none

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1917. / Vita. "Reprinted from Archives of psychology, no. 42." Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D)--Columbia University, 1917. / Vita. "Reprinted from Archives of psychology, no. 42." Includes bibliographical references.

In September 2008, a consignment of pirated batteries, which were marked with Panasonic’s trademark, were retained by Swedish Customs. Panasonic sent a warning letter to the freight forwarding company, Tavatur, demanding it to destroy the batteries through the simplified procedure in (EC) No 1383/2003. However, since Sweden has not implemented the simplified procedure, Tavatur was unable to destroy the batteries without a court order from Sweden. Panasonic therefore sued Tavatur, the legal dispute being what liability freight forwarders have for pirated goods. Due to technical developments within different modes of transport, freight forwarders’ role has changed over the last few decades, from simple duties where the freight forwarder held an intermediary position, to a more independent role in which they now have to be legally classified as either a carrier or an agent. Unfortunately, legal development within multimodal transport has failed to keep pace with the speed of technical development. Bills of Lading, for example, have historically been working as receipts, but due to modern packing techniques, they have lost the normal evidence function they once had. Although there are some international regulations concerning freight forwarding services, they do not extend beyond the countries in which such conditions are used. When a dispute occurs between transport operators, which follow different regulations, the liability of the freight forwarders is unclear. Therefore, freight forwarders are in the need of harmonised legislation, especially concerning their liability for trademark infringements. Nonetheless, there are ways in which freight forwarder can avoid these disputes with right-holders, namely; by protecting themselves with legal cost insurance and via establish their liability through the use of contracts. However, Sweden and other Member States, which have not implemented the simplified procedure, should reconsider an implementation of it.

Trademark counterfeiting is one of the most serious problems ever encountered in China. The Chinese government, recognizing the adverse effects that counterfeiting has had on both foreign investment and the nation's economy, has begun to take steps to protect intellectual property rights. To this end, the nation amended its Trademark Law on 27 October 2001. The aims of the amendment are to improve management of trademarks, to strengthen punishment for infringements, and to further meet the requirements of the TRIPs. Although the new amendment is laudable, eliminating the problem will take time. / This thesis offers an overview of trademark enforcement in China, beginning with a historical review of China's trademark law before moving on to examine the original version of current trademark legislation, the 1982 Trademark Law. The entry into force of the WTO placed tremendous pressure on China to meet international standards, resulting in the 2001 amendment and the protection it affords to well-known trademarks, as is discussed next. Finally, an examination of the enforcement of the trademark law in China, including the status of counterfeiting, the enforcement system, and the difficulties associated with enforcing trademark rights, is undertaken. The thesis concludes that the Chinese government has made remarkable progress in its quest to combat trademark counterfeiting and that the problem will gradually be overcome as the nation continues to develop its economy and enhance its legal system.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 141-150). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

No description available.

Thesis (LL. M.)--University of Toronto, 2005. / Cover title. Includes bibliographical references.

Since Google as the world's largest and most popular search engine encourages Internet users to browse their search results, it is naturally functioning as an advertising vehicle and has turned into the most profitable Internet company in world's history. Google's success, however, has been subject to strong criticism as one of the main concerns is linked to Google AdWords, which reveal keyword-triggered advertisements as well as sponsored links besides unsponsored search results. Courts both in Europe and the United States under different trademark legislation felt forced to address the collision of pre-Internet trademark infringement doctrines with modern technology.  As Google AdWords have changed the way consumers observe Internet advertisements and search engines, the boundaries of trademark law have continuously been pushed forward. This development, thus, raises the question of whether Google AdWords by now are considered to function as trade liberalizer or trade infringer under two different trademark jurisdictions.  What is certain as of now is, that if the current circumstances are to change, courts cannot solely rely on old doctrines to adapt to new situations. Instead, new rules should not be subject to isolated court proceedings by individual instances regarded that jurisdictions of courts are limited by territorial boundaries and Google AdWords have evolved as an element of borderless online sphere. Taking these new challenges into account, this paper argues that addressing trademark issues originated by AdWords will demand an international consideration and coordinated efforts between the EU and the United States to bring forward an international solution.

No description available.