Prof. Dr. Annette Kur

Edited Works

Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, 2. ed., C.H. Beck, München 2018, L + 2602 pp. (together with Verena von Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht).

The EU Design Approach - A Global Appraisal, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA 2018, XI + 282 pp. (together with Marianne Levin, Jens Schovsbo).

Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2017, XXXVIII + 2392 pp. (together with Verena von Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht).

Designrecht - Praxishandbuch, 2. ed., Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, 516 pp. (together with Helmut Eichmann).

Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity (European Intellectual Property Institutes Network series), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2014, X + 368 pp. (together with Na Ri Lee et al.).

The Structure of Intellectual Property Law - Can One Size Fit All? (ATRIP intellectual property), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, XIII + 361 pp. (together with Vytautas Mizaras).

Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system - proposals for reform of TRIPS, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, XIII + 614 pp. (together with Marianne Levin).

Designrecht - Praxishandbuch, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2009, 517 pp. (together with Helmut Eichmann).

Intellectual Property in the Conflict of Laws (Materialien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht, 44), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2005, XVI + 269 pp. (together with Jürgen Basedow et al.).

„... und sie bewegt sich doch!“ – Patent law on the move. Festschrift für Gert Kolle und Dieter Stauder zum 65. Geburtstag am 25. April 2005 und 20. Oktober 2005, Heymanns, Köln; München [u.a.] 2005, XII + 578 pp. (together with Stefan Luginbühl, Eskil Waage).

Intellectual Property and Private International Law - Heading for the Future (IIC Studies – Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 24), Hart, Oxford 2005, XII + 371 pp. (together with Josef Drexl).

Wettbewerbsrecht und Verbraucherschutz in Mittel- und Osteuropa (Schriftenreihe zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, 87), Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln, Berlin, Bonn, München 1992, XVII + 332 pp. (together with Friedrich-Karl Beier, Eva-Marina Bastian).

• Event: 5. Ringberg-Symposium des Max-Planck-Instituts für ausländisches und internationales Patent-, Urheber- und Wettbewerbsrecht, Schloß Ringberg Tegernsee, 1991-03-11

Wettbewerbsrecht und Verbraucherschutz in Mittel- und Osteuropa - 5. Ringberg-Symposium des Max-Planck-Instituts für Ausländisches und Internationales Patent-, Urheber- und Wettbewerbsrecht - 11. bis 15. März 1991, Schloss Ringberg, Tegernsee (Schriftenreihe zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, 87), Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln; Berlin; Bonn; München 1992, XXI + 332 pp. (together with Friedrich-Karl Beier, Eva-Maria Bastian).

Books and Monographs

European Intellectual Property Law - Text, Cases and Materials, 2. ed., Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2019, LXII + 559 pp. (together with Thomas Dreier, Stefan Luginbuehl).

European Trade Mark Law - a commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017, LXVII + 796 pp. (together with Martin Senftleben).

European Intellectual Property Law - Text, Cases and Materials, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2013, XLIV + 548 pp. (together with Thomas Dreier).

Marke und Verbraucher - Funktionen der Marke in der Marktwirtschaft, Bd. 2: Einzelprobleme, VCH, Weinheim 1989, XXXVI + 585 pp. (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig).

Marke und Verbraucher - Funktionen der Marke in der Marktwirtschaft, Bd. 1: Grundlagen, VCH, Weinheim 1988, XIX + 370 pp. (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig).

Beweislast und Beweisführung im Wettbewerbsprozeß - rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum deutschen, amerikanischen und schwedischen Recht (Schriftenreihe zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, 56), Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln; Berlin; Bonn; München 1981, XXXV + 303 pp.

Contributions to Collected Editions, Commentaries, Handbooks and Encyclopaedias

The More, the Merrier? - Das Kumulationsproblem im geltenden und künftigen EU-Designrecht, in: Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets - Festschrift Reto M. Hilty, Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2024, 369 - 379. DOI

• Spätestens seit der Entscheidung Cofemel steht fest, dass der vom EuGH entwickelte autonome Werkbegriff auch im Bereich der angewandten Kunst gilt. Dies erkennt auch der BGH an, der jedoch von einem Gleichlauf des Unionsrechts mit den schon bisher angewandten Beurteilungskriterien ausgeht. Dabei wird übersehen, dass es der EuGH in Cofemel nicht nur abgelehnt hat, den Urheberrechtsschutz an die ästhetische Wirkung von Design zu knüpfen, sondern dass er auch dem Erfordernis eines von sachkundigen Kreisen als „künstlerisch“ zu qualifizierenden Schöpfungsergebnisses eine Absage erteilt hat, indem er bereits die Befassung mit der entsprechenden, vom Ansatz des BGH lediglich graduell, nicht jedoch konzeptionell abweichenden Auffassung verweigert hat. Die Frage, wie bei dieser Sachlage die vom EuGH gleichfalls postulierte Begrenzung von Schutzrechtskumulationen auf „bestimmte Fälle“ zu bewerkstelligen ist, lässt sich kaum zufriedenstellend beantworten. Die angesichts dieser Schwierigkeiten zumindest längerfristig zu erwartende Tendenz einer verstärkten Kumulation von Urheber- und Designrechten dürfte zu praktischen Probleme führen, die auch durch die anstehende Novelle des europäischen Designschutzes nicht beseitigt werden.

An Improved EU Trademark System? – Comments on a EU Trademark Inspired Alternative tot he UPC System, in: Luc Desaunettes-Barbero et al. (ed.), The Unitary Patent Package & Unified Patent Court - Problems, Possible Improvements and Alternatives, Ledizioni, Milano 2023, 575 - 590.

Twenty Years in Design Law - What Has Changed, in: Hayleigh Bosher, Eleonora Rosati (eds.), Developments and Directions in Intellectual Property Law - Twenty Years of the IPKat, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2023, 145 - 160.

The Limits of National Treatment, in: Susy Frankel et al. (ed.), Improving Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, USA; Cheltenham, UK 2023, 353 - 362.

Geistiges Eigentum im Dienst der Information – eine Rückschau, in: Gestaltung der Informationsrechtsordnung - Festschrift für Thomas Dreier zum 65. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2022, 33 - 44.

Measuring the Scope of Obligations under International Treaties (To What Extent) Are IP Conventions Binding on Paris or TRIPS-Plus Legislation?, in: Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Axel Metzger (eds.), Intellectual Property Ordering Beyond Borders (Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2022, 260 - 287.

Protection of Spare Parts and Design Law: A Comparative Law Analysis, in: Henning Hartwig (ed.), Research Handbook on Design Law (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property), Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, USA; Cheltenham, UK 2021, 304 - 343 (together with Adam György).

Enforcing Design Rights Throughout Europe, in: Henning Hartwig (ed.), Research Handbook on Design Law (Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property), Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, USA; Cheltenham, UK 2021, 283 - 302.

Trade Mark (And Design) Law from a Personal Perspective, in: Peter Drahos, Gustavo Ghidini, Hanns Ullrich (eds.), Kritika - Essays on Intellectual Property, Volume 5, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, USA; Cheltenham, UK 2021, 48 - 72.

Chapter 25 - Recommondations, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (eds.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 647 - 658 (together with Roberto Romandini).

Chapter 24 - Summary, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (eds.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 621 - 646 (together with Roberto Romandini).

Chapter 22 - Issues de lege ferenda: SPCs with unitary effect, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (eds.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 554 - 599 (together with Roberto Romandini).

Chapter 20 - Procedure and further substantive aspects, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (eds.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 482 - 532 (together with Roberto Romandini, Laura Valtere).

Chapter 3 - The relevant sources of law for SPCs in Europe, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (eds.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 27 - 46 (together with Roberto Romandini).

Abstract, executive summary, in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (eds.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, II - IX (together with Roberto Romandini).

MarkenG § 3, in: Annette Kur, Verena v. Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht (eds.), Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2018, 118 - 153.

MarkenG § 15 Überblick, in: Annette Kur, Verena v. Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht (eds.), Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2018, 719 - 720.

MarkenG § 14 Überblick, Rn. 1 - 9, in: Annette Kur, Verena v. Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht (eds.), Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2018, 532 - 539.

MarkenG § 9, in: Annette Kur, Verena v. Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht (eds.), Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2018, 482 - 496.

MarkenG § 8 Überblick, Rn. 1 - 94, in: Annette Kur, Verena v. Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht (eds.), Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2018, 256 - 285.

Einleitung Markenrecht, in: Annette Kur, Verena v. Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht (eds.), Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2018, 1 - 77.

The EU Design Approach - a global appraisal, in: Annette Kur, Marianne Levin, Jens Schovsbo (eds.), The EU Design Approach - A Global Appraisal, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA 2018, 251 - 271 (together with Marianne Levin, Jens Schovsbo).

Preface, in: Annette Kur, Marianne Levin, Jens Schovsbo (eds.), The EU Design Approach - A Global Appraisal, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA 2018, VIII - IX (together with Marianne Levin, Jens Schovsbo).

The Design Approach revisited - background and meaning, in: Annette Kur, Marianne Levin, Jens Schovsbo (eds.), The EU Design Approach - A Global Appraisal, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA 2018, 1 - 27 (together with Marianne Levin).

