Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö "500% FIAT" : Decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy, Civil Division, Section I (Corte Suprema di Cassazione, Sez. I Civ.) 14 March 2022 – Case No. 8276/2022
Julkaistu Springer, Heidelberg : 2022.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 53(9)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. On the subject of copyright, a claim, within the meaning of Art. 2(4) of Law No. 633 of 1941 (the law on copyright), to exclusive property rights in respect of a registered advertising message (“slogan”) requires proof of the originality of the creation; this can be ruled out if the message makes a reference to trade marks that are already registered and have a certain evocative capacity in such a way that the link, through its independently evocative capacity, renders the creative part of the slogan null and void and rules out all innovation.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 0018-9855 ; 53(9)
*000 ab a ar
*00117189
*008 s2022||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*24500$a"500% FIAT" :$bDecision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy, Civil Division, Section I (Corte Suprema di Cassazione, Sez. I Civ.) 14 March 2022 – Case No. 8276/2022 /$cMiglio Andrea, [omissis] v. FCA Italy S.p.A., [omissis] and Leo Burnett Company S.r.L., [omissis] Law No. 633/1941 on Copyright, Art. 2(4) /
*264 1$aHeidelberg :$bSpringer,$c2022.
*300 $as. 1409–1412
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v53(9)
*520 $aOn the subject of copyright, a claim, within the meaning of Art. 2(4) of Law No. 633 of 1941 (the law on copyright), to exclusive property rights in respect of a registered advertising message (“slogan”) requires proof of the originality of the creation; this can be ruled out if the message makes a reference to trade marks that are already registered and have a certain evocative capacity in such a way that the link, through its independently evocative capacity, renders the creative part of the slogan null and void and rules out all innovation.
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$apäätökset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2868$2yso/fin
*650 7$atuomiot$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3192$2yso/fin
*650 7$atekijänoikeus laki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9817
*650 7$atavaramerkit$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1488
*650 7$amainonta$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1232$2yso/fin
*651 7$aItalia$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105111$2yso/fin
*830 0$aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v53(9)
*852 $hSA-IIC
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.