Die Dissertation befasst sich mit der juristischen Problematik, ob ein Rechtsbehelf anzuerkennen ist, der es Anspruchsgegnern ermöglicht, in lauterkeitsrechtlichen Unterlassungsstreitigkeiten Verfahren des einstweiligen Rechtsschutzes zu initiieren. Ein solcher Rechtsbehelf ist für Anspruchsgegner bislang nicht anerkannt. Dies stellt sich als sehr problematisch dar, da Eilverfahren im Lauterkeitsrecht eine sehr hohe Bedeutung zukommt und Anspruchsgegner in diesen Verfahren signifikant benachteiligt werden. Dieser Umstand begründet auch eine erhebliche Gefahr von Fehlentscheidungen zu Lasten der Anspruchsgegner. Im Wettbewerb kann diesen Fehlentscheidungen große Bedeutung zukommen, weil durch sie beispielsweise der Vertrieb neuer innovativer Produkte untersagt werden kann. Die Arbeit kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass ein entsprechender Rechtsbehelf anzuerkennen ist, da er dem Anspruchsgegner eine Möglichkeit verschafft, sich wirksam vor schädigenden Fehlentscheidungen zu schützen und damit der Verwirklichung der verfassungsrechtlichen Vorgaben prozessualer Waffengleichheit und effektiven Rechtschutzes dient. / The dissertation deals with the juristic problem whether a legal remedy is to be recognized which enables opponents to initiate procedures of interim legal protection in disputes regarding injunctive relief in the field of unfair competition law. Such a legal remedy is not recognized for opponents up to now. This appears to be very problematic, as preliminary proceedings are of high importance in the field of unfair competition law and opponents are being significantly disadvantaged in these procedures. This fact also founds a considerable danger of wrong decisions at the expense of the opponents. In competition these wrong decisions may be of great importance as, for example, the distribution of new and innovative products can be prohibited by them. The work comes to the conclusion that a corresponding legal remedy is to be recognized, because it provides the opponent with an effective option to protect itself from damaging wrong decisions and it serves the realization of the constitutional requirements of procedural equality of opportunity and effective legal protection.

The sui generis-right in article 7.1 of the database directive provides the maker of a database, who has made a qualitatively and/or quantitative substantial investment in the obtaining, verification and/or presentation of the contents in a database, the right to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part of the database contents. In order to prevent the circumvention of article 7.1, the right to prohibit tortious dispositions of the contents was sup- plemented by article 7.5, which extends the right for the maker to prevent non-substantial parts to be extracted and/or re-utilized, provided that the extraction and/or re-utilization are repeated and systematic in a way that undermines the substantial investment the maker of the database has made.  The way that the sui generis-right is framed as an investment protection, in combination with the fact that the right’s object of protection is the investment as such, is the reason that the right has come to be regarded as a protection clause against unfair competition rather than an intellectual property right. As a result, the sui generis-right is of great significance to unfair competition and competition and antitrust law in general. This applies not only to article 102 FEUF, but especially to the DMA and in relation to the prescribed data-sharing obligation in article 6.10 in the DMA.  Competition and antitrust law in general and the DMA in particular, through its rootedness in article 3 FEU, aim to maintain competitive, open and fair digital markets. This applies, to say the least, as a part of ensuring the efficiency in the EU internal market, which by enlarge is intended to benefit the consumers. In this way, it’s understood that the consumers perspective plays a fundamental role in competition policy. In relation to the DMA, this is expressed through articles 6.2 and 6.10 of the DMA, which have the function of promoting innovation and increasing the consumers’ diversity of choice, while simultaneously giving the business users better opportunities to compete with the gatekeepers and thus become more efficient.  By imposing on a gatekeeper a far-reaching data-sharing obligation under article 6.10 in the DMA, in combination with the prohibition to use the same data under article 6.2, the gatekeepers’ sui generis-right is limited in all material aspects. Thereby, these provisions impose greatly on the gatekeepers’ ability as a maker of a database to freely dispose of their own database contents and thus obtain future returns and other competitive advantages as a result of the substantial investment. This is due to the fact that the gatekeeper is subject to an obligation to share the results of the investment with the business users.  The database directive states, however, that the sui generis-right must not be afforded in such a way as to facilitate abuses of a dominant position. By this reference it’s understood that this exception was written with article 102 FEUF in mind. In light of the significant differences between article 102 FEUF and the DMA, it can be concluded that the exception does not apply to the DMA. This is particularly the case as the DMA is framed as an ex ante-regulation, whereas article 102 FEUF is an ex post-regulation.  As this paper has highlighted, it requires great forethought when imposing a compulsory data-sharing obligation such as the one in article 6.10 in the DMA. The intended function of the sui generis-right is to promote investments in data processing and storage functions. In order to even receive or make use of the effective and high-quality data the business users have a right to receive from the gatekeepers, they have to have effective and proper databases, because otherwise it's entirely pointless to even force the gatekeepers to share their data.  Thus, a proportional balance is required between the interest in protecting the data as such by maintaining ex ante incentives to invest and the interest to promote open and fair digital markets as a way to ensure the effectiveness of the internal market for the benefit of the consumers and ex post social welfare. This could be a possible explanation to the Commission’s proposal of the Data Act, specifically article 35, which stipulates that the sui generis-right shall not be applied to machine generated data. It remains, however, to see how the question of the sui generis-right’s to be or not to be will play out in the future.