From law in books to enforcement in court: jurisdiction, applicable law, and sanctions, in: Annette Kur, Marianne Levin, Jens Schovsbo (eds.), The EU Design Approach - A Global Appraisal, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA 2018, 191 - 205.

The Design Approach and procedural practice - mismatch or smooth transportation?, in: Annette Kur, Marianne Levin, Jens Schovsbo (eds.), The EU Design Approach - A Global Appraisal, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA 2018, 172 - 190.

Chapter 15 - The rights conferred by the SPC and its limitations (Art. 5 Reg. 469/2009), in: Roberto Romandini, Reto M. Hilty, Annette Kur (eds.), Study on the Legal Aspects of Supplementary Protection Certificates in the EU - Final Report, European Commission, Brussels 2018, 301 - 376 (together with Roberto Romandini et al.).

Kapitel 3.2 - Fehlstellungen mit Bezug auf Schutzdefizite und Überschutz im materiellen Recht, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (eds.), Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2018, 287 - 450 (together with Arpi Abovyan et al.). DOI

Kapitel 3.1 - Fehlstellungen mit Bezug auf die Voraussetzungen, die Reichweite und die Begrenzungen einzelner Schutzrechte, in: Reto M. Hilty, Thomas Jaeger (eds.), Europäisches Immaterialgüterrecht - Funktionen und Perspektiven (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 26), Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2018, 146 - 286 (together with Pedro Henrique D. Batista et al.). DOI

Ersatzteilschutz im Licht von Design- und Kartellrecht – Überlegungen zum deutschen und europäischen Recht, in: Experientia docet. Księga jubileuszowa ofiarowana Pani Profesor Elżbiecie Traple, Wolters Kluwer, Warschau 2017, 543 - 556.

Dysfunktionaler Markenschutz gemeinfreier Werke? Bemerkungen zum "Vigeland-Fall", in: Anwalt des Urheberrechts. Festschrift für Gernot Schulze zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2017, 475 - 484.

§ 8 MarkenG: Grundsätzliches, in: Annette Kur, Verena von Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht (eds.), Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2017, 247 - 270.

§ 3 MarkenG, in: Annette Kur, Verena von Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht (eds.), Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2017, 112 - 142.

Einleitung zum Markenrecht, in: Annette Kur, Verena von Bomhard, Friedrich Albrecht (eds.), Markenrecht - Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke (UMV), Kommentar, C.H. Beck, München 2017, 1 - 74.

§ 13 - Designschutz im Ausland und im internationalen Recht, in: Helmut Eichmann, Annette Kur (eds.), Designrecht - Praxishandbuch, 2. ed., Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, 435 - 474.

§ 3 - Markenrecht, in: Helmut Eichmann, Annette Kur (eds.), Designrecht - Praxishandbuch, 2. ed., Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, 103 - 166.

From Minimum Standards to Maximum Rules, in: Hanns Ullrich et al. (ed.), TRIPS plus 20 - From Trade Rules to Market Principles (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 25), Springer, Heidelberg; Berlin 2016, 133 - 162. DOI

• Partly born out of frustration about the incessant demands for increased intellectual property (IP) protection in the post-TRIPS era, calls for the introduction of mandatory limits for such protection have become vibrant over the last decade, leading to a number of initiatives and, recently, to the adoption of the first international IP treaty that is primarily geared towards limitations and exceptions. This chapter gives an overview on the background and current state of the movement towards maximum rules, discusses the potential benefits and drawbacks of the approach, the relationship with obligations resulting from previous IP treaties, and possible ways forward.

Vorrangtheorie à la Luxemburg? Zu den Auswirkungen der Funktionsrechtsprechung und der Entscheidung Martin Y Paz/Gauquie, in: Festschrift für Helmut Köhler zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2014, 383 - 395.

The IPT Project – Proposals to Reform the TRIPS Agreement, in: Gustavo Ghidini, Rudolph J. R. Peritz, Marco Ricolfi (eds.), TRIPS and Developing Countries – Towards a New IP World Order?, Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2014, 163 - 189 (together with Marianne Levin).

Protection for Fashion: The European Experience, in: Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Jane C. Ginsburg (eds.), Intellectual property at the Edge – The Contested Contours of IP (Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law, 22), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014, 180 - 190.

What to Protect, and How? Unfair Competition, Intellectual Property, or Protection Sui Generis, in: Na Ri Lee et al. (ed.), Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity (European Intellectual Property Institutes Network Series), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2014, 11 - 32.

• While legal theory postulates that a clear borderline exists between the area covered by intellectual property rights and the surrounding glacis where imitation of others’ achievements is free, the division is all but distinct in practice. In particular in continental European countries such as Germany where unfair competition laws have traditionally been employed for granting protection under certain conditions against “slavish imitation”, the distinction – which is formally one of object-related protection vis-à-vis conduct-oriented assessment – sometimes appears as a matter of semantics rather than substance. Unfair competition protection may thereby assume the role of an incubator for new types of rights to emerge, which are later-on integrated into the corpus of traditional intellectual property laws or are transformed into rights sui generis. After describing and analysing the phenomena, the article suggests a systematized approach towards such legal metamorphoses that strives to reconcile the diverging objectives of flexibility and legal security.
• Available at SSRN

Evaluation of the Functioning of the EU Trademark System: The Trade Mark Study, in: Christophe Geiger (ed.), Construction European Intellectual Property (European Intellectual Property Institutes Network Series, 1), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2013, 123 - 136.

Kommentierung von Art. 2:202 - Art. 2:204 (S. 69-97); Art. 2:602 (S. 173-177); Art. 3:601 - 3:606 (S. 301-347) in The Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property - The CLIP Principles and Comment, in: Jürgen Basedow et al. (ed.), The Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property - The CLIP Principles and Comment, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013.

Unitary Rights in Fragmented Markets? Some Thoughts on the CTM System and its Interaction with National Law, in: Harmonisation of European IP Law - From European Rules to Belgian Law and Practice - Contributions in Honour of Frank Gotzen (Centrum voor Intellectuele Rechten, 23), Bruylant/Larcier, Brussels 2012, 117 - 136.

Two Tiered Protection — Designs and Databases as Legislative Models, in: Ansgar Ohly (ed.), Common Principles in European Intellectual Property Law (Geistiges Eigentum und Wettbewerbsrecht, 62), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2012, 99 - 115.

Expropriation or fair game for all? The gradual dismantling of the IP exclusivity paradigm, in: Annette Kur, Marianne Levin (eds.), Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, 408 - 451 (together with Jens Schovsbo).

• Also published as Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper No. 09-14
• Available at SSRN

Limitations and exceptions under the three-step test - how much room to walk the middle ground?, in: Annette Kur, Marianne Levin (eds.), Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, 208 - 261.

Die Benutzung im geschäftlichen Verkehr - eine (weitere) "black box" des Markenrechts?, in: Festschrift für Irmgard Griss, Jan Sramek Verlag, Wien 2011, 471 - 486.

Enough is enough - the notion of binding ceilings in international intellectual property protection, in: Annette Kur, Marianne Levin (eds.), Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system - proposals for reform of TRIPs, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2011, 359 - 407 (together with Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan).

Marks for goods or services (trademarks), in: Carlos M. Correa (ed.), Research Handbook on the Protection of Intellectual Property under WTO Rules - Intellectual Property in the WTO, Vol. 1, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2010, 408 - 447.

The ALI Principles and the CLIP Project: A Comparison, in: Stefania Bariatti (ed.), Litigating intellectual property rights disputes cross-border - EU regulations, ALI principles, CLIP project (Studi e pubblicazioni della Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, 74), CEDAM, Padova 2010, 89 - 147 (together with Benedetta Ubertazzi).

Are there any Common European Principles of Private International Law with regard to Intellectual Property?, in: Stefan Leible, Ansgar Ohly (eds.), Intellectual Property and Private International Law, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2009, 1 - 14.

Designschutz im Ausland und im internationalen Recht, in: Helmut Eichmann, Annette Kur (eds.), Designrecht - Praxishandbuch, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2009, 463 - 478.

Der Markenschutz nach deutschem und europäischem Recht, in: Helmut Eichmann, Annette Kur (eds.), Designrecht - Praxishandbuch, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2009, 133 - 186.

(No) Freedom to Copy? - Protection of Technical Features under Unfair Competition Law, in: Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World - Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus, Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg 2009, 521 - 533.

Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster, in: Jürgen Basedow, Klaus J. Hopt, Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts - Bd. 1 Abschlussprüfer - Kartellverfahrensrecht, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2009, 674 - 676.

Geschmacksmuster, in: Jürgen Basedow, Klaus J. Hopt, Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.), Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts - Bd. 1 Abschlussprüfer - Kartellverfahrensrecht, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2009, 724 - 729.

Markenrecht, in: Helmut Eichmann, Annette Kur (eds.), Designrecht - Praxishandbuch, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2009, 133 - 186.

Cumulation of Rights with Regard to Threedimensional Shapes - Two Exemplary Case Studies, in: Severine Dusollier, Alexandre Cruquenaire (eds.), Le Cumul des Droits Intellectuels, Larcier, Brüssel 2009, 155 - 175.

