Distribution and structure of the pathology of the prostate gland in dogs

The article presents the results of the study of the structure of the pathology of the prostate gland in dogs in the age aspect. The study of the spread of the pathology of the prostate gland in dogs was conducted on the basis of the center of veterinary medicine “Health”, Sumy and clinics of the Department of Obstetrics and Surgery, Sumy National Agrarian University during 2014–2018. At the same time, 985 dogs of all ages and breeds were examined for this period, from which 101 animals with pathology of the prostate were isolated. Pathology of the prostate gland in dogs is 10.3% of the total number of examined animals. Among prostate diseases the most common are benign hyperplasia – 47.5%, prostatitis – 36.6% and neoplasms – 10.1%, from the total number of animals with diseases of the prostate gland. For dogs most widespread among pathology of prostate gland are of high quality гіперплазії, простатити and неоплазії that fold 47.5%, 36.6% and 10.1%, from the incurrence of animals with illnesses of prostate. On the stake of chronic inflammation among the general amount of animals with простатитом, there is 2.6%, and on a sharp and festering form – 0.7% and 0.4%, accordingly. For dogs it follows reasons and contributory infringement factors of origin of простатитів to count cystitises, urethritiss, pyelonephritises, баланопостити, traumas of penis, and also obesities of animals, reductions of motive activity, that arise up as secondary distribution of inflammatory process on a prostate gland. Researches of age-old dynamics of простатитів testify for dogs, that frequency of this pathology grows with age. In the age-old aspect, the rate of detection of prostatitis reaches a maximum at the age of 7–8 years, and somewhat less in 5–6 and 9–12 years, accounting for 54.1%, 18.9% and 13.5% of the total number of animals with inflammatory processes prostate gland, respectively. At the age of 7–8 and 9–12 years, the dominant form of prostatitis is chronic, accounting for 80% and 100% of the total number of diagnosed cases of prostate inflammation for each group, while at the age of 5–6 and 3–4 years the frequency of detection of acute and purulent forms of prostatitis is 40% and 20% and 50% and 25%, respectively.

Grounding Trademark Law Through Trademark Use

The debate over trademark use has become a hot-button issue in intellectualproperty (IP) law. In Confusion over Use: Contextualism in Trademark Law,Graeme Dinwoodie and Mark Janis characterize it as a dispute over whetherto limit trademark holder rights in a new and unanticipated way. Yet thereis another - in our view more historically accurate - way to frame thetrademark use debate: the question is whether courts should, absentspecific statutory authorization, allow trademark holders to assert a newand unprecedented form of trademark infringement claim. The pop-up andkeyword cases involve attempts to impose third-party liability under theguise of direct infringement suits. Dinwoodie and Janis's thorough accountnotwithstanding, it remains the fact that, before the recent spate ofInternet-related cases, no court had ever recognized a trademark claim ofthe sort that trademark holders are now asserting. Trademark infringementsuits have always involved allegations of infringement by parties who usemarks in connection with the promotion of their own goods and services. Thequestion raised by the trademark use cases, as we view it, is whethercourts should countenance a radical departure from that traditional modelwithout specific instruction from Congress. We think they should not.In this paper, we explain the origins of trademark use doctrine intraditional limits on the scope of the trademark right and in thedistinction between direct and contributory infringement. We also explainwhy we cannot simply rely on the likelihood of consumer confusion test tosolve the problems the trademark use doctrine addresses, and we examine thedifficult problem of defining the scope of the trademark use doctrine.

Toward an Epistemology of ISP Secondary Liability

At common law, contributory infringement for copyright infringement requires 'knowledge' of the infringing activity by a direct infringer before secondary liability can attach. In the United States, the 'safe harbor' provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that shield Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from secondary copyright liability, are concomitantly available only to ISPs that lack the common law knowledge prerequisites for such liability. But this leads to the question of when a juridical corporate entity can be said to have 'knowledge' under the statute. Legal institutions have well-established processes for inferring the knowledge state of natural persons, but corporations are complex sociotechnical networks of human and non-human elements whose information state does not map well onto such inferential methods. This question is of course not unique to copyright liability; corporate entities may be responsible for 'knowing' actions under a variety of applicable legal provisions, and the question of corporate knowledge is generally under theorized. But consideration of ISP 'knowledge' in this context points the way to consideration of corporate epistemology that must be foundational to determining corporate responsibility in copyright protection.