Trade law Part 44

 

Trade Mark and Unfair Competition Law
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 37, Number 2, 2006

Regulatory Obstacles to the International Trade of Health Foods
Nicole Coutrelis
European Food and Feed Law Review
2006, Number 4 p.220

The Role of the Law and its Limitations – The Example of EU Law

THE LAW AND ETHICS OF TRADE SECRETS: A CASE STUDY
Kurt M. Saunders
California Western Law Review
Volume 42, Number 2, Spring 2006 p.209

Trade Marks Law in Australia and New Zealand; Harmonisation – The Immovable Object Meets the Irresistible Force
Michael Arblaster
Intellectual Property Forum
Issue 65, June 2006

Germany Sup. Ct. 15 July 2005 – GSZ 1/04 – “Warning Letter”(see Trade Mark Law below)
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 37, Number 1, 2006

Trade Mark Law
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 37, Number 1, 2006

On Parallel Trade and Preliminary Issues – a Healthy Approach to Competition Law Enforcement? Case C-53/03, Syfait and Others v. GlaxoSmithKline plc and GlaxoSmithKline AEVE
René Smits
Legal Issues of Economic Integration
Volume 33, Issue 1, 2006 p.61-83

ENFORCING AUSTRALIAN JUDGMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES (AND VICE VERSA): HOW THE LONG ARM OF AUSTRALIAN COURTS REACHES ACROSS THE PACIFIC
Justin Hogan-Doran
Australian Law Journal
Volume 80, Number 6, June 2006 p.361

The United States is Australia’s largest trading and investment partner. The recent signing of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement signals even closer economic integration. No other treaty or legislation deals with the respective jurisdictional competences or recognition and enforcement of United States judgments in Australia, or vice versa. As a result, Australian plaintiffs considering suing United States defendants have every chance of enforcing their judgments in United States courts, even where long-arm jurisdiction is exercised over foreign parties who refuse to participate in local proceedings. By contrast, United States judgment creditors have only very limited grounds for seeking recognition and enforcement of United States judgments in Australia. The differences present significant commercial advantages to Australian parties, but also expose the hypocrisy of existing, restrictive Common law rules on recognition and enforcement where Australian courts exercise long-arm jurisdiction.

APPLE COMPUTER, INC. v. DOES: AN UNSATISFYING RESOLUTION TO THE CONFLICT BETWEEN TRADE SECRET LAW, JOURNALIST’ S PRIVILEGE, & BLOGGING
Tori Praul
Berkeley Technology Law Journal
Volume 21, Number 1, Annual Review 2006 p.471

National Regulation and Trade Liberalization in Services: The Legal Impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on National Regulatory Autonomy by Markus Krajewski The Hague, London, New York: Kluwer Law International, 2003. Pp. xxii, 245. $110.00
FEDERICO ORTINO
World Trade Review
Volume 5, Issue 2, July 2006 p.316-317

CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS UNDER THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
David Wright
Australian Law Journal
Volume 80, Number 5, May 2006 p.316

ausation and remoteness are common to most areas of law, including the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). However, they remain complicated. One reason why these concepts are complicated is that certain subjective judgments are introduced. The changes introduced following the Ipp Report did not alter this fundamental point, rather, the role of particular subjective judgments was entrenched. But recently the High Court has limited the operation of the Ipp Report’s recommendations and, certainly within the Trade Practices Act, has attempted to give some objective measure to the existing subjective judgments required. However, it has proposed utilising a different subjective judgment.

 

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

Common law, Trade law.