Too Pretty to Protect? - Trade Mark Law and the Enigma of Aesthetic Functionality, in: Technology and Competition/Technologie et concurrence - Contributions in honour of Hanns Ullrich/Mélanges en l'honneur de Hanns Ullrich, Larcier, Brüssel 2009, 139 - 160.

Protection of Traditional Names and Designations, in: Silke von Lewinski (ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property: Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, 2. ed., Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn 2008, 293 - 337 (together with Roland Knaak).

Small Cars, Big Problems? - An Analysis of the ECJ's Opel. /. Autec Decision and its Conseque, in: Festskrift till Marianne Levin, Norstedts Juridik, Stockholm 2008, 329 - 352.

Cumulation of IP Rights Pertaining to Product Shapes - An "Illegitimate Offspring" of IP Law?, in: Gustavo Ghidini, Luis Mariano Genovesi (eds.), Intellectual Property and Market Power - ATRIP Papers 2006-2007, Eudeba, Buenos Aires 2008, 613 - 632.

Strategic Branding: Does Trademark Law Provide for Sufficient Self Help and Self Healing Forces?, in: Inge Govaere, Hanns Ullrich (eds.), Intellectual Property, Market Power and the Public Interest, Peter Lang, Brüssel 2008, 191 - 217.

Fundamental concerns in the harmonization of (European) trademark law, in: Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Mark D. Janis (eds.), Trademark Law and Theory, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2008, 151 - 176.

Limiting IP protection for competition policy reasons - a case study based on the EU spare-parts-design discussion, in: Josef Drexl (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2008, 313 - 345.

Old topic, new concerns? - the control of secondary markets by asserting IP Right, in: Maciej Barczewski, Michal Milosz, Richard Warner (eds.), When Worlds Collide - Intellectual Property, High Technology and the Law, Oficyna, Warschau 2008, 43 - 58.

Die Alternativen zum Schutz durch das Urheberrecht in Deutschland, in: Reto M. Hilty, Christophe Geiger (eds.), Impulse für eine europäische Harmonisierung des Urheberrechts/Perspectives d'harmonisation du droit d'auteur en Europe (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2), Springer, Berlin 2007, 193 - 211.

Les protections alternatives au droit d'auteur en droit allemand, in: Reto M. Hilty, Christophe Geiger (eds.), Impulse für eine europäische Harmonisierung des Urheberrechts/Perspectives d'harmonisation du droit d'auteur en Europe (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2), Springer, Berlin 2007, 213 - 231.

Nachahmungsschutz und Freiheit des Warenverkehrs - der wettbewerbliche Leistungsschutz aus der Perspektive des Gemeinschaftsrechts, in: Festschrift für Eike Ullmann, juris GmbH, Saarbrücken 2006, 717 - 735.

Community Trade Marks in National „Community“ Courts – a System That’s Fit for the Future?, in: 25th Anniversary of ECTA: „Past, Present and the Future“. The Development of Trade Marks, Designs and Related IP Rights in Europe, ECTA, Deurne-Antwerpen 2005, 129 - 141.

Beyond a Self-Sufficient Concept of Intellectual Property Rights, in: Niklas Bruun (ed.), Intellectual Property Beyond Rights, WSOY, Helsinki 2005, 41 - 47.

Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments – The General Structure of the MPI Proposal, in: Josef Drexl, Annette Kur (eds.), Intellectual Property and Private International Law. Heading for the Future (IIC studies, 24), Hart, Oxford and Portland 2005, 21 - 34.

Merchandising im Spielzeug-Markt – wie weit reicht die „Eigentums-Logik“?, in: Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums und Wettbewerbsrechts. Festschrift für Gerhard Schricker zum 70. Geburtstag, Beck, München 2005, 835 - 844.

Trademark Conflicts on the Internet: Territoriality Redefined?, in: Jürgen Basedow et al. (ed.), Intellectual Property in the Conflict of Laws (Materialien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht, 44), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2005, 175 - 193.

What is „AS IS“? Das telle quelle-Prinzip nach "Havana Club", in: Harmonisierung des Markenrechts. Festschrift für Alexander von Mühlendahl zum 65. Geburtstag am 20. Oktober 2005, Heymanns, Köln 2005, 361 - 378.

Prävention – Cui Bono? Zur Berechnung des Schadensersatzes im Immaterialgüterrecht, in: „…und sie bewegt sich doch – Patent Law on the Move. Festschrift für Gert Kolle und Dieter Stauder zum 65. Geburtstag, Heymanns, Köln 2005, 365 - 387.

Trademark Protection for Personalities and Characters. Introduction, in: Frederik W. Grosheide, Jan J. Brinkhof (eds.), Intellectual Property 2004. Articles on Crossing Borders Between Traditional and Actual (Molengrafica series, 15), Intersentia, Antwerpen 2005, 297 - 299.

Protection of Traditional Names and Designations, in: Silke von Lewinski (ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property. Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2004, 221 - 258 (together with Roland Knaak).

Optionen für ein internationales Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen im Bereich des Immaterialgüterrechts, in: Festschrift für Winfried Tilmann, Heymanns, Köln 2003, 827 - 842.

Ist "Vogeler" überholt? - Zur Verwertung von Namensmarken in der Insolvenz, in: Festschrift für Günther Eisenführ, Heymanns, Köln 2003, 17 - 27.

The German Legislation on Authors´ Contracts - Fairness at Last?, in: Festskrift til Mogens Koktvedgaard, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, Kopenhagen 2003, 307 - 323.

Trade Mark Infringement by Trade Names - Some Reflections on the ECJ Decision in the Robelco Case, in: Luopvuus, oikeus ja muuttuvat markkinat. Juhlajulkaisu Keijo Heinonen 1923-26/11-2003 (Festschrift für Keijo Heinonen), Talentum, Helsinki 2003, 127 - 132.

Entwicklungen und Trends in den Schiedsgerichtsverfahren für Domainnamen-Konflikte, in: Carl Baudenbacher, J. Simon (eds.), Neueste Entwicklungen im europäischen und internationalen Immaterialgüterrecht, Helbing und Lichtenhahn, Basel, Genf, München 2003, 225 - 250.

• Event: Sechstes St. Galler Internationales Immaterialgüterrechtsforum IIF 2002, St. Gallen, 2002-11-14

Exceptions to Protection Where Copyright and Trademark Overlap: Parodies, News Reporting and Other "Speech" Use of Copyright. General Report, in: Jane Ginsburg, June Besek (eds.), Adjuncts and alternatives to copyright/Régimes complémentaires et concurrentiels au droit d'auteur. Proceedings of the ALAI Congress June 13-17 2001, ALAI-USA, New York 2002, 594 - 613.

• Event: Proceedings of the ALAI Congress June 13-17 2001, New York, 2001-06-13

Das Herkunftslandprinzip der E-Commerce-Richtlinie - Chancen und Risiken, in: Festschrift für Willi Erdmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Heymanns, Köln 2002, 629 - 645.

Journal Articles

Designschutz vor der Reform, GRUR 124, 7 (2023), 433 - 434.

No Strings Attached to GIs? About a Blind Spot in the (Academic) Discourse on Limitations and Fundamental Rights, IIC 54, 1 (2023), 87 - 94. DOI

• During the last decades, the focus of academic discourse on intellectual property rights has been on limitations and exceptions, with a strong accent on fundamental rights. However, until now such debates never involved protection of geographical indications under the sui generis system established in the European Union. That is quite remarkable. Already in its current form, the scope of protection granted to such rights is rather broad, as was confirmed and reinforced in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. According to pending proposals, the scope and ambit of protection shall be strengthened further, without any counterbalance in the form of limitations being envisaged. This opinion argues that turning a blind eye to those developments is no commendable attitude for those concerned about imbalances in intellectual property rights.

Finally Back to Trips-Compliance? EU Design Law and the Criterion of Publication 'Within EU Territory', Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 18, 1 (2023), 11 - 17.

• To enjoy protection under the title of unregistered Community design, novel designs must have been published ‘within the territory’ of the European Union (EU). A corresponding provision—referring to UK territory—has been inserted into the UK legislation on supplementary unregistered design.
  
  Both provisions are arguably incompatible with international obligations, as they regularly imply a de facto discrimination against foreigners.
  
  In its proposal for amendment of the Community Design Regulation (CDR) published on 28 November 2022, the EU Commission has now taken a step back from its former position by proposing the deletion of the relevant sentence in Art. 110a(5) CDR. Nevertheless, as long as the wording of the law remains ambiguous, uncertainties will linger about its effect. To avoid undesirable consequences, the solution adopted should be expressed as clearly as possible, with the UK hopefully following the same approach.

