Article 8 obliges Member States to enable the competent judicial authorities to order that the infringer or certain other persons provide precise information on the origin of the infringing goods or services, the distribution channels and the identity of any third parties involved in the infringement. Any order by the competent judicial authorities to provide information issued under Article 8 should only concern information which is actually needed to identify the source and scope of the infringement.
Comments closedCategory: EU
Non-regulatory options are not considered because they would not be sufficient to achieve the objectives. Their effectiveness would be similar to the baseline scenario, and they would not provide the necessary degree of legal certainty.
Comments closedIn the view of the Portuguese Republic, the person who makes the work directly available to the public and who therefore effects an ‘act of communication’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 is the person who places the work on the server from which the internet user is able to access it. The Portuguese Republic submits that it is not the ‘hyperlinker’ — who merely makes a secondary or indirect ‘communication’ — that ensures that ‘members of the public may access [the works] from a place and at a time individually chosen by them’. The act which actually produces that effect is undertaken by the person who effected the initial communication.
Comments closedThe Court was called upon to tell the national court explicitly whether, under European Union law, a national court is permitted to adopt a measure, ordering an internet service provider to introduce a system for filtering and blocking electronic communications.
Comments closedDigital services, such as video streaming, should be made available to all EU citizens irrespective of the Member State in which they are located; it should to call on the Commission to request that European digital companies remove geographical controls (e.g. IP address blocking) across the Union and allow the purchase of digital services from outside the consumer’s Member State of origin.
Comments closed
Regulation 2017/1128 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market (the “Portability Regulation”) comes into force in the United Kingdom on 1 April (Article 11 of the Regulation). The Regulation is designed to make it easier for consumers who live in the European Union (EU) to access online content services they subscribe to (for example, television, film and music subscription services) when they are temporarily located in another Member State of the EU (Article 1.1). This could be, for example, when on holiday or travelling on business.
Comments closedSanoma, the publisher of the monthly magazine Playboy, commissioned a photographer, Mr Hermès, to conduct a photoshoot of Ms Dekker. Ms Dekker appears regularly in television programmes in the Netherlands. The photographer gave Sanoma full power of attorney to represent him for purposes of protection and enforcement of his intellectual property rights arising from the aforementioned commission.
Comments closedWhile Article 14 of IPRED refers to ‘legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party’, the Directive does not define what these concepts entail precisely. The CJEU has held that the concept of ‘legal costs’ includes, amongst others, lawyer’s fees. It also held that the concept of ‘other expenses’ includes, in principle, costs incurred for the services of a technical adviser.
Comments closedThe problem is that the providers of retransmission services face practical difficulties with the acquisition of rights for retransmission of TV and radio channels from other Member States by means other than cable.
Comments closed