상세정보
Export to Refworks부가기능
Landmark cases in intellectual property law
상세 프로파일
| 자료유형 | 단행본 |
|---|---|
| 서명/저자사항 | Landmark cases in intellectual property law/ edited by Jose Bellido. |
| 개인저자 | Bellido, Jose,editor, |
| 형태사항 | 1 online resource (xxviii, 382 pages). |
| 총서사항 | Landmark cases |
| 기타형태 저록 | Print version: Landmark cases in intellectual property law Portland, Oregon : Hart Publishing, 2017 9781509904662 |
| ISBN | 9781509904679 1509904670 1509904689 9781509904686 |
| 서지주기 | Includes bibliographical references and index. |
| 내용주기 | Preface; Contents; Contributors; Table of Cases; Table of Legislation; 1; Mansell v Bunger (1626); I. Introduction; II. Robert Mansell and the Patent for Glass; III. Conclusion; 2; Stationers v Seymour (1677); I. Introduction; II. The Legal Landscape to 1710; III. Role in the Literary Property Debates; IV. Stationers v Seymour Revisited; V. Conclusion; Annex: Seymour's Patent Enrolment C66/3111, no 14bis (7 Oct 1669)167; 3; Sayer v Moore (1785); I. Introduction; II. The Litigation against John Hamilton Moore; III. Copyright Law and Enlightenment Epistomology; IV. Where are they Now? V. Conclusion4; Day v Day, Day and Martin (1816); I. Background to the Litigation; II. The Prior Jurisprudence; III. Day and Martin v Slee and Statham; IV. Day and Martin v Thomas Day, John Day and Peter Martin; V. The Implications of the Day and Martin Litigation; VI. Conclusion; VII. Postscript; 5; Nobel's Explosives Company, Limited, v Anderson (1894); I. Introduction; II. Smokeless Powders and Inventors"" Identities; III. The Making of the Legal Case; IV. Chancery and Beyond; V. The Impact and Significance of the Case; 6; Walter v Lane (1900); I. Introduction II. Lord Rosebery and his SpeechesIII. Copyright in Oral Presentations; IV. Moberly Bell and Newspaper Copyright; V. Walter v Lane; VI. Originality and the Legacy of Walter v Lane; VII. Postcript; 7; Spalding v Gamage (1915); I. Introduction; II. The Development of Passing Off in the Nineteenth Century: an Uncertain Framework; III. Spalding, the 'Orb' Football Case; IV. Conclusion; 8; King Features Syndicate, Inc and Betts v O & M Kleeman Ltd (1940); I. Introduction; II. Syndicating Features; III. Novelty Rights; IV. Japanese Toys; V. Conclusion; 9; Slee & Harris's Application (1966) I. IntroductionII. Software in the 1960s; III. Patent Office Examination; IV. Software and Subject Matter Eligibility; 10; Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1969); I. Introduction; II. Quantitative Analysis; III. Qualitative Analysis; IV. Conclusion; Annex; 11; Biogen v Medeva (1996); I. Introduction; II. Commercialising Biotechnology; III. Inventive Thought or Inventive Industry?; IV. Lord Hoffmann's Opinion; V. Conclusion; 12; R v Johnstone (2003); I. Introduction; II. The Decision in R v Johnstone; III. Explaining R v Johnstone; IV. Criminalisation and the Making of Modern Trade Marks Law V. Conclusion13; Lego Juris A/S v OHIM (2010); I. Introduction; II. Quantity Production; III. 'If You Can't Tell the Difference, Why Pay More?'30; IV. 'It's not Really a Toy, It's a Medium,54; V. 'Participation is the New Brand'79; Index |
| 주제명(지명) | Great Britain. --fast |
| 일반주제명 | Intellectual property --Great Britain --Cases. Intellectual property. LAW / Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice. |
| 언어 | 영어 |
| 바로가기 |  |