Intellectual Property in the Circular Economy, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 18, 5 (2023), 337 - 338 (together with Irene Calboli). DOI

Substantive Law Aspects of the 'Design Package', GRUR Int 72, 6 (2023), 557 - 565 (together with Tobias Endrich-Laimböck, Marc Huckschlag). DOI

• On 28 November 2022, the EU Commission published proposals for amendment of the Community Design Regulation (CDR) and for the recast of the Design Directive (DDir). Both proposals (in the following: PEUDR, PDDir) were preceded by reports and comprehensive consultations with interested circles. The aim of both proposals is to streamline and simplify the proceedings, enhance harmonisation, and improve the functioning of design legislation inter alia regarding novel forms of designs and reproduction technologies, providing a more robust catalogue of limitations, liberalisation of the spare parts market, and clarification of the relationship with copyright. The present article highlights the issues which are considered to be particularly important and deserving of further comments and clarifications.

Easy Is Not Always Good – The Fragmented System for Adjudication of Unitary Trade Marks and Designs, IIC 52, 5 (2021), 579 - 595. DOI

• While the creation and still outstanding implementation of the Unified Patent Jurisdiction system continue to cause contentious debates among academics and practitioners, the system introduced in the early 1990s for adjudication of conflicts concerning unitary trade marks (and, later on, unitary design rights) had the charm of simplicity. Building on the national court systems instead of providing for a genuine EU judiciary, the scheme could easily be fitted into existing structures. On the other hand, the imperfect, limping character of the system creates issues inter alia concerning international jurisdiction and applicable law. Furthermore, attributing jurisdiction in infringement litigation to separate national court hierarchies may jeopardize the coherence of the system. While the prospects for reform may be dim insofar as the system in its entirety is concerned, the detrimental effects of fragmentation could be overcome at least to some extent by creating a unitary catalogue of sanctions.

International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law, IIC 52, 1 (2021), 62 - 67 (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.). DOI

'As Good as New' – Sale of Repaired or Refurbished Goods: Commendable Practice or Trade Mark Infringement?, GRUR Int 70, 3 (2021), 228 - 236. DOI

Lauterkeitsrechtliche Einflüsse auf das Markenrecht, GRUR 122, 5 (2020), 457 - 471 (together with Ansgar Ohly).

Abolishing Infringement Jurisdiction for EU Marks? – The Perfume Marks Decision by the German Federal Court of Justice, IIC 49, 4 (2018), 452 - 465. DOI

• In its decision of 9 November 2017 the German Federal Court of Justice held that jurisdiction based on Art. 125(5) EUTMR is only vested in the courts at the place where, based on an overall assessment, the initial cause was set for the individual acts of infringement occurring in multiple Member States. The decision mixes up previous CJEU decisions dealing with international jurisdiction and applicable law. It could have serious repercussions in practice, as it amounts to discarding or at least seriously curtailing infringement jurisdiction based on Art. 125(5) as an alternative to the venues of central jurisdiction listed in Art. 125(1)–(4) EUTMR. In view of the serious consequences, the issue should at least have been referred to the CJEU.

Markenentfernung als rechtsverletzende Benutzung? - Besprechung von EuGH „Mitsubishi/Duma“, GRUR 120, 11 (2018), 1120 - 1124 (together with Roland Knaak).

Die „Parfummarken“-Entscheidung des BGH - De-facto Abschaffung der deliktischen Zuständigkeit im Unionsmarkenrecht?, GRUR 120, 4 (2018), 358 - 364.

Probleme im Überschneidungsbereich von Marken und Designs, MarkenR - Zeitschrift für deutsches, europäisches und internationales Kennzeichenrecht 19, 5 (2017), 185 - 194.

Gemeinfreiheit und Markenschutz - Bemerkungen zur Entscheidung des EFTA-Gerichtshofs im "Vigeland"-Fall, GRUR 119, 11 (2017), 1082 - 1090.

Rubik’s Cube – Würfelzauber am Ende?, GRUR 119, 2 (2017), 134 - 141.

Ersatzteilfreiheit zwischen Marken- und Designrecht, GRUR 118, 1 (2016), 20 - 30.

Recommendation on Measures to Safeguard Freedom of Expression and Undistorted Competition in EU Trade Mark Law, EIPR 37, 6 (2015), 337 - 343 (together with Martin Senftleben et al.).

• Also published as SSRN-Paper
• Whatever the protection afforded to trade marks, it must always be balanced against general interests, in particular the fundamental freedom of expression and the guarantee of undistorted competition, as reflected in the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The need for an appropriate balance is inherent in trade mark law. It is an issue of particular importance in the light of ongoing technological, economic and social developments, and of considerable complexity because of the diversity of legitimate interests of trade mark proprietors, consumers, competitors and the public at large. Against this background, the Recommendation provides guidance on how to offer sufficient room for freedom of expression and freedom of competition in the envisaged new EU trade mark legislation. It addresses measures to be taken by legislators, trade mark registration offices and the courts at various stages: from the grant of trade mark rights and the analysis of trade mark infringement to limitations of trade mark protection and the appropriate distribution of the burden of proof.
• Available at SSRN

Secondary Liability for Trademark Infringement on the Internet: The Situation in Germany and the EU, Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 37, 4 (2014), 525 - 540.

Geschäftliche Handlungen im Internet - Herausforderungen für das Marken- und Lauterkeitsrecht, GRUR Beil. 2014, 29 - 52 (together with Jochen Glöckner).

Declaration on Patent Protection, IIC 45, 6 (2014), 679 - 698 (together with Dan L. Burk et al.). DOI

• Auch veröffentlicht in: Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal, 2014, Vol. 45, 1 - 32 (in Japanese)
• As a framework regulation for innovation markets, the patent system needs to be tailored to the innovation process, which it is supposed to serve, and to the competitive environment, within which it must operate. In order to ensure an efficient functionality of the patent system as an innovation policy tool, patent rights ought to be defined, justified and continually reconsidered by reference to their socio-economic benefits and costs.
  
  Sovereign states should retain the discretion to adopt a patent system that best suits their technological capabilities as well as their social, cultural and economic needs and priorities, with the proviso that the exercise of such discretion must remain within the boundaries of international law. Taking into account the customary principles of interpretation of international law, this Declaration seeks to shed light on these boundaries. The purpose is to clarify the policy space that the ‘Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’ (TRIPS Agreement) leaves to national legislators and judicial authorities with regard to the implementation and administration of their patent systems.
  
  When the world’s major patent systems first developed into their present form, nation states were able to engage in the regulatory design process under conditions of high sovereign autonomy. Over the past decades, this autonomy has been progressively eroded. Today, states face a legal and institutional regime consisting of multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements, which are becoming increasingly complex and set more and more limits to their regulatory freedom.
  
  As a result, the ability of states to maintain a proper balance between the need for protection of knowledge goods in global markets, the freedom to regulate national or regional innovation markets, and the policy space for pursuing diverse public interest goals risks becoming unduly constrained. This Declaration seeks to clarify some of the regulatory options states still retain under international law, in particular the TRIPS Agreement.
• Auch veröffentlicht als Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-19
• http://bit.ly/2kIgLUI

Durchsetzung gemeinschaftsweiter Schutzrechte: Internationale Zuständigkeit und anwendbares Recht - Zugleich Anmerkung zu den Entscheidungen EuGH, Rs. EUGH Aktenzeichen C-360/12 – Coty und EuGH, Rs. EUGH Aktenzeichen C-479/12 – Gautzsch, GRUR Int 63, 8/9 (2014), 749 - 760.

• Auch erschienen als: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 3
• Inhaber von gemeinschaftsweit geschützten Marken- und Geschmacksmusterrechten haben gegenüber den Inhabern nationaler Rechte den Vorteil, dass sie sich im Fall grenzüberschreitender Verletzungen auf materiell weitgehend vereinheitlichtes Recht berufen und ihre Ansprüche vor Gemeinschaftsmarken- und -geschmacksmustergerichten gemeinschaftsweit geltend machen können. Dennoch verbleiben eine Reihe offener Fragen, die auch durch jüngere Entscheidungen des EuGH nicht oder jedenfalls nicht befriedigend gelöst wurden. Vor allem zeigt sich in diesen Entscheidungen wie auch bereits in vorhergehenden Entscheidungen zu Art. 7 Nr. 2 EuGVO n.F., dass der EuGH den durch das Territorialitätsprinzip bedingten Besonderheiten des Immaterialgüterrechts nicht die notwendige Bedeutung beimisst. Als problematisch erweist sich ferner, dass der EuGH die Begriffe „Handlungsort“ und „Ort des ursächlichen Geschehens“ regelmäßig synonym setzt, während deren sinnvolle Verwendung im Immaterialgüterrecht von einer klaren konzeptionellen Unterscheidung abhängt.
• In case of cross-border infringement of trade marks or designs the owners of Community rights protected throughout the EU are privileged vis-à-vis proprietors of national rights insofar as they can rely, in matters of substance, on uniform law; furthermore, infringers can be sued before Community trademark and Community design courts with union-wide competence. Nevertheless, a number of issues remain unresolved, without clear answers being given, or satisfactory solutions being reached, in recent CJEU jurisprudence. Similar to earlier decisions addressing article 7(2) of the Brussels Ibis regulation, those recent decisions demonstrate that the CJEU does not pay full attention to the territoriality principle and its specific consequences for intellectual property law. The problems are exacerbated by the fact that the CJEU tends to blur the notions of the place where the (act of) infringement is committed and the place where the causal event occurs, whereas in the context of intellectual property those notions must be clearly distinguished from each other.
• Available at SSRN

