Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö "Zorro" : Decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy, Civil Division Section 1 (Corte Suprema di Cassazion, Sez. 1 Civ) 30 December 2022 – Case No. 38165/2022
Julkaistu Springer, Heidelberg : 2023.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 54(6)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. 1. In terms of copyright, parody constitutes a humorous or mocking act that characteristically evokes a work, or even a fictional character, and does not require any originality of its own beyond perceptible differences from the work or character being parodied. 2. In terms of copyright, parody must ensure a fair balance between the rights of the party entitled to exploit the work or character, and the freedom of expression of the author of the parody itself. In this sense, it may be justified to evoke protected content within the inherent limits for the purpose of parody and provided that the parody does not prejudice the interests of the owner of the original work or character, as happens when the former competes with the economic use of the latter. 3. With regard to trade marks, in view of the rules in force prior to the amendment of Art. 20 Intellectual Property Code, implemented by Art. 9(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No. 15/2019, the exploitation of another party’s trade mark, if it has a reputation, is to be deemed prohibited where use of the sign without due cause in the course of economic activity allows the perpetrator to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the trade mark or is detrimental thereto, regardless of the fact that, as in the case of a parody of the trade mark in question, the trade mark was not used to distinguish the perpetrator’s goods or services.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 0018-9855 ; 54(6)
*000 ab a ar
*00121306
*008 s2023||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*24500$a"Zorro" :$bDecision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Italy, Civil Division Section 1 (Corte Suprema di Cassazion, Sez. 1 Civ) 30 December 2022 – Case No. 38165/2022 /$cZorro Productions Inc v. Compagnia Generale Distribuzione SpA (CO.GE.DI. International) Intellectual Property Code, Art. 20(1)(c); Law No. 633 of 1941, Arts. 4, 70(1); Directive 2001/29/EC, Art. 5(3)(k).
*264 1$aHeidelberg :$bSpringer,$c2023.
*300 $as. 953–968
*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 ;$v54(6)
*520 $a1. In terms of copyright, parody constitutes a humorous or mocking act that characteristically evokes a work, or even a fictional character, and does not require any originality of its own beyond perceptible differences from the work or character being parodied. 2. In terms of copyright, parody must ensure a fair balance between the rights of the party entitled to exploit the work or character, and the freedom of expression of the author of the parody itself. In this sense, it may be justified to evoke protected content within the inherent limits for the purpose of parody and provided that the parody does not prejudice the interests of the owner of the original work or character, as happens when the former competes with the economic use of the latter. 3. With regard to trade marks, in view of the rules in force prior to the amendment of Art. 20 Intellectual Property Code, implemented by Art. 9(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No. 15/2019, the exploitation of another party’s trade mark, if it has a reputation, is to be deemed prohibited where use of the sign without due cause in the course of economic activity allows the perpetrator to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the trade mark or is detrimental thereto, regardless of the fact that, as in the case of a parody of the trade mark in question, the trade mark was not used to distinguish the perpetrator’s goods or services.
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$atekijänoikeuslaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9817
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$afiktiiviset hahmot$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1273$2yso/fin
*650 7$aparodia$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p9240$2yso/fin
*650 7$atavaramerkit$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p1488
*650 7$atavaramerkkilaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p21904
*650 7$apäätökset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2868$2yso/fin
*651 7$aItalia$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105111$2yso/fin
*653 $aomaperäisyys
*830 0$aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v54(6)
*852 $hSA-IIC
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.