Trade law Part 34

 

A bang or a whimper? The impact of ACCC unconscionable conduct enforcement
Michelle Sharpe and Christine Parker
Trade Practices Law Journal
Volume 15, Number 3, September 2007 p.139

This article uses empirical evidence to evaluate the success of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in enforcing the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in a number of key cases between 1998 and 2005. The authors find that the ACCC has succeeded in raising awareness of the prohibition against unconscionable conduct. However, it has also faced three major problems: first, its lack of success on the merits in unconscionable conduct cases means that it has made a limited contribution to developing the law in this area and sending out a clear message about what amounts to acceptable or unacceptable business conduct. Second, the ACCC has been criticised for commencing cases too quickly, and for refusing to negotiate settlements or mediate cases in certain circumstances. Finally, the ACCC has been criticised for failing to produce publications that provide a clear guide as to what types of conduct are likely to be regarded by it to be unconscionable and deserving of enforcement action. The authors analyse the validity of these criticisms and what the ACCC might do to address them.

The baffling intruder: Section 82(1B) of the Trade Practices Act Part II
Danielle Gatehouse
Trade Practices Law Journal
Volume 15, Number 3, September 2007 p.163

In July 2004, s 82(1B) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) introduced the concepts of “reasonable care” , “intention” and “fraud” into the consideration of damages for breaches of s 52. Part I of this article ((2007) 15 TPLJ 74) outlined the historical development of the law of transactions as it evolved in s 52 and considered what is meant by “reasonable care” in s 82(1B)(b)(i). Part 2 continues with a consideration of what the terms “intent” and “fraud” in s 82(1B)(c)(i) and (c)(ii) respectively mean in this statutory context. The article concludes by suggesting that the impact of this section could be minimal but that such a view is consistent with the wording of the section, with the consumer protectionist concerns of s 52 and with the damages-limiting approach of s 82(1B).

Good Governance at the World Trade Organization: Building a Foundation of Administrative law
Daniel C. Esty
Journal of International Economic Law
Volume 10, Number 3, September 2007 p.509-527

Multilevel Judicial Governance of International Trade Requires a Common Conception of Rule of law and Justice
Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann
Journal of International Economic Law
Volume 10, Number 3, September 2007 p.529-551

International trade law and Common Mistake: Has There Really Been a Satisfactory Clarification of what Fundamental Legal Principles Apply?
Des Taylor
International Trade and Business Law Review
Volume 10, 2006 p.49

The Language of International trade law : Problems or Salvation?
Bruno Zeller
International Trade and Business Law Review
Volume 10, 2006 p.179

BOOK REVIEW: DALHUISEN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL AND Trade law , SECOND EDITION BY JAN DALHUISEN
Jerry Clark
Currents: International Trade Law Journal
Volume 14, Number 1, Summer 2005 p.96

John E. James Distinguished Lecture International Trade and The Rule of law
Jean-Yves de Cara
Mercer Law Review
Volume 58, Number 4, Summer 2007 p.1357

The relevance of prior trade mark use in the Common law of the United Kingdom.
W Alberts
Journal for Juridical Science
Volume 32, Number 1, June 2007 p.64

Trade Law Implications Of Restricting Participation In The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
Marisa Martin
Georgetown International Environmental Law Review
Volume 19, Number 3, Spring 2007 p.437

EC Competition Policy: Emasculating the Common law Doctrine of the Restraint of Trade?
MARY CATHERINE LUCEY
European Review of Private Law
Volume 15, Number 3, 2007 p.419-432

The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy
Bing Bing Jia
Chinese Journal of International Law
Volume 6, Number 2, July 2007 p.520-522

Trade Mark Law
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 38, Number 2, 2007

Israel Tel Aviv-Jaffa Dist. Ct. 31 July 2006 – Use of registered trade mark as keyword with Google AdWords system by competitor Whether amounts to violation of rights in mark Trademarks Ordinance (1972), Sec. 1; Commercial Torts Law (1999), Secs. 1, 2, 3 000506/06 Matim Li Fashion Chain for Large Sizes, Ltd., et al. v. 1. Crazy Line, Ltd.; 2. Eran Levin; and 3. Google Israel, Ltd. “Matim Li”
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 38, Number 2, 2007 p.238

Japan Sup. Ct. 11 July 2005 – Five-year time limit for requesting invalidation of trade mark Conflict with well-known mark Request Reasons therefor Trade Mark Act, Sec. 4(1) (15) (prior to amendment by Law No. 65 of 1991); Trade Mark Act, Secs. 46(1), 47 (prior to amendment by Law No. 68 of 1996) Matsushita Spice Produce v. Valentino Globe B.V. “VALENTINO”
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 38, Number 2, 2007 p.243

UK Ct. App. 11 April 2006 – Exhaustion of trade marks in the European Economic Area Defacing or removal of product codes by parallel importers Impact of European competition law as either a “sword”or a “shield”in infringement actions Trade Marks Act 1994, Sec. 12(2); Art. 81 EC [2006] EWCA Civ 380 Sportswear SpA and Anor v. Stonestyle Ltd “Sportswear v. Stonestyle”
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 38, Number 2, 2007 p.250

 

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

Administrative law, Common law, International trade law, Rule of law, Trade law.