Trademarks Function, Don't They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles, IIC 45, 4 (2014), 434 - 454. DOI

• Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-05
• Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regards of reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back in the bottle: Protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, that proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposite camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislator who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the way in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of that process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz.
• Available at SSRN

Great Data, Nice Tale, But What's the Message? The OHIM/EPO Study on the Economic Relevance of IP-Intensive Industries in the EU, IIC 45, 6 (2014), 617 - 620 (together with Dietmar Harhoff). DOI

• Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper ; No. 1
• intp
• Available at SSRN

Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements, IIC 44, 8 (2013), 878 - 883 (together with Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan et al.). DOI

• For several years, research at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual
  Property and Competition Law (MPI) - in collaboration with experts from all over
  the world - has examined the trend of bilateral and regional agreements that
  include provisions on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (IP)
  rights. By building on this research, the following principles
  – express core concerns regarding the use of IP provisions as a bargaining chip in
  international trade negotiations, the increasing comprehensiveness of international IP
  rules and the lack of transparency and inclusiveness in the negotiating process; and
  – recommend international rules and procedures that can achieve a better,
  mutually advantageous and balanced regulation of international IP.
  These principles emanate from several consultations within the MPI and especially
  from a workshop that was held with external experts in October 2012 in Munich,
  Germany. They represent the views of those first signatories and are open to
  signature by scholars who share the objectives of the Principles.
• Institutswebsite

Harmonization of intellectual property law in Europe: The ECJ trade mark case law 2008–2012, Common Market Law Review 50, 3 (2013), 773 - 804.

ATRIP and Publications, WIPO Journal 4, 2 (2013), 269 - 277 (together with Jan Rósen).

What Kind of Use is This? - Open Question Aften ONEL/OMEL, IPRInfo 3 (2013), 8 - 11.

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Research Paper No. 13-15
• Few cases referred to the CJEU were accompanied by such vigorous and passionate political debates as ONEL/OMEL. Stakeholders as well as the Commission were in an acute state of alarm after the Benelux IP Office (BOIP) decided that genuine use made in the Netherlands was not sufficient for the earlier CTM “ONEL” to be considered as a valid ground for opposition against the Benelux trademark application for “OMEL”. Now, more than six months after the CJEU has handed down its decision, commentators remain remarkably silent. Rather than indicating a common understanding that the answers given are satisfactory, this seems to signal the opposite: so much has been left open for anyone’s guessing that it’s impossible to say what the decision actually means.
• Available at SSRN

Not Prior in Time, But Superior in Right: How Trademark Registrations Can be Affected by Third Party Interests in a Sign, IIC 44, 7 (2013), 790 - 814. DOI

• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper ; No. 13-10
• Trademark law relies on the principle of priority: The person first filing for registration (or, depending on the legal system, the person first using a sign) becomes the owner of the right within the territory where the filing (or use) took place. However, in certain exceptional cases priority is discarded vis-à-vis superior interests of third parties. International law explicitly recognizes two such constellations, namely protection of well-known marks (Article 6 Paris Convention) and unauthorized registration by an agent or representative (6septies Paris Convention). Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that the priority principle may not apply if a mark is filed in bad faith. The article presents all three constellations from an international and European legal background, including a discussion of the Commission proposals for reform of European trade mark law. It is argued that while the current law as well as the proposals go beyond what is necessary to comply with international obligations in regards of Article 6 and application in bad faith, they do not live up to the required level when it comes to well-known marks. Nevertheless, in spite of certain deficiencies, it is also shown that European trademark law in its current state as well as in view of the envisaged reform proposals presents a fairly comprehensive panoply of options for protection of superior interests in a sign in spite of lacking registration.
• Available at SSRN

Wer ist Pirat? - Probleme des Immaterialgüterrechts, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 62, 48 (2012), 21 - 28.

Die Ergebnisse des CLIP-Projekts – zugleich eine Einführung in die deutsche Fassung der Principles on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, GRUR Int 61, 10 (2012), 857 - 868.

Convergence after All - A Comparative View on the U.S. and EU Trademark Systems in the Light of the Trade Mark Study, Journal of Intellectual Property Law 19, 2 (2012), 305 - 324.

Die Studie des Max-Planck-Instituts für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht zum Funktionieren des europäischen Markensystems, GRUR Int 61, 3 (2012), 197 - 208 (together with Roland Knaak, Alexander von Mühlendahl).

The CLIP Principles - Summary of the Project, The quarterly review of corporation law and society 12 (2011), 202 - 215.

Haftung für Rechtsverletzungen Dritter: Reformbedarf im europäischen IPR?, WRP 57, 8 (2011), 971 - 982.

International Norm-Making in the Field of Intellectual Property: A Shift Towards Maximum Rules?, The WIPO journal 1 (inaugral issue) (2009), 27 - 34.

"A case about bubbles" - nur heisse Luft?, sic! 2 (2009), 106 - 111.

The Law Applicable to Secondary Liability in Intellectual Property Cases, New York University journal of international law and politics 42, 1 (2009), 201 - 235 (together with Graeme Dinwoodie, Rochelle Dreyfuss).

Un an de jurisprudence allemande en droit des marques, La propriété industrielle 12 (2009), 17 - 21.

Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law Concerning the Commission’s Plans to Prolong the Protection Period for Performing Artists and Sound Recordings, IIC 39, 5 (2008), 586 - 596 (together with Nadine Klass et al.).

Confusion over use? - Die Benutzung „als Marke“ im Licht der EuGH-Rechtsprechung, GRUR Int 57, 1 (2008), 1 - 12.

Un an de jurisprudence allemande en droit des marques, La propriété industrielle 12 (2008), 19 - 24.

Intellectual Property and the Reform of Private International Law - Sparks from a Difficult Relationship, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 27, 4 (2007), 284 - 289.

Quibbling Siblings - Comments to Dev Gangjee's Presentation, Chicago-Kent Law Review 82, 3 (2007), 1316 - 1327.

Exclusive jurisdiction and cross border IP (patent) infringement - suggestions for amendment of the Brussels I regulation, Intellectuelle eigendom & reclamerecht 23, 1 (2007), 1 - 8 (together with Axel Metzger et al.).

Nothing but a GI Thing: Geographical Indications under EU Law, Fordham intellectual property, media & entertainment law journal 17, 4 (2007), 999 - 1016 (together with Sam Cocks).

Právna ochrana dizajnu náhradných dielcov a návrh Európskej komisie na dolozku o opravách, Dusevne vlastnictvo 10, 2 (2006), 17 - 22 (together with Josef Drexl, Reto M. Hilty).

First Evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the Legal Protection of Databases - Comment by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich, IIC 37, 5 (2006), 551 - 558 (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

A Farewell to Cross-Border Injunctions? The ECJ Decisions GAT v. LuK and Roche Nederland v. Primus and Goldenberg, IIC 37, 7 (2006), 844 - 855.

Design Protection for Spare Parts and the Commission's Proposal for a Repairs Clause, IIC 36, 4 (2005), 448 - 457 (together with Josef Drexl, Reto M. Hilty).

Designschutz für Ersatzteile - Der Kommissionsvorschlag zur Einführung einer Reparaturklausel, GRUR Int 54, 6 (2005), 449 - 457 (together with Josef Drexl, Reto M. Hilty).

Applicable Law: An Alternative Proposal for International Regulation - the Max-Planck Project on international jurisdiction and choice of law, Brooklyn journal of international law 30, 3 (2005), 953 - 981.

The TRIPS Agreement Ten Years Later - A Conference Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the TRIPS Agreement, IIC 36, 5 (2005), 558 - 562.

The MPI Proposal, The quarterly review of corporation law and society 25 (2005), 339 - 342.

Alles oder Nichts im Formmarkenschutz?, GRUR Int 53, 9 (2004), 755 - 761.

Trade names – a Class of Signs “more equal“ than others?, IPRinfo 4 (2004), 10 - 11.

A New Framework for Intellectual Property Rights - Horizontal Issues, IIC 35, 1 (2004), 1 - 21.

No Logo!?, IIC 35, 2 (2004), 184 - 186.

The Enforcement Directive - Rough Start, Happy Landing?, IIC 35, 7 (2004), 821 - 830.

"Eintragungsland" ohne nationale Eintragung - zum Urteil des OLG München v. 15.05.2003, 29 U 1977/03, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 24 (2004), 331 - 333.

Protection of Graphical User Interfaces Under European Design Legislation, IIC 34, 1 (2003), 50 - 62.

Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and Judgements in Transnational Disputes: A European Perspective, Computer law review international 4, 3 (2003), 65 - 72.

Procedures and Remedies for Enforcing IPRs: the European Commission´s Proposed Directive, EIPR 25, 10 (2003), 447 - 449 (together with William R. Cornish et al.).

Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über die Maßnahmen und Verfahren zum Schutz der Rechte am geistigen Eigentum - eine erste Würdigung, GRUR Int 52, 7 (2003), 605 - 608 (together with Josef Drexl, Reto M. Hilty).

