No description available.

<p>Trademarks are distinguishing marks that are used by companies to highlight their goods or services to separate them from other companies. In Sweden, trademarks are protected by a certain Trademark Law called Varumärkeslagen. The law is a result of many years of improvements from earlier trademark laws. Since Sweden is member of the European Union, its laws are affected and in many cases inferior to laws of the Union. A new Trademark Law is about to be implemented in Sweden, thanks to a directive from the European Union.</p><p>When a trademark is registered it is possible to use the symbol ® along with the trademark. This symbol indicates that the good or service can be trusted and also tells other companies that the trademark can be protected from possible infringements. Originally the symbol comes from American trademark law and in the USA there are certain regulations on how to use the symbol, regulations that we don’t have in Sweden or Europe.</p><p>However, trademark registrations are done approximately in the same way in USA, Sweden and EU. In the USA an application is sent to USPTO which is correspondent to PRV in Sweden and OHIM in the EU. There are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled before and registration can take place and these conditions are also very similar if we compare the different systems. There are different systems for registration of trademarks, except the national systems. If you want to register a trademark in the EU there’s a certain system and if you’re looking to get a registration outside the Union you can do this through another system.</p><p>Occasionally, some companies use the ® symbol without actually having a registration in the country where the good or service is promoted and sometimes they don’t even have a registration at all, in any country. When this happens, these companies are most often suited in court. One of these cases occurred in Germany in 1989. A German company had been marketing a blood filter that was imported from Italy. The trademark was registered in Italy but not in Germany and another operator on the German reacted. The German court found that the use of the ® symbol without a German registration was improper but considered that a prohibition might be restrictive to the principle of free movement of goods in the EU. This consideration proved to be accurate after a decision from the EU court of the. There are further cases like this one from the market courts of Sweden and Finland but in these particular cases there were no registration existing at all, not in any country. The courts passed sentence on these companies for misleading advertising.</p><p>It has been proven that cases like these are not always easy to settle since national laws are affected and sometimes controlled by laws or directives of the EU. Hopefully, the new harmonized marketing law will make it easier further on. Still, there are no regulations on the use of the ® symbol in Sweden or the EU and since it seems to cause problems, if not very often, I think it would be good to introduce some common rules for this.</p>

Trademarks are distinguishing marks that are used by companies to highlight their goods or services to separate them from other companies. In Sweden, trademarks are protected by a certain Trademark Law called Varumärkeslagen. The law is a result of many years of improvements from earlier trademark laws. Since Sweden is member of the European Union, its laws are affected and in many cases inferior to laws of the Union. A new Trademark Law is about to be implemented in Sweden, thanks to a directive from the European Union. When a trademark is registered it is possible to use the symbol ® along with the trademark. This symbol indicates that the good or service can be trusted and also tells other companies that the trademark can be protected from possible infringements. Originally the symbol comes from American trademark law and in the USA there are certain regulations on how to use the symbol, regulations that we don’t have in Sweden or Europe. However, trademark registrations are done approximately in the same way in USA, Sweden and EU. In the USA an application is sent to USPTO which is correspondent to PRV in Sweden and OHIM in the EU. There are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled before and registration can take place and these conditions are also very similar if we compare the different systems. There are different systems for registration of trademarks, except the national systems. If you want to register a trademark in the EU there’s a certain system and if you’re looking to get a registration outside the Union you can do this through another system. Occasionally, some companies use the ® symbol without actually having a registration in the country where the good or service is promoted and sometimes they don’t even have a registration at all, in any country. When this happens, these companies are most often suited in court. One of these cases occurred in Germany in 1989. A German company had been marketing a blood filter that was imported from Italy. The trademark was registered in Italy but not in Germany and another operator on the German reacted. The German court found that the use of the ® symbol without a German registration was improper but considered that a prohibition might be restrictive to the principle of free movement of goods in the EU. This consideration proved to be accurate after a decision from the EU court of the. There are further cases like this one from the market courts of Sweden and Finland but in these particular cases there were no registration existing at all, not in any country. The courts passed sentence on these companies for misleading advertising. It has been proven that cases like these are not always easy to settle since national laws are affected and sometimes controlled by laws or directives of the EU. Hopefully, the new harmonized marketing law will make it easier further on. Still, there are no regulations on the use of the ® symbol in Sweden or the EU and since it seems to cause problems, if not very often, I think it would be good to introduce some common rules for this.

This study attempts to analyze the deregulation process of downstream oil industry in Turkey and to develop policies concerning Turkish downstream oil industry. Privatization of Petrol Ofisi and T&Uuml / PRAS and the enactment of the Petroleum Market Law in 2003 were the main implementations of radical deregulation process of downstream oil industry. The main goal of deregulation process has been to create a competitive market. However, establishment of a competitive downstream oil industry has not been achieved, yet. Despite the price liberalization, price competition between distribution companies has not been realized, so far. T&Uuml / PRAS was transformed to a private monopoly through the privatization. Moreover, price liberalization has increased both the refining margins of T&Uuml / PRAS and distribution margins of distribution companies at the expense of consumers. A comprehensive competition policy about downstream oil industry should be developed immediately. Furthermore, due to its poor performance since 2003, Energy Market Regulatory Authority&rsquo / s (EMRA) responsibilities in downstream oil industry should be removed and a new regulatory authority which will solely interest with petroleum sector should be established.

This thesis investigates competition law, State aid law and free-movement law in their interaction with Article 11 TFEU’s obligation to integrate environmental protection requirements into all activities and policies of the Union. The Article is formulated in broad and sweeping terms which makes integrating environmental protection requirements complex and context-dependent. The challenge of integrating environmental considerations is further increased as such integration in competition, State aid and free- movement law is different from other areas of EU action. The three areas are the core provisions protecting the internal market by prohibiting certain actions of the Member States and undertakings. Unlike in other areas, the EU is therefore not in the position to develop or design the actions but has to scrutinise the measure according to pre-established parameters. To address this challenge, a novel functional approach to environmental integration is developed. The approach should facilitate a better understanding of environmental integration and in particular its application to competition law, State aid and free-movement law. An important element of this thesis equally the comparison between the three areas of law. It sheds light on conceptual issues that are not only relevant to the integration of environmental protection. The comparison advances the understanding in relation to questions such as how restrictions are defined and how the respective balancing tests are applied. The contribution of this research is therefore twofold. One the one hand, it compares how the different tests in competition, State aid and free-movement law operate, thereby offering opportunities for cross-fertilisation. On the other hand, this comparison and the improvements suggested as a result help to conceptualise environmental integration thereby paving the way for a more transparent and consistent integration of environmental protection in competition, State aid and free-movement law.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

In this paper, the author focuses on the study of the legal institution of the Open Stock Corporation, analyzing the way how it has been treated in our legislation over time. Furthermore, he analyzes its current regulation in the General Law of Corporations, the Securities Market Law and some isolated legal provisions. Finally, he provides some ideas for the necessary reform of this institution. / En el presente artículo, el autor se centra en el estudio de la institución jurídica de la Sociedad Anónima Abierta, analizando la forma como ha sido tratada en nuestra legislación a lo largo del tiempo. Asimismo, analiza su regulación actual en la Ley General de Sociedades, en la Ley del Mercado de Valores y en algunas disposiciones legales aisladas. Finalmente, brinda algunas ideas para la necesaria reforma de esta institución.

