tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6379177481618697903..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Book review: ‘Rethinking Intellectual Property – Balancing Conflicts of Interest in the Constitutional Paradigm’Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66106687741441239352018-03-12T14:29:23.059+00:002018-03-12T14:29:23.059+00:00It is most unfortunate that you lump the two Court...It is most unfortunate that you lump the two Court jurisdictions (CJEU and the EFTA Court) together with the European Copyright Society. The latter is a group of academics who send unsolicited submissions to the Courts during pending cases including to those that have locus to intervene. They are not the only group that does this. Fair enough -it is their freedom of expression or intereference whatever you like to call it. But to say the European Copyright Society were asked anything in the same breath as the Courts were is pushing it a bit.They have no standing.Bizarre comment to make.<br /><br />"the position recently espoused by the EFTA court in the Municipality of Oslo case [see here and here], supported by the European Copyright Society [here]. In the context of this dispute, the judges and scholars of the EFTA Court, and the European Copyright Society, respectively, were asked whether out-of-protection copyright works could be subject to trade mark registration. Whilst some advocated against this interpretation of the law, both the Court and the European Copyright Society concluded that nothing in the letter of the law prevented such an interpretation (here, p. 3)." <br /><br /><br />Watchblognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74990486138840146182018-03-12T13:57:55.691+00:002018-03-12T13:57:55.691+00:00With the caveat that I have not dug into the work,...With the caveat that I have not dug into the work, the immediate question that comes to my mind is:<br /><br /><b>Whose Constitution</b>?<br /><br />IP remains a sovereign law, and each sovereign - per their own distinct Constitutions - may have made differing choices.<br /><br />To speak then as if some single over-arching <i>trans</i>-Constitutional approach resolves anything is to speak nonsense.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.com