Proposal for a Directive on Measures and Procedures to Ensure the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights - A First Statement, IIC 34, 5 (2003), 530 - 535 (together with Josef Drexl, Reto M. Hilty).

Határokon túli védjegybirtoklás az interneten, Iparjogvédelmi és szerzöi jogi szemle 107.5 (2002).

• http://www.sztnh.gov.hu/kiadv/ipsz/200210/hatarokon.html

International Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements - A Way Forward for IP?, EIPR 24, 4 (2002), 175 - 183.

Die Auswirkungen des neuen Geschmacksmusterrechts auf die Praxis, GRUR 104, 8 (2002), 661 - 670.

Use of Trademarks on the Internet - The WIPO Recommendations, IIC 33, 1 (2002), 41 - 47.

Marke und Verbraucher - Bericht über ein Projekt und seine Ergebnisse, WRP 7/8 (1990), 453 - 459 (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig).

Marke und Verbraucher - Funktionen der Marke in der Marktwirtschaft, Markenartikel 1990, 357 - 360 (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig).

Markenrecht und Verbraucherschutz - Erste Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojekts, GRUR 87, 7 (1985), 493 - 503 (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig).

Case notes

Anmerkung zu BGH GRUR 2023, 808 – Dachser, GRUR 125, 11 (2023), 813 - 815.

Anmerkung zu Case C-235/09, DHL Express v. Chronopost, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2011, Common Market Law Review 49, 2 (2012), 753 - 766.

Anmerkung zu US CA 9th Cir. vom 15.12.2004 und zu CAFC vom 24.3.2005, IIC 36, 6 (2005), 728 - 731.

Reviews

Review of: Behyad Hozuri: Der Schutz grafischer Gebrauchsgestaltungen. Eine Untersuchung zum Schutz grafisch-kommunikativer Gebrauchsformen durch das Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2022 (Schriften zum geistigen Eigentum und zum Wettbewerbsrecht, Bd. 134). 466 S., ISBN 978–3-7489–2954–3, Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum 15, 1 (2023), 104 - 107.

Review of: Max Dregelies: Territoriale Reichweite von Unterlassungsansprüchen. Eine Studie mit Schwerpunkt im deutschen und europäischen Persönlichkeits- und Immaterialgüterrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020 (Studien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht, Bd. 454). XXIV, 293 S., ISBN 978–3-16–159766–4, Zeitschrift für Geistiges Eigentum 13, 2 (2021), 223 - 229. DOI

Review of: Gordian N. Hasselblatt (ed.): European Trade Mark Regulation. Article-by-Article Commentary, 2. ed., C.H. Beck, Hart Publishing, Munich and Oxford 2018. XXVII + 1784 pp. ISBN: 978-3-406-71510-5, IIC 51, 2 (2020), 273 - 275.

Review of: Designschutz in Europa/Design Protection in Europe – Entscheidungen europäischer und nationaler Gerichte/Decisions of European and National Courts, Bd. 4/Vol. 4 Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln 2012, XXV, 571 S., ISBN 978-3-452-27365-9, GRUR Int 62, 1 (2013), 90 - 92.

Review of: Ubertazzi, Benedetta: Exclusive Jurisidiction in Intellectual Property. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2012, XVIII, 337 S., ISBN 978-3-16-151954-3, (Studien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht, Band 273)., GRUR Int 61, 12 (2012), 1164 - 1165.

Review of: Derclaye, Estelle; Leistner, Matthias: Intellectual Property Overlaps – A European Perspective. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland 2011, LIX, 345 S., ISBN 978-1-841-13950-0, GRUR Int 61, 1 (2012), 102 - 103.

Review of: Stefan Luginbühl: European Patent Law – Towards a Uniform Interpretation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (UK), Northampton (USA) 2011. XXIIII, 331 S. ISBN 978-1-8498-0105-8, IIC 42, 8 (2011), 996 - 997.

Review of: Ströbele, Paul/ Hacker, Franz (Hrsg.): Markengesetz, Kommentar. 9. Aufl., Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln 2009, XXXVII, 2633 S., ISBN 978-3-452-27052-8, GRUR Int 60, 1 (2011), 88 - 89.

Review of: Kindler, Peter: Einführung in das neue IPR des Wirtschaftsverkehrs, Praxishandbuch. Verlag Wirtschaft und Recht, Frankfurt a.M. 2009, XVII, 355 S., ISBN 978-3-8005-1510-3, (Schriftenreihe des Betriebs-Beraters Band 144), GRUR Int 59, 10 (2010), 902 - 903.

Review of: Bulling, Alexander / Langöhrig, Angelika / Hellwig, Tillmann: Geschmacksmuster - Designschutz in Deutschland und Europa. 2., überarbeitete und wesentlich erweiterte Aufl., Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln 2006, 255 S., ISBN 3-452-25685-5; Schramm, Peter: Der europaweite Schutz des Produktdesigns - Das Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster und sein Verhältnis zur Gemeinschaftsmarke. Saarbrücker Studien zum internationalen Recht Bd. 28, Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2005, 264 S., ISBN 3-8329-1387-4, GRUR Int 56, 5 (2007), 455 - 456.

Review of: Blasek, Katrin: Markenrecht in der Volksrepublik China. Max-Planck-Institut für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht: Schriftenreihe zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz Bd. 147, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln 2007, XXIII + 458 S., ISBN 978-3-452-26587-6, GRUR Int 56, 7 (2007), 636 - 637.

Review of: Strömholm, Stig: Upphovsrätt och internationell privaträtt (Urheberrecht und internationales Privatrecht). Norstedts Juridik, Stockholm 2001, 394 S., GRUR Int 53, 7/8 (2004), 684 - 686.

Review of: Stutz, Robert M.: Individualität, Originalität oder Eigenart? Schutzvoraussetzungen des Design – Design als Werk der angewandten Kunst. (Diss. Univ. Bern), Stämpfli Verlag AG, Bern 2002, LXV, 344 S., GRUR Int 53, 2 (2004), 180 - 181.

Review of: Paul Ströbele & Franz Hacker: Markengesetz (Trademark Law). 7th ed. Heymanns Taschenkommentare zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, Heymanns, Cologne 2003. XXX, 1805 S., IIC 35, 2 (2004), 232 - 234.

Review of: Andrew Mountstephens: Das Markenrecht in Großbritannien und Nordirland. Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Köln etc. 2003, XXXIX, 427 S., IIC 35, 6 (2004), 756 - 758.

Conference Reports

Conference Report: 11th GRUR meets Brussels Workshop – Recent Developments in European Trademark and Design Law, GRUR 125, 20 (2023), 1435 - 1437.

• Event: 11th GRUR meets Brussels Workshop, Brüssel, 2023-06-11

The TRIPS Agreement Ten Years Later. Konferenz anlässlich des zehnjährigen Bestehens des TRIPS-Abkommens, GRUR Int 53, 10 (2004), 837 - 839.

• Event: Konferenz anlässlich des zehnjährigen Bestehens des TRIPS-Abkommens, Brüssel, 2004-06-23

Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Intellectual Property Matters - Perspectives for the Future. Tagungsbericht, GRUR Int 53, 4 (2004), 306 - 315.

• Event: Internationale Zuständigkeit und anwendbares Recht im Bereich des geistigen Eigentums, Insel Frauenwörth im Chiemsee, 2003-07-20

A New Framework for Intellectual Property Rights - Conference of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property at Elmau Castle, 22-23 November, 2002, IIC 34, 6 (2003), 632 - 646 (together with Christophe Geiger, Martin Senftleben).

• Event: A New Framework for Intellectual Property Rights, Elmau Castle, 2003-11-22

Intellectual Property, in: Martijn van Empel (ed.), "From Paris to Nice" - Fifty Years of Legal Integration in Europe. International Pallas Conference, Nijmegen, May 24, 2002, Kluwer, The Hague 2003, 73 - 99.

• Event: Pallas Conference, Nijmegen, 2002-05-24

Tagungsbericht, in: Friedrich-Karl Beier, Eva-Marina Bastian, Annette Kur (eds.), Wettbewerbsrecht und Verbraucherschutz in Mittel- und Osteuropa (Schriftenreihe zum gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, 87), Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln, Berlin, Bonn, München 1992, 47 - 88 (together with Eva-Marina Bastian).

• Event: 5. Ringberg-Symposium des Max-Planck-Instituts für ausländisches und internationales Patent-, Urheber- und Wettbewerbsrecht, Schloß Ringberg Tegernsee, 1991-03-11

Research Papers

Study on the Functioning of the EU GI System, 2022, V + 127 pp. (together with Andrea Zappalaglio et al.).

• Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper
• https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/forschung/Study_on_the_Functioning_of_the_EU_GI_System.pdf
• Also published at SSRN

International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law and Explanatory Notes (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-06), 2021 (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.). DOI

• The "International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law" (the Instrument) is the result of a research project for a balanced reconciliation of interests in copyright law. The project was coordinated by the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and resulted in a legal instrument designed in the form of an international treaty establishing a core of minimum permitted uses of works. This core of permitted uses is intended to be mandatory for prospective Contracting Parties, who remain free, however, to go beyond the minimum set of permitted uses provided for in the Instrument. The approach undertaken on the basis of "minimum permitted uses" counterbalances the traditional "minimum protection" approach of international copyright law. Among other things, this approach supports Contracting Parties in addressing the political pressure that notoriously exists in international negotiations, especially in the context of bilateral or regional agreements.
  The Instrument is composed of three parts (A. Permitted uses; B. General principles of implementation; C. Competition; Abuse) and is accompanied by explanatory notes that clarify the purpose and meaning of the Instrument and its provisions.