L’existence d’une multiplicité de figures juridiques de la concurrence pourrait conduire à un manque de cohérence et d’intelligibilité du régime européen de la concurrence. Ce dernier canalise d’ailleurs une partie des critiques relative au déclin du droit. Toutefois, l’étude de ses multiples traductions juridiques aboutit à un constat bien différent. Derrière un apparent désordre, l’approche européenne de la concurrence fait preuve d’une profonde cohérence. Dans chacune des figures juridiques de la concurrence, un même objectif officie au titre de standard. Il s’agit de la loyauté de la concurrence. Cette dernière intervient dans l’ensemble des régimes européens de la concurrence comme une notion autour de laquelle gravite un ensemble de solutions cohérentes par leur finalité et leur contenu. Cohérentes par leur finalité, tout d’abord, car les multiples traductions de l’ordre concurrentiel européen abordent la loyauté de la concurrence comme un moyen de protéger le bon fonctionnement du marché concurrentiel. Cohérentes par leur contenu, ensuite, car chacune des figures juridiques de la concurrence vise à assurer la loyauté de la concurrence en préservant l’égalité des chances entre les opérateurs économiques. De fait, le constat de la transversalité et de l’homogénéité de traitement de la loyauté de la concurrence révèle que l’objectif a, jusqu’alors, été largement sous-estimé. Cette mise à l’écart est regrettable car, en raison de sa neutralité axiologique, l’introduire dans les différents débats relatifs à l’approche européenne de la concurrence offre de véritables solutions en termes d’homogénéisation de la notion de concurrence et de meilleure intégration des figures juridiques de la concurrence. / The existence of various rules regarding competition could lead to a lack of coherence andintelligibility of the European system of competition. As a matter of fact, the latter channels a part of the criticisms relating to the decline of law. However, the study of its numerous legal translations results in a very different conclusion. Behind an apparent disorder, the European approach to competition shows profound coherence. In each legal aspects of competition, a common objective officiates as a standard. It is the fair competition. The latter intervenes in all European competition regulations as a notion around which revolve a set of solutions coherent by their finality and content.Coherent by their finality, firstly, because all the legal translations of the competitive order address fair competition as a way to protect competition and, more generally, public interest.Coherent by their content, secondly, because each legal aspects of competition ensures faircompetition by preserving the equality of opportunity between competitors.De facto, the observation of the transversality and homogeneity of the treatment of fair competition reveals that the objective has been, until now, widely underestimated. This sidelining is regrettable because, on the grounds of its axiological neutrality, introducing it into the different debates relating to the European approach to competition offers real solutions in terms of the homogenization of the notion of competition and better integration of the legal aspects of competition.

Les sociétés familiales sont les plus anciennes, les plus nombreuses et les plus importantes de notre économie. Pourtant, elles ne font l’objet d’aucune définition légale et n’ont que rarement suscité l’intérêt du juriste. Nous avons donc cherché à caractériser la société familiale en nous intéressant plus particulièrement à certaines d’entre elles, les sociétés cotées sur le marché financier. La société cotée familiale combine deux univers, la famille et le marché, qui sont fondés sur des valeurs et des modes de fonctionnement diamétralement opposés. Cette opposition nous permet de mieux distinguer les spécificités, mais également les risques attachés aux sociétés familiales. C’est à travers l’exemple des chaebol, des conglomérats familiaux coréens, que cette étude a été menée. L’analyse emprunte une méthode comparative où les sociétés chaebol sont opposées aux sociétés familiales françaises. Notre étude a permis de mettre en évidence l’impact du contrôle familial sur le fonctionnement de la société cotée. Elle souligne également l’échec relatif du transfert des normes américaines dans l’environnement coréen, confirmant ainsi la théorie de la dépendance au sentier. Parallèlement, cette étude invite à réfléchir sur la réception possible du droit français, plus proche de la réalité coréenne / Family-owned companies contribute the largest share to our economy. Yet, there is still no legal definition of what a family-owned company is and the topic has not drawn a lot of interest from legal academics. This study aims at differentiating family-owned companies by focusing more specifically on companies listed on a financial market. Family-owned listed company combines two worlds, family and financial market, which are based on diametrically opposed values and modus operandi. This conflict helps us to understand the specific features of these companies, as well as the risks attached to them. Taking the example of the chaebol, the Korean family-owned conglomerates, we highlighted the impact of the family control on the management and the governance of these groups. We compared French and Korean companies and legal frameworks, drawing the conclusion that the French legal system might have been a better fit to the Korean environment than American rules. Our research also underlines the relative failure of the transplant of U.S. standards in South Korea, which can be explained by the theory of path dependence.