Trade law Part 27

Trade law Part 27

 

278

The Ne Bis In Idem Principle in Competition Law
MICHAL PETR
European Competition Law Review
Volume 29, Issue 7, 2008 p.392

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

Anti-competitive behaviour often affects trade in more states, and undertakings engaged in it can thus become liable in multiple jurisdictions. The possibility of undertakings being prosecuted repeatedly raises the question whether it is in accordance with the ne bis in idem principle, according to which no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which they have already been acquitted or convicted. While this question has been addressed repeatedly by the Community courts and presently does not seem to cause any problems, this article argues that the case law might be changing and that the Reform Treaty might bring about further changes in it. It will also comment on a case recently decided in the Czech Republic, which dealt with the ne bis in idem principle in a way different from the settled practice in other jurisdictions.

279

Environmental Damage and the Destruction of Life-Problems that Add a New Balancing Dimension to International Port Access vs. Efficient Trade Under International Law
Leticia M Diaz & Barry Hart Dubner
Barry Law Review
Volume 10, Spring 2008 p.1

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

280

International trade law AND THE “CARBON LEAKAGE”PROBLEM: ARE UNILATERAL U.S. IMPORT RESTRICTIONS THE SOLUTION?
Bernd G. Janzen
Sustainable Development Law & Policy
Volume 8, Number 2, Winter 2008 p.22

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

281

Trade Mark Law
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 39, Number 3, 2008

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

282

Spain Community TM Ct. No.1, Alicante (15 March 2007) – Similarity of trade marks Likelihood of confusion Community TM Whether company name infringes trade mark Unfair competition law not subsidiary protection mechanism for intellectual property law EC Reg. 40/94, Art. 9(1)(b); Trade Mark Act 17/2001, Secs. 34, 41 et seq., Seventeenth Additional Provision to the Trade Mark Act; Unfair Competition Act 3/1991, Secs. 5, 6, 12, 18; Legislative Royal Decree 1/1996, Sec. 10 55/07 Les Editions Albert René S.A.R.L. v. Las Tabernas de Asterix SL “ASTERIX”
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 39, Number 3, 2008 p.364

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

283

MAKING TRADE LIBERALIZATION WORK FOR THE POOR: Trade law AND THE INFORMAL ECONOMY IN COLOMBIA
Kevin J. Fandl
Texas International Law Journal
Volume 43, Number 2, Spring 2008 p.161

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

284

The French Competition Council and Parallel Trade in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Step Ahead of EU Case Law?
Fleur Herrenschmidt
World Competition: Law and Economics Review
Volume 31, Number 2, June 2008 p.235

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

285

Maritime law and the TPA as a “mandatory statute”in Australia and England: Confusion and consternation?
Kate Lewins
Australian Business Law Review
Volume 36, Number 2, April 2008 p.78

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

This article is concerned with the clash between party autonomy in contracts and mandatory rules of a State in the context of maritime law. Where litigation takes place in Australia, the Trade Practices Act (TPA), as a mandatory law of the forum, applies to the contract. However, in many transnational contracts involving Australian parties, the parties have agreed that the law of a different country is to govern their contract or granted a non-Australian court exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes. Alternatively they may have agreed to submit disputes to arbitration outside Australia. Commonly the parties choose English Courts or London Arbitration. In doing so, the parties have exercised a choice, which, if permitted to operate, will take their contract out of the reach of the mandatory law of Australia. How do Australian and English courts treat this apparent clash of policies and what is the consequence for contractual parties who find themselves litigating a jurisdictional dispute both in Australia and England?

286

Bugs, Spies and Paparazzi: Jurisdiction over Actions for Breach of Confidence in Private International Law
CHRISTOPHER WADLOW
European Intellectual Property Review
Volume 30, Issue 7, 2008 p.269

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

The protection of trade secrets creates unique difficulties when more than one legal system is involved. This article considers the jurisdiction of the English courts over trade secret claims under the EC Jurisdiction Regulation, and concludes that although breach of confidence is an equitable wrong in English law, the tort rules of the jurisdiction Regulation are likely to apply.

Conclusion

Notes

See Also

References and Further Reading

About the Author/s and Reviewer/s

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

International trade law Part 27, International trade law, Private International Law, Trade law, country.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *