Tekijänoikeuden erikoiskirjasto

*000      ab a        ar
*00116337
*008      s2021||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||            
*041  $aeng
*24500$aBetec Licht :$bDecision of the Court of Cassation of France (Cour de cassation) 7 October 2020 – Case No. 19-11.258 /$cBetec Licht AG and Mr. U.D.O. v. Comptoir électrique français SASU, Société Immobilière et d’exploitation de l’Hôtel Majestic SA, Comptoir general d’éclairage (trading under the trade name Lucera SA), and Grupo Lineas TC Intellectual Property Code, Arts. L. 111-1, L. 112-1; Civil Code, Art. 1382 (now Art. 1240)
*260  $c2021
*300  $as. 647
*4900 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v52(5)
*520  $a1. All the features of the combination claimed to underlie the originality of a work must be taken into account when assessing the necessary originality required for copyright protection. 2. An action for unfair competition may be based on facts which are substantially identical to the facts alleged in an action for intellectual property infringement, which has been rejected for the absence of a property right.
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$atekijänoikeuslaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9817
*650 7$aväärennökset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p6848$2yso/fin
*650 7$amallisuoja$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p14238$2yso/fin
*651 7$aRanska$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p104968$2yso/fin
*653  $aomaperäisyys
*852  $hSA-IIC
^