Forced labour presents a severe human rights violation and affects about 27.6 million people worldwide. Most forced labour in the private economy takes place in businesses linked to the global market economy. In efforts against forced labour, it is therefore crucial to address the role of business operations in global supply chains. The European Commission has presented a proposal for a ban on products made with forced labour on the EU market which applies to all companies and industries. Although this initiative has been welcomed broadly the proposal has served as a topic for political debate in the EU. Stakeholders have contrasting views on what would serve as the most effective solution to the problem and, indeed, what actually constitutes the problem. Research on policy design acknowledge that the way a problem is framed and understood determines which kind of solutions will be deemed as appropriate. This thesis aims to understand the foundations of how the European Commission perceives the problem by conducting a frame analysis of the proposal focusing in turn on how the problem is framed, which actors are included, and how causes and solutions are framed. The frame analysis reveals that the Commission’s framing of the problem is ambiguous and twofold - it includes aspects of human rights perspectives as well as market and trade perspectives. The aim of the proposal is to contribute to the eradication of forced labour, but it also addresses the issue of distortion on the internal EU market and on removing unfair competition. Although the proposal fails to address some of the underlying root causes of forced labour this initiative, together with other legal measures in the business and human rights field, presents an important step towards keeping companies accountable for their adverse human rights impacts.

Le produit de luxe n’est pas un bien comme les autres. Ses qualités matérielles et immatérielles lui confèrent une valeur particulière qui oblige son producteur à le vendre dans un environnement commercial adapté. La règle de droit peut-elle considérer cette particularité économique ? Paradoxalement, la France est leader mondiale du marché des produits de luxe, mais nul n’est en mesure d’affirmer avec précision ce qu’est le luxe. Intégrer une notion aussi insaisissable au sein d’un raisonnement juridique semble difficile. Pourtant, les atteintes subies par les titulaires des droits du produit de luxe ont convaincu le juge européen de mettre en place des règles protectrices spéciales. Le but poursuivi est légitime. Il s’agit de protéger les investissements réalisés pour vendre et promouvoir le produit de luxe. Mais cette démarche légale s’appuie sur une méthode de qualification qui n’est pas satisfaisante. L’«aura», le «prestige» ou la «sensation» de luxe qui émanent du produit marqué, sont des critères trop subjectifs pour assurer l’application systématique et cohérente de règles protectrices. C’est pourquoi, outre la démonstration d’un corpus de règles applicables au produit de luxe, il convient d’analyser les fondements de sa reconnaissance par le droit positif, ainsi que l’instauration d’un régime unifié reposant sur des critères de définition précis, prenant en considération les qualités intrinsèques de ce bien particulier. / The luxury product is not a product like any other. Its material and immaterial qualities confer a special value that requires its producer to sell it in a proper business environment. The rule of law can it consider this economic feature ? Paradoxically, France is world's leading luxury goods market, but no one is able to state precisely what is luxury. The law seems unsuited to integrate a concept as elusive as luxury. Yet, violations suffered by the owners of luxury product rights have convinced the European judge to set up special protective rules. The aim is legitimate. This is to protect the investments made to sell and promote luxury products. But this legal approach is based on a method of qualification which is not satisfactory. The "will", "prestige" or the "feel" of luxury emanating frombranded product, are too subjective criteria to ensure systematic and consistent implementation of protective rules. Therefore, in addition to the demonstration of a body of rules applicable to the luxury product, it should analyze the foundations of its recognition by positive law and the establishment of a unified system based on criteria precise definition, taking into account the intrinsic qualities of that particular property.

