Social media, such as YouTube, contain different types of information provided by the users. Because of the popularity and ability to reach out to others, coprorations might want to use this information in its advertising. However, some of the information is copyright protected works. How can a coproration use the limitations in the copyright protection to its advantage? Even when it is allowed to use the work with regard to the limitations in the copyright protection, attention must be paid to personal information and marketing provisions. This bachelor's thesis disclosures the method by which a work or the information is legally eccessed for advertising purposes.

Il lavoro affronta il tema dell’oggetto e dell’ambito di tutela del brevetto biotecnologico, con particolare riferimento al brevetto di sequenze di DNA. L’importanza crescente delle biotecnologie, in settori come quello agroalimentare, e il peso notevole degli investimenti che la ricerca in questo ambito richiede, impongono il ricorso ad un efficace modello di tutela che incentivi il progresso tecnologico, senza, tuttavia, ostacolare la ricerca derivata. A partire da questa premessa, il lavoro mette in luce, in primo luogo, le problematiche fondamentali poste dalla disciplina del brevetto per invenzione industriale. Successivamente, in una prospettiva comparata, lo studio si occupa dell’oggetto del brevetto biotecnologico e dei requisiti di brevettabilità, attraverso un esame della disciplina, della dottrina e della più recente giurisprudenza europea e statunitense. Con riferimento all’Europa, in particolare, l’analisi si concentra attorno alla disciplina posta dalla direttiva 98/44/CE sulla tutela delle invenzioni biotecnologiche. Il lavoro si articola, quindi, attorno al tema dell’estensione del brevetto biotecnologico, attraverso l’esame dei diversi paradigmi di tutela possibili e ponendo l’accento sulle strategie per un efficace contemperamento dei diversi interessi coinvolti. / This work relates to biotechnological inventions, specifically concerning patentability and scope of protection of DNA sequences. Biotechnology is of utmost importance in many sectors, not least in the agro food one. Moreover, this is a high capital intensive field of study, where downstream research is mainly based on upstream results. Consequently, it is extremely important to provide a system of protection aimed at spurring innovation without preventing subsequent research. This considered, the work highlights the general legal framework on patents. It then focuses on the object of biotech patents and patentability requirements, through a comparative study of the US and the European legal system and on the most recent case law. Specifically concerning Europe, an in depth analysis of the 98/44/CE directive is carried out. The research work then focuses on the main models of patent protection, with the aim of emphasizing strategies to collect the different and diverging interests arising over the issue. ​

La thèse vise à définir le rôle de l'usage non seulement dans l'obtention du droit de marque par l'enregistrement, mais aussi, d'examiner le rôle de l'usage dans l'étendue de la protection des marques. Cet examen conduira donc à faire une distinction entre, d'une part, l’usage de la marque par le titulaire lui-même, ce qui concerne donc l’existence du droit de marque (première partie), et d'autre part, l'usage de la marque par des tiers, ce qui concerne l'exercice du droit de marque (deuxième partie). La première partie sera elle-même divisée en deux titres. Dans le premier titre, on examinera le rôle de l’usage sur l’existence du droit de marque, dans le deuxième titre, on examinera comment démontrer les effets de l’usage. La deuxième partie, sera, elle aussi, divisée en deux titres : le premier titre est consacré à l'usage qui provoque la confusion entre les signes, autrement dit la contrefaçon au sens strict, et le second titre est consacrée à l'usage qui entraîne un lien entre les signes, et constitue la contrefaçon au sens large. / The thesis aims at defining the role of the use not only in obtaining the right of mark by the registration, but also, to examine the role of the use in the scope of the protection of the marks.This examination will therefore lead to a distinction between, on the one hand, the use of the mark by the proprietor himself, which therefore concerns the existence of the trademark right (part one), and, on the other hand, the use of the mark by third parties, concerning the exercise of the trademark right (part two). The first part will be divided into two titles. In the first title, we will examine the role of the use on the existence of the right of mark, in the second title, we will examine how to demonstrate the effects of the use. The second part, will also be divided into two titles: the first title is devoted to the use that causes the confusion between the signs,in other words the infringement in the strict sense, and the second title is dedicated to the use which causes a link between signs, and constitutes infringement in the broad sense.

