Hylly SA-Entertainment Law Review
Henkilönnimi Naaman, Noa, kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Dutch Court Considers Principle of Reciprocity in Land Rover Copyright Case
Julkaistu Sweet & Maxwell, London : 2023.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa Entertainment Law Review, ISSN 0959-3799 ; 34(2)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. This article reviews the preliminary injunction decision of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden in Jaguar v Ineos in which the key, but ultimately unresolved, issue was whether the three-dimensional exterior of an all-terrain vehicle designed in the United Kingdom was eligible for protection under copyright law in the Netherlands pursuant to the principle of reciprocity as set out in the Berne Convention. The Court of Appeal dismissed Jaguar's infringement claims as the eligibility of a vehicle as a work of applied art under English law could not be established with sufficient certainty.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke Entertainment Law Review, 0959-3799 ; 34(2)
*000 ab a ar
*00117871
*008 s2023||||xxk|||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*1001 $aNaaman, Noa,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aDutch Court Considers Principle of Reciprocity in Land Rover Copyright Case /$cNoa Naaman.
*264 1$aLondon :$bSweet & Maxwell,$c2023.
*300 $as. 52-54
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aEntertainment Law Review,$x0959-3799 ;$v34(2)
*520 $aThis article reviews the preliminary injunction decision of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden in Jaguar v Ineos in which the key, but ultimately unresolved, issue was whether the three-dimensional exterior of an all-terrain vehicle designed in the United Kingdom was eligible for protection under copyright law in the Netherlands pursuant to the principle of reciprocity as set out in the Berne Convention. The Court of Appeal dismissed Jaguar's infringement claims as the eligibility of a vehicle as a work of applied art under English law could not be established with sufficient certainty.
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$amuotoilu$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p6455$2yso/fin
*650 7$amallisuoja $0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p14238$2yso/fin
*650 7$aautot$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1223$2yso/fin
*651 7$aAlankomaat$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105190
*651 7$aIso-Britannia$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p104990
*830 0$aEntertainment Law Review,$x0959-3799 ;$v34(2)
*852 $hSA-Entertainment Law Review
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.