首页> 外文期刊>European intellectual property review >The Blocking Injunction: A Comparative and Critical Review of the EU, Singaporean and Australian Regimes
【24h】

The Blocking Injunction: A Comparative and Critical Review of the EU, Singaporean and Australian Regimes

机译:禁止令:欧盟,新加坡和澳大利亚政权的比较和批判性评论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

This article critically, and comparatively, evaluates the legal basis and key shortcomings of the blocking injunction, which has gained popularity in the EU, Singapore and lately Australia, as an alternative to the extrajudicial "notice and takedown" approach to enforcing intellectual property rights. The article concludes that there are problems not only with the remedy itself, but also in the manner in which the blocking injunction is implemented. The fact that multiple proceedings have to be filed in order to obtain a global level of enforcement and the possibility of blocking measures being circumvented are problems with the remedy itself. In the EU context, at least, not only does the implementation of the blocking injunction fall short of due process requirements, but also the legal basis for the remedy in the context of enforcing trade mark rights is questionable.
机译:本文从批判性和比较性的角度评估了封锁性禁令的法律基础和主要缺陷,禁令在欧盟,新加坡和最近的澳大利亚广为流行,可以作为法外“公告和移除”方法来实施知识产权的替代方法。该文章的结论是,不仅补救措施本身存在问题,而且实施禁令的方式也存在问题。为了获得全球范围的强制执行,必须提起多重诉讼程序的事实,以及绕开阻止措施的可能性,都是补救措施本身的问题。在欧盟范围内,至少,禁令的实施不仅不符合正当程序的要求,而且在实施商标权方面进行补救的法律依据也令人怀疑。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号