本文研究之議題，並非有關政治面或其他社會面所稱之杯葛，而是競爭法領域中之杯葛行為，主要為公平交易法第十九條第一款所規範之情形。 本文之研究目的，主要希望能對公平交易法第十九條第一項之構成要件、違法性、法律效果等數項議題，參考他國立法例及學說進行研究，並就實務處理進行分析檢討，以及提出管見之看法及建議。 本論文共分為七章。第一章為「緒論」，分為研究題目之說明、研究動機與目的、研究方法、研究範圍及限制，及研究架構等部分，旨在介紹論文的基本方向與架構。 第二章，則是討論「我國法對於杯葛行為之規範及相關內容」。於第一節中，首先進行杯葛行為之基本介紹，以使讀者瞭解本文所處理之客體為何，並且明瞭規範杯葛行為之目的。第二節之內容，是針對公平交易法第十九條第一款，為一全面性介紹。第三節，是就公平交易法第二十四條之適用可能，為一討論。第四節，則是討論民法部分於杯葛行為之適用可能及適用情形。 第三章，討論「美國法對於杯葛行為之規範及分析」。第一節之概說，乃為後述討論內容作一引言。第二節，是就規範杯葛行為之條文－休曼法第一條、聯邦貿易委員會法第五條，作一相關闡釋。第三節，是就美國判例，參考學者Hylton, Keith N.教授的見解，區分三個不同時期，介紹杯葛行為於實務之不同評價演變。第四節，則對本章之內容作一總結。 第四章介紹「德國法對於杯葛行為之規範及分析」。第一節之概說，乃為後述討論內容作一引言。第二節，是就限制競爭防止法第二十一條第一項（GWB §21Ⅰ）為相關闡述。第三節，是就不正競爭防止法第三條（UWG §3），其適用情形及相關內容進行分析。第四節，是就德國民法有關侵權行為之規定（BGB §823、§826），討論杯葛行為之適用情形。第五節，乃討論杯葛行為與憲法上言論自由保護其間之關係。 第五章乃在探討「杯葛行為於我國法制面及實務操作之爭議問題研究」。於第一節中，處理者乃杯葛行為之體系定位之問題。第二節，進行構成要件之細部問題分析；例如，發話人究否應具有一定市場力量？第三節，針對杯葛行為之違法性，分析是否存在進行杯葛行為之正當理由。第四節，旨在討論杯葛行為之法律效果問題。第五節，核心集中於公平會對於同業公會所發起之杯葛行為，究應以第十四條或第十九條第一款論斷為妥？第六節，主要在處理杯葛與其他概念之區別。第七節，則在處理公平交易法第十九條第一款與其他條文競合之問題。 第六章之內容為「實務重要案例之分析及檢討建議與結論」。此部分本文選擇較具重要性之公平會處分案，整理實務之看法及處理模式，並加以分析及檢討。 第七章則是進行「結論與建議」。本文將彙整前面各章之重點，針對本文關心之相關爭點及問題，提出拙見，以供參考。 / This thesis focus on the topic of boycotts issues in competition law, especially article 19 subparagraph 1 of the Fair Trade Law of Taiwan. There are 7 chapters in this study. In chapter 1, there is an introduction to this research such as the structure of this paper. Chapter 2 discusses the regulations about boycotts in Taiwan, including article 19 subparagraph 1 and article 24 of the Fair Trade Law and article 184 of the Civil Law. Besides, in this chapter there are essential introductions to boycotts, e.g. what purpose the party has. Chapter 3 observes how U.S. treats boycotts. According to the observance of professor Hylton, Keith N., the court used different standers to judge boycotts in various periods. This chapter will focus on what doctrine the court adopted to consider boycotts－rule of reason, or illegal per se? On the other hand, chapter 4 introduces rules of boycotts in Germany. There are several important parts: GWB §21Ⅰ, UWG §3, and BGB §823、§826. Besides, there is a point about the relation of boycotts and freedom of speech. Chapter 5 deals several problems of boycotts in Taiwan practices and Fair Trade Law. Besides the opponents of the articles, this chapter tried to solve problems such as should we consider market power of the party? Further more, there are comparisons about boycotts and other similar concepts or topics. Chapter 6 proceeds analysis about the cases in Taiwan practices, especially decisions of the Fair Trade Commission. In chapter 7 the author offered his opinions about some issues of boycotts.

Copyright law is a special category of civil law which, with the upswing of the Internet, has become important for different types of stakeholders in the global information society. The 'participative web' operates with content generated by users. This user-generated content has often disputable origins in terms of copyright clearance. The Internet has opened the possibility for developing new forms of communication between anonymous or individual users who are not easily identifiable. Especially peer-to-peer file sharing and recently the information services offered and operated by the so-called 'cyberlockers' are the reason of questioning the role of copyright protection online which needs a beneficial solution. Copyright infringement in the era of information society is a complex phenomenon with a multiplicity of contributing factors like the importance of information data with big business potential, personal attitudes shown by internet users towards the value and scarcity of intellectual property, or legal responsibility of internet service providers (ISP) who paradoxically act from the safety of the so-called safe harbours as intermediaries of information exchange, representing a new element in the communication chain between rights holders and users. Commercial and business models operating...

La construction de la propriété intellectuelle au Cambodge remonte à une date récente. Cetteconstruction se traduit, d’une part, par l’adoption d’un cadre juridique consacrant la notionjuridique de la propriété intellectuelle et, d’autre part, par l’élaboration des mécanismes deprotection de la notion consacrée.Comme la législation de la propriété intellectuelle a été adoptée pour assurer la conformité dudroit cambodgien aux exigences de l’OMC, il n’est pas surprenant de constater que la notion et lerégime juridique de la propriété littéraire et artistique et ceux de la propriété industriellecambodgiennes sont presque identiques à ceux qui sont prévus dans l’Accord ADPIC et dans lesTraités et Conventions administrés par l’OMPI. À cause des obstacles d’ordre juridique,économique et social, la plupart des lois cambodgiennes de la propriété intellectuelle ne connaitpas encore une application effective et correcte dans la pratique. En conséquence, la notion de lapropriété intellectuelle cambodgienne est très peu développée.Pour faire respecter le titre de propriété littéraire et artistique et celui de la propriété industrielle,les mécanismes légaux et judiciaires visant à prévenir les atteintes au droit exclusif dont disposentles titulaires du droit, à préserver les éléments de preuves et à réprimer des atteintes sont prévusdans la législation cambodgienne portant sur la propriété intellectuelle. Par ailleurs, le recours auxmodes alternatifs de règlements de litiges tels que l’arbitrage commercial, la médiation et laPreliminary Alternative Disputes Resolution est également possible. L’efficacité et l’effectivitéde la mise en oeuvre de ces mécanismes pour la protection de la propriété intellectuelle sur leterritoire cambodgien sont une question d’actualité. / The construction of intellectual property rights in Cambodia dates back to a recent time. This construction implies, on the one hand, the adoption of a specific legal framework that establishes the notion of intellectual property and, on the other hand, the elaboration of protection mechanisms of the established notion. As the legislation on intellectual property was adopted to ensure the conformity of Cambodian law with WTO requirements, it is not surprising that the notion and legal regime of literary and artistic property and that of industrial property are almost identical to what is provided under TRIPS Agreement and other Treaties and Conventions administered by the WIPO. Because of legal, economic and social barrier, most of Cambodian laws relating to intellectual property have not been effectively and correctly applied in practice. Consequently, the notion of intellectual property has not been well developed.To enforce the exclusive right of literary and artistic property and that of industrial property, the legal and judicial mechanisms aiming at preventing infringement, preserving the proofs and punishing the infringement are provided under Cambodian legislation relating to intellectual property. Moreover, utilization of alternative disputes resolutions mechanisms such as commercial arbitration, mediation and Preliminary Alternative Disputes Resolution, is also possible. The efficiency of these mechanisms for the protection of intellectual property in Cambodia is, however, a topical question.