In the search for companies to distinguish themselves from the mass, so called non-traditional trade marks have become increasingly popular, and in particular colour marks. It is now clear that abstract colour marks can be registered as trade marks, and the number of registered colour marks has increased considerably in recent years. However, it remains a lot more uncertain, mainly due to lack of case law, what the extent of colour marks’ scope of protection is. Are colours actually worth protecting? The purpose of this thesis is to examine the scope of protection of registered abstract colour marks from an EU perspective. Through this examination it will also be established whether colours are worth protecting. The essential function of trade marks is to indicate the origin of products. Signs that are capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing goods and services from one undertaking from those of other undertakings can be registered as trade marks. Colours can fulfil these criteria in certain circumstances, however, colours can practically never have distinctive character per se. Instead, they must have acquired distinctive character through use. Since it is quite difficult to register colour marks, a colour mark proprietor should be prepared to have the validity of his trade mark challenged if he issues proceedings for infringement. There are a few national cases from EU Member States that have concerned infringement of colour marks, and in all of these the plaintiff was successful in claiming infringement. Through the decisions in these cases, general legal principles and statements made in literature, the scope of protection of colour marks has been examined. Infringement of a colour mark occurs in three different situations: where there is likelihood of confusion, where there is double identity and where there is dilution of a trade mark with a reputation. Some of the most important findings are that confusingly similar colours include adjacent shades, but in order to prove likelihood of confusion, the infringing colour must probably be perceived by the public as an indication of origin and other signs that appear together with the colour must probably be taken into account, which limits the scope of protection to some extent. However, since colour marks must almost always have acquired distinctive character through use, consumers are used to perceiving that colour as a trade mark in relation to those types of goods/services, and are therefore more likely to do so also when the colour is used by the third party. Furthermore, there have to be an individual assessment in each case in order to determine whether surrounding signs exclude a likelihood of confusion, where all factors should be considered, including the distinctiveness of the colour mark and how clear and prominent the other signs are. In situations of double identity, the infringing sign does not have to be used as a trade mark, which is advantageous for colour mark owners. Furthermore, identical colours can possibly include other shades if they are so similar that the difference is barely perceptible in a direct comparison. Colour marks can often qualify as trade marks with a reputation, since the assessment of whether trade marks have a reputation is similar to the assessment of whether trade marks have acquired distinctive character through use. Trade marks with a reputation has an extended protection meaning that if a third party uses a sign that is identical or similar to a trade mark with a reputation, and that use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark, then that use constitutes infringement. This applies both in relation to identical, similar and dissimilar products, however, it will probably only apply in relation to identical or similar products when it comes to colour marks, due to the extensive use of colours in the market. The extended protection could be relevant in particular in situations where likelihood of confusion cannot be proven, because the public does not perceive the infringing sign as a trade mark or because of surrounding prominent signs. This examination shows that the scope of protection of colour marks is not great, it has some weaknesses. However, it is definitely not worthless either, which clearly shows in the fact that the plaintiffs were successful in claiming infringement in all of the infringement cases. By registering a colour as a trade mark, a company can to some extent stop others from using the same or similar colour, and it will also most likely have a discouraging effect. However, some carefulness should still be applied in relation to colour marks, since this is still a very new phenomenon and additional case law can take another direction. But considering how the situation looks today, colours are worth protecting as trade marks.

<p>In the search for companies to distinguish themselves from the mass, so called non-traditional trade marks have become increasingly popular, and in particular colour marks. It is now clear that abstract colour marks can be registered as trade marks, and the number of registered colour marks has increased considerably in recent years. However, it remains a lot more uncertain, mainly due to lack of case law, what the extent of colour marks’ scope of protection is. Are colours actually worth protecting? The purpose of this thesis is to examine the scope of protection of registered abstract colour marks from an EU perspective. Through this examination it will also be established whether colours are worth protecting.</p><p>The essential function of trade marks is to indicate the origin of products. Signs that are capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing goods and services from one undertaking from those of other undertakings can be registered as trade marks. Colours can fulfil these criteria in certain circumstances, however, colours can practically never have distinctive character per se. Instead, they must have acquired distinctive character through use. Since it is quite difficult to register colour marks, a colour mark proprietor should be prepared to have the validity of his trade mark challenged if he issues proceedings for infringement.</p><p>There are a few national cases from EU Member States that have concerned infringement of colour marks, and in all of these the plaintiff was successful in claiming infringement. Through the decisions in these cases, general legal principles and statements made in literature, the scope of protection of colour marks has been examined. Infringement of a colour mark occurs in three different situations: where there is likelihood of confusion, where there is double identity and where there is dilution of a trade mark with a reputation.</p><p>Some of the most important findings are that confusingly similar colours include adjacent shades, but in order to prove likelihood of confusion, the infringing colour must probably be perceived by the public as an indication of origin and other signs that appear together with the colour must probably be taken into account, which limits the scope of protection to some extent. However, since colour marks must almost always have acquired distinctive character through use, consumers are used to perceiving that colour as a trade mark in relation to those types of goods/services, and are therefore more likely to do so also when the colour is used by the third party. Furthermore, there have to be an individual assessment in each case in order to determine whether surrounding signs exclude a likelihood of confusion, where all factors should be considered, including the distinctiveness of the colour mark and how clear and prominent the other signs are.</p><p>In situations of double identity, the infringing sign does not have to be used as a trade mark, which is advantageous for colour mark owners. Furthermore, identical colours can possibly include other shades if they are so similar that the difference is barely perceptible in a direct comparison.</p><p>Colour marks can often qualify as trade marks with a reputation, since the assessment of whether trade marks have a reputation is similar to the assessment of whether trade marks have acquired distinctive character through use. Trade marks with a reputation has an extended protection meaning that if a third party uses a sign that is identical or similar to a trade mark with a reputation, and that use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark, then that use constitutes infringement. This applies both in relation to identical, similar and dissimilar products, however, it will probably only apply in relation to identical or similar products when it comes to colour marks, due to the extensive use of colours in the market. The extended protection could be relevant in particular in situations where likelihood of confusion cannot be proven, because the public does not perceive the infringing sign as a trade mark or because of surrounding prominent signs.</p><p>This examination shows that the scope of protection of colour marks is not great, it has some weaknesses. However, it is definitely not worthless either, which clearly shows in the fact that the plaintiffs were successful in claiming infringement in all of the infringement cases. By registering a colour as a trade mark, a company can to some extent stop others from using the same or similar colour, and it will also most likely have a discouraging effect. However, some carefulness should still be applied in relation to colour marks, since this is still a very new phenomenon and additional case law can take another direction. But considering how the situation looks today, colours are worth protecting as trade marks.</p>