Cases on Property (Rights in Land) with an Introduction to the Law of Real Property

This chapter examines the law governing the availability of claims to traceable proceeds. It argues that the language used in the case law—which uses the terminology of property rights and of fiduciary relationships—cannot fully explain the law, since such claims are often available in the absence of fiduciary duties and are not available to holders of many types of property right. It argues that such claims instead presuppose a relationship of ‘control of assets’: where the defendant has a legal power to deal with some asset, correlating to a vulnerability to a loss of rights in that asset on the part of the claimant, and coupled with a duty not to exercise the power. It argues that relationships that have this formal structure also share normative characteristics that justify the subordination of defendant autonomy that has been shown to be at the heart of the tracing concept.

Download Full-text

Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Energy Services in Africa

10.1093/oso/9780198819837.003.0008 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Professor Adebambo Adewopo ◽

Dr Tobias Schonwetter ◽

Helen Chuma-Okoro

Keyword(s):

Intellectual Property ◽

Property Rights ◽

Intellectual Property Rights ◽

Energy Access ◽

African Countries ◽

Energy Services ◽

Proper Role ◽

The Law

This chapter examines the proper role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in achieving access to modern energy services in Africa as part of a broader objective of a pro-development intellectual property agenda for African countries. It discusses the role of intellectual property rights, particularly patents, in consonance with pertinent development questions in Africa connected with the implementation of intellectual property standards, which do not wholly assume that innovation in Africa is dependent on strong intellectual property systems. The chapter examines how existing intellectual property legal landscapes in Africa enhance or impede access to modern energy, and how the law can be directed towards improved energy access in African countries. While suggesting that IPRs could serve an important role in achieving modern energy access, the chapter calls for circumspection in applying IP laws in order not to inhibit access to useful technologies for achieving access to modern energy services.

Download Full-text

Property in Human Body Parts

The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Health Law ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190846756.013.33 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Justine Pila

Keyword(s):

Intellectual Property ◽

Property Rights ◽

Human Body ◽

First Principles ◽

The Political ◽

Body Parts ◽

Cautionary Tale ◽

Regulatory Approach ◽

Legal Position ◽

The Law

This chapter surveys the current legal position concerning property in bodies and bodily materials. Of especial relevance in the current age of advanced genetic and other bio technologies, it looks beyond property in bodies and their materials ‘as such’ to consider also (a) the availability of rights of personal and intellectual property in objects incorporating or derived from them, and (b) the reliance on quasi-property rights of possession and consent to regulate the storage and use of corpses and detached bodily materials, including so-called ‘bio-specimens’. Reasoning from first principles, it highlights the practical and conceptual, as well as the political and philosophical, difficulties in this area, along with certain differences in the regulatory approach of European and US authorities. By way of conclusion, it proposes the law of authors’ and inventors’ rights as simultaneously offering a cautionary tale to those who would extend the reach of property even further than it extends currently and ideas for exploiting the malleability of the ‘property’ concept to manage the risks of extending it.

Download Full-text

Creation of Technical Conditions for Use or Infringement – The Meanders of the Warehouse Keeper’s Liability in Light of CJEU Judgment C-567/18 Coty Germany

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law ◽

10.1007/s40319-021-01040-2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 52 (3) ◽

pp. 265-282

Author(s):

Krystyna Szczepanowska-Kozłowska

Keyword(s):

Property Rights ◽

Point Of View ◽

Literal Meaning ◽

Property Right ◽

Third Party ◽

Property Law ◽

Industrial Property ◽

The Absolute ◽

The Law ◽

Trademark Use

AbstractOne form of industrial property right infringement is stocking for the purpose of offering or marketing. This form of infringement appears both in EU legal acts on trademarks or designs, as well as in national regulations, including those concerning patents. What is specific to stocking when compared to other activities comprising the stipulated exclusivity of the holder of industrial property rights is the fact that the literal meaning of “stocking” does not explain whether the infringing party or the warehouse keeper is the entity that places the goods in storage. The structure of industrial property rights as absolute rights would theoretically permit the view that the law is violated by both the entity that accepts the goods for storage and the entity that places such goods in storage. To determine if there is an infringement, it must be established what the goods being stocked are further intended for. It is not without significance that the finding of an infringement of industrial property rights does not depend on fault or awareness. From the point of view of the industrial property law regime, it is difficult to find arguments against this understanding of infringement by stocking. Since the offeror of goods infringing industrial property rights may be held liable even if the goods have not yet been manufactured, it is conceivable that the entity accepting such goods for stocking is also liable. This interpretation of the concept of stocking would certainly correspond to the absolute nature of liability for infringement.In a recent judgment the CJEU confirmed that the warehouse keeper who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trademark rights only creates the technical conditions for trademark use by this third party provided that the warehouse keeper is not aware of that infringement. The CJEU also confirmed that only the person who decides about the purpose of storing the goods can be treated as an infringer. However, the CJEU did not respond to the question regarding whether the warehouse keeper could be treated as an infringer if it pursues the aims of storing the goods at the request of the entity that put the goods into storage.

Download Full-text