Trademark Functions in European Union Law - Also Containing a Comment on CJEU case C-129/17, Mitsubishi v. Duma (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 19-06), 2019, 24 pp.

• The doctrine of trademark functions was developed and discussed under national law long before the CJEU elaborated its much-criticized approach towards the issue. However, the Court readily embraced the concept of functions in order to expand the limits of trademark law into what was previously considered as forming part of unfair competition law, thus creating a fairly consolidated body of case law combining elements of trademark law and unfair commercial practices. While the results of that strategy, all in all, can be evaluated positively, the CJEU’s utilization of the functions doctrine is flawed where, as in Mitsubishi, it results in blatant disregard for the limits of legal harmonization that has been achieved so far.
• Available at SSRN

Brand Symbols, the Consumer, and the Internet (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 16-01), 2016, 24 pp.

• The article gives an overview on the way in which trade marks – or rather: brand symbols – operate in the internet environment. Referring to interdisciplinary research in psychology and neuroscience it is shown how the soft coercive power of brands and the spell they tend to cast over the mind and actions of consumers is reinforced in the digital age where the exposure of consumers to commercial messages is massively enhanced due to the pervasiveness of the internet. Before that background, the article summarizes the legal issues that so far have been in the foreground of practice and scholarly discussions regarding trademarks and the internet. It is posited that those issues as well should be resolved in the light of the larger picture involving the psychological, sociological and cultural dimensions of the use of brands in the digital age.
• SSRN

Too Common, Too Splendid, or 'Just Right'? Trade Mark Protection for Product Shapes in the Light of CJEU Case Law (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper, No. 14-17), 2014, 31 pp.

• Due to their capacity to confer ‘eternal’ protection on product shapes, three-dimensional trade marks seem to defy the basic tenets of intellectual property. Registration of such marks is therefore regularly subject to certain restrictions set forth in the law or developed by the courts. European trade mark law is no exception in that regard. While the CJEU insists that shape marks are to be assessed under the same principles as other forms of marks, obtaining protection in practice is quite difficult, which is only partially explained by the different perception of consumers. Furthermore, shapes are the only form of signs that is subject to an absolute and permanent exclusion from protection in order to safeguard competition interests. While the latter provision has been dormant in practice for most of the time, recent jurisprudence has given it more teeth; however, it has also rendered the contents of the provision and its relation to the other obstacles for protection more obscure, making it extremely difficult in practice to distinguish between the different categories. The article gives an overview on the legal situation and recommends a more transparent, balanced approach.
• Available at SSRN

The Study on the Functioning of the European Trade Mark System (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper, No. 12-13), 2012, 32 pp. (together with Roland Knaak, Alexander von Mühlendahl).

• As an element in the comprehensive evaluation of European trade mark law currently undertaken by the European Commission, the Max Planck Institute was given the task to carry out a Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System. This article presents a summary report on the contents and findings of the Study. Following a brief introduction (Part A), Part B refers to the programmatic objectives and principles of the European trade mark system. Parts C and D resume the analyses and proposals regarding topical issues of the substantive and procedural law, including the politically contentious issue of what constitutes “genuine use” of a Community Trade Mark. Parts E and F concern the functions currently performed by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal market (OHIM) and their possible improvement as well as the enhancement of coherence and collaboration between OHIM and the national offices; finally, in Part G, proposals for further harmonization are submitted. As a follow-up contribution to the Study the Max Planck Institute has produced synopses of the Trade Mark Directive (TMD) and the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR), showing in which way the current texts would have to be amended if the proposals were accepted. Those amendments (hereinafter p-TMD and p-CTMR) are referenced throughout the text of this article. The Study and the synopses are available on the website of the Max Planck Institute.
• Available at SSRN

Too Pretty to Protect? - Trade Mark Law and the Enigma of Aesthetic Functionality (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property & Competition Law Research Paper, No. 11-16), 2011, 22 pp.

• Under European trade mark law, ‘functional’ signs, i.e. signs exclusively consisting of shapes which result from the nature of the product, are necessary to achieve a technical result, or give substantial value to the goods, are barred from trade mark protection with absolute and permanent effect, without the possibility to establish acquired distinctiveness. While the rule may appear sound as such, its application in practice is problematic, in particular as regards the third ground for exclusion, which is often referred to as ‘aesthetic functionality’: the dangerous implications of that rule for particularly attractive design have become obvious in the recent decision by the General Court, T-508/08 – Bang & Olufsen. The article traces the origins of that rule in US case law and screens its application in Europe. It is argued that the original aim of the functionality doctrine in its various forms, namely to foster and maintain efficient competition, has been lost out of sight. Instead of embarking on an analysis of competitive concerns, courts tend to focus their attention on elements of largely accidental character, like the attractiveness of shapes in the early stage of marketing. Against that, the position is endorsed that it should not be precluded forever that a shape, initially attracting customers by its pleasant appearance, will become a valid sign at a later stage. Instead of focusing on how the public, at a given point in time, perceives and evaluates a certain shape, the crucial test should consist of an analysis of the competitive potential of the shape at stake, considering to what extent its assignment to one particular right holder would be liable to impede, or even exclude, efficient and meaningful competition.
• Available at SSRN

Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System - Report for the European Commission - presented by Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Munich, 2011, 278 pp. (together with Roland Knaak).

• https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5f878564-9b8d-4624-ba68-72531215967e#

Sweet Smells and a Sour Taste - The ECJ's L'Oréal decision (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper, No. 09-12), 2009, 6 pp. (together with Lionel F. Bently, Ansgar Ohly).

• In this brief comment on the ECJ’s decision L’Oréal v. Bellure (decision of 18 June 2009 case C-487/07 ) the authors argue that by protecting the reputation of a precious mark at the expense of consumer information about the availability of products legitimately offered on the market, the Court has failed to give an adequate response to the underlying conflict between the interests of the trade mark holder and freedom of commercial speech.
• Available at SSRN

Of Oceans, Islands, and Inland Water - How Much Room for Exceptions and Limitations Under the Three-Step Test? (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series, No. 08-04 ), 2009, 48 pp.

• The following chapter explores the notion of limitations and exceptions in the structure of intellectual property rights, in particular with a view of the three-step test. Following a brief typology of limitations and exceptions operating in different legal systems and on the international level, the three-step test in its application by the WTO-panels is evaluated critically, leading to the development of criteria for a more balanced interpretation. Most importantly, it is argued that the criteria on all three levels are rather of a relative character than an absolute one. This means that the frequently held belief that the individual steps must be passed separately and cumulatively cannot be endorsed: Instead of constituting three separate units, the three steps are nothing but individual elements informing one overall assessment. Furthermore, for the calibration of that assessment, it has to be taken into account that TRIPS is embedded in the larger WTO framework, which implies inter alia that the proportionality principle anchored in Art. XX GATT must be observed. The approach endorsed in this chapter basically complies with the Declaration on the Three Step Test in Copyright, which was published in summer 2008 as the result of a joint project between the MPI and Queen Mary College. However, beyond that, it may serve as a basis for more comprehensive proposals to re-formulate the present three-step test.
• Available at SSRN

Enough is Enough - The Notion of Binding Ceilings in International Intellectual Property Protection (Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series, No. 09-01 ), 2008, 69 pp. (together with Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan).

• Available at SSRN

Opinions

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 23 January 2023 on the 'Design Package' (Amendment of the Design Regulation and Recast of the Design Directive), 2023, 15 pp. (together with Tobias Endrich-Laimböck, Marc Huckschlag).

• This position statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition comments on the EU Commission’s proposals for an amendment of the Community Design Regulation and for a recast of the Design Directive. It highlights issues of particular importance, as, inter alia, the revised approach to the subject matter of protection, the acquisition of unregistered designs, as well as the extended list of limitations and the relation with copyright. The Institute welcomes the aim of the proposals, i.e. to streamline and simplify proceedings, to enhance harmonization and improve the functioning of design legislation. While it endorses most of the proposed changes, comments are made particularly where further adjustment and clarification is needed.
• MPI_Position Statement on the Design Package_01-25.pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 23-05

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb zum Referentenentwurf (RefE) eines Gesetzes zur Stärkung des fairen Wettbewerbs vom 11. September 2018, 2018, 19 pp. (together with Frauke Henning-Bodewig et al.).

• Stellungnahme RefE fairer Wettbewerb_gesamt_korrIB_fin_website.pdf

Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2016/943 zum Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen vor rechtswidrigem Erwerb sowie rechtswidriger Nutzung und Offenlegung vom 17. April 2018, 2018, 17 pp. (together with Luc Desaunettes et al.).

• Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2016 943 (3).pdf
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Discussion Paper No. 10

Positionspapier des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 1. Mai 2015 zur Umsetzung des WIPO-Vertrags von Marrakesch über eine zwingende urheberrechtliche Schranke zugunsten von Blinden, Sehbehinderten und Menschen mit Leseschwäche, 2015, 15 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.). DOI

• Also published in: GRUR Int, 64,7/8 (2015), 704 - 708
• English Version: Position Paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competion Concerning the Implementation of the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 15-05
• Stellungnahme

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Innovation und Wettbewerb vom 12. Mai 2014 zum Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission für eine Richtlinie über den Schutz vertraulichen Know-hows und vertraulicher Geschäftsinformationen (Geschäftsgeheimnisse) vor rechtswidrigem Erwerb sowie rechtswidriger Nutzung und Offenlegung vom 28.11.2013, COM (2013) 813 final, 2014, 18 pp. (together with Roland Knaak, Reto M. Hilty). DOI

• Also published as Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 14-11
• Auch veröffentlicht in GRUR Int 63,6 (2014), S. 554 - 560
• Englische Fassung unter dem Titel: Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 3 June 2014 on the Proposal of the European Commission for a Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know-How and Business Information (Trade Secrets) Against Their Unlawful Acquisition, Use and Disclosure of 28 November 2013, COM(2013) 813 Final in IIC 45,8 (2014), 953 - 967
• The Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition is a research institute within the Max Planck Society. Its main purpose is to undertake basic research on legal and economic issues on intellectual property and competition law. One main focus of its activity is the study of European intellectual property and unfair competition law. The Institute regularly advises governmental bodies and parliaments, at both the national and the international level. The Institute hereby provides its comments on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of 28.11.2013, (COM) 813 final. All references in these Comments to the compromise proposal of the Council Presidency refer to the proposal of 19 May 2014 (Doc 9870/14).
• Stellungnahme-Geschaeftsgeheimnisse_2014-05-12_fin1.pdf
• Available at SSRN

European Commission - Green Paper: Copyright in the Knowledge Economy - Comments by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2009, 20 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• Also published as: Max-Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 08-05
• Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC, 40,3 (2009), 309 - 327
• This paper focuses on an important subset of the knowledge economy: the area of scientific research. Wide dissemination and accessibility of scientific information in the online environment are at the core of today's knowledge economy. To a large degree, scientific information is embedded within scholarly works, such as journal articles, which are subject to copyright protection. Limitations most relevant to scientific research provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (InfoSoc Directive) are important tools to ease access to relevant information for purposes of scientific research on the end-user level. They need to be preserved and, where possible, adequately extended. However, even if widely introduced in all Member States and made immune against technological protection measures, these limitations alone may not guarantee wide dissemination and accessibility. The more publications become available in electronic form only, the greater the risk that libraries and scientific end users will face a single-source situation, forcing them to pay unreasonable prices or accept unreasonable conditions for accessing (for the most part publicly financed) scholarly contents, or to desist from using the relevant contents at all. Contractual arrangements between rightholders and users - as addressed in the Green Paper - are likely to benefit rightholders more than users. Limitations allowed for in the InfoSoc Directive cannot cope with these problems since they only take effect at the user level, i.e. when the content has already been procured. Wide dissemination and accessibility may need to be addressed also on the level of the intermediaries, e.g. by securing the existence of multiple sources and fair competition among publishers and other intermediaries with respect to the individual piece of scholarly work, such as an individual journal article. In this paper, we suggest certain elements that should be considered in the course of a legislative reform on the EU level, following a two-tier approach: (1) At the end-user level, limitations most relevant to scientific research should be mandatory, immune towards contractual agreements and technological protection measures, and should be construed as providing a bottom line, which national legislation should not fall below. In return, original rightholders should receive adequate compensation. (2) At the level of intermediaries, it is strongly recommended to follow up closely the developments in the scientific publication market, in particular concerning the situation of (publicly funded) research institutions vis a vis publishing companies and database producers. If certain negative effects cannot be mitigated otherwise, additional legal measures may have to be considered, which may be based on copyright or competition law, or even combine elements of the two, as will be addressed in part 2 of this paper.
• Comments-GreenPaperCopyrigthKnowledgeEconomy4.pdf
• Available at SSRN

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts zum Vorschlag der Kommission für eine Richtlinie zur Änderung der Richtlinie 2006/116 EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Schutzdauer des Urheberrechts und bestimmter verwandter Schutzrechte, 2008, 23 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty et al.).

• Auch veröffentlicht in: GRUR Int 57,11 (2008), 907 - 916
• Englische Fassung: Comment by the Max Planck Institute on the Commission's Proposal for a Directive to Amend Directive 2006/116 Concerning the Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights, EIPR 31,2 (2009), 59 - 72
• Also published as: Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 08-01
• The ostensible aim of the Commission's proposal to improve the economic situation of performing artists makes sense. Similarly, the descriptions of certain deficiencies in the music trade are true. However, the measures proposed by the Commission to remedy these problems - mainly a prolongation of the term of performance rights from 50 to 95 years - will, if at all, only bring marginal benefits to performing artists. In fact, the Commission also rightly recognizes that the problem of performing artists lies primarily in their lack of bargaining power as against the sound recording producers. However, it does not draw the obvious consequence that performers should be put in a better position by means of binding contractual provisions. Nor can any objection be raised to the Commission's description of the challenges faced by the sound recording industry by new - illegal - ways of using performances on the Internet. However, no mention is made of a number of conceivable specific options. Instead, the Commission also limited its considerations on the producers' situation to the said prolongation of the period of protection, although there is no objective relationship whatsoever between the duration of the performance rights and the user behaviour objected to. In truth, both groups of beneficiaries of performance rights would best be served if more effective use was made of the existing protection during the current 50 year term. On the part of the sound recording industry, an almost "perpetual" protection must not be allowed to distract from the necessity of using competition-based business models to recover the necessary investments and achieve a reasonable profit within realistic periods of time, taking into account the fact that the market presence of most productions will end much sooner than after five decades. Within that period of time, the performing artists can also be allowed to participate fairly in the profits by means of appropriate contractual provisions. The proposed prolongation of the term of protection instead leaves all the shortcomings of the present system untouched. The proposed term of 95 years is based blindly on the US copyright system, albeit wrongly interpreted and incapable of easy comparison with European law. This also ignores the fact that the overwhelming part of the proposed term of protection can in any event no longer serve to improve the economic situation of living performing artists. If at all, only the phonogram producers will profit - or any heirs of performing artists, and it is not their protection that seems to be what the Commission intends, or at least no mention is made of them anywhere. Even the Commission apparently does not believe that this initiative will achieve anything positive - even if only to the benefit of the sound recording industry; otherwise, it would be difficult to explain why its estimations are vague in such a manner that the figure of the estimated maximum is 20 times higher than the minimal estimation. Independent investigations suggest, however, that the prolongation of the protection period would have no perceptible benefits at all for those entitled to performance rights. At the same time, it cannot be disregarded that the prolongation of protection by a further 45 years would render access to musical productions difficult for a much longer period than at present if the copyright protection of the works used has already expired, which would often be the case particularly for classical music. However, it is not only with respect to the commercial effects that the Commission's proposals are half-baked. Even superficially well meant approaches such as specifically the creation of a fund for needy performing artists, are on closer examination nothing but window-dressing, particularly since they are only intended as transitional solutions. The same applies to the use-it-or-lose-it clause, the applicability of which will depend on overcoming unrealistically high obstacles. Certainly, the general aim of increasing the protection of the performing artist is to be welcomed. However, what is necessary, and also possible, are measures other than those proposed by the Commission.
• Stellungnahme-RichtlinieSchutzdauerUrheberrecht1.pdf
• Available at SSRN

Comments on the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations („Rome I“) of December 15, 2005 and the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs’ Draft Report on the Proposal of August 22, 2006, 2007, 7 pp. (together with Jürgen Basedow et al.).

• Comments-ContractualObligations.pdf

Exclusive Jurisdiction and Cross Border IP (Patent) Infringement - Suggestions for Amendment of the Brussels I Regulation, 2006, 15 pp. (together with Jürgen Basedow et al.).

• Comments-JurisdictionCrossBorderIPInfringement2.pdf

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht zum Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über strafrechtliche Maßnahmen zur Durchsetzung des Rechts des geistigen Eigentums, KOM(2006) 168 endgültig, 2006, 7 pp. (together with Reto M. Hilty, Alexander Peukert).

• Auch veröffentlicht in: GRUR Int 55, 8/9 (2006), 722 - 725
• Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC 37,8 (2006), 970 - 977 unter dem Titel: Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Criminal Measures Aimed at Ensuring the Enforcement of the Intellectual Property Rights
• Stellungnahme-StrafrechtDurchsetzungGeistigesEigentum.pdf

Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2004/48/EG zur Durchsetzung der Rechte des geistigen Eigentums in deutsches Recht, 2006, 12 pp. (together with Alexander Peukert).

• Auch veröffentlicht in GRUR Int 55,4 (2006), 292 - 303
• Stellungnahme-Richtlinie2004-48-EG1.pdf