Abstract Court of Justice of the European Union, Frank Peterson v Google LLC, YouTube LLC, YouTube Inc, Google Germany GmbH and Elsevier Inc v Cyando AG, Joined Cases C-682/18 and C683/18, EU:C:2021:503, 22 June 2021 The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has provided a non-exhaustive list of factors which are suggested to be taken into account in deciding whether a platform is engaged in acts of communication to the public. The court’s ruling clarifies the scope of the right under Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, the availability of the hosting exemption in Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC and injunctions against intermediaries under Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC.

I am pleased to review the very recent publication of a treatise on the enforcement of IP rights in Africa published by Oxford University Press, compiled and authored by Marius Schneider and Vanessa Ferguson. The book bears the no-nonsense name of its subject: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Africa. In almost 1000 pages of text, the book systematically deals with the topic with a chapter per country and others dedicated to the regional systems of OAPI and ARIPO, all introduced by a contextual chapter enticingly called ‘Understanding the Real Problem of Fakes in Africa’. The country chapters are usefully structured in a similar format so that the enforcement of each of the primary IP rights (patents, trade marks, copyright and where relevant unfair or unlawful competition) are dealt with betwixt country overview sections containing factual and legal backgrounds, and a standalone section on customs enforcement. Setting it out...

In markets for global telecommunications products, including mobile phones, standards enable the necessary infrastructure equipment and devices produced by different manufacturers to work with one another and for those products to be available for use internationally by consumers who travel with their phones. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) is responsible for developing and publishing telecommunications standards in Europe.1 such as 2G (GSM), 3G (UMTS) and 4G (LTE). The underlying technology which is incorporated into these standards is generally protected by SEPs; it is not possible to make, sell, use or operate devices which comply with the standard without infringing those patents. The ETSI IPR Policy (the ‘Policy’) requires SEP holders to grant licences to use their technology on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms so as to ensure that access to the use of the standard is not blocked. Against that background, the Judgment identifies two attributes of patent law that are relevant to the development of a global telecommunications market: first, that the prima facie entitlement of a SEP holder to obtain an injunction within a national jurisdiction has the potential to disrupt a global market for equipment using that technology; and, secondly, that the national nature of patent rights, which means that the SEP holder must commence proceedings in individual national courts to enforce its patent rights, makes it very difficult, if not wholly impracticable, for a SEP holder to protect an invention which is used in equipment manufactured in another country, sold in many countries and used by consumers globally. The Supreme Court explains that the first attribute may give SEP holders excessive power to disrupt an otherwise global market potentially resulting in excessive royalties while the second attribute may enable those implementing the standard (implementers) to avoid paying SEP holders a proper price for the use of their inventions internationally. The need to balance these ‘alternative evils’ lies at the core of the Judgment.

In August 2018, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel adopted its report on the Australian tobacco plain packaging measures.1 The decision has been hailed as a reaffirmation of a sovereign state’s right to regulate in international economic law and a clear check on the likely abuse of investor–state dispute mechanism.2 Tobacco products have been shown to have severely adverse health consequences. The Canadian Medical Association in particular issued its first public warning on the health hazards associated with smoking in 1954.3 The call for plain packaging or standardization of tobacco packaging requirements dates back to 1986 when the Canadian Medical Association passed a resolution to the effect that tobacco products should be released into the market in plain packages with very visible warnings on harmful effects of tobacco without any extraneous information being allowed on the packages.4 Regulating the use of tobacco products is...

Beauty and the brand: drafting contracts for the commercial use of someone’s likeness Kelsey Farish Kelsey Farish Email: kfarish@dacbeachcroft.com. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 15, Issue 12, December 2020, Pages 953–959, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa178 Published: 20 December 2020

Boomerang Investments Pty Ltd v Padgett (Liability) [2020] FCA 535, Federal Court of Australia, 24 April 2020 The Federal Court of Australia has limited recourse for copyright holders claiming secondary infringement and infringement of moral rights if they fail to allege primary infringement due to reproductions being made outside of Australia. In 1977, Australia was disco mad: ABBA toured and the song Love is in the Air (‘Love’) was released, becoming an instant disco classic. In 2020, the claimants (the composers, the initial publishers’ successor in title