Yesterday he spotted another one.
In Case C-143/04 The Commission v Kingdom of Belgium a three-man chamber of the Court ruled that Belgium had failed to implement Directive 2001/29 on harmonisation de certains aspects du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins dans la société de l'information (harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and neighbouring rights in the information society). It's only a short ruling, so the IPKat assumes that even people who neither speak nor read French -- the only language in which the ruling appears -- will have no problem understanding it.
Famous Belgians with an interest in copyright and neighbouring rights here, here, here and here
In Case C-143/04 The Commission v Kingdom of Belgium a three-man chamber of the Court ruled that Belgium had failed to implement Directive 2001/29 on harmonisation de certains aspects du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins dans la société de l'information (harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and neighbouring rights in the information society). It's only a short ruling, so the IPKat assumes that even people who neither speak nor read French -- the only language in which the ruling appears -- will have no problem understanding it.
Famous Belgians with an interest in copyright and neighbouring rights here, here, here and here
BELGIUM STANDS CONDEMNED -- BUT ONLY IN FRENCH
![BELGIUM STANDS CONDEMNED -- BUT ONLY IN FRENCH]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, November 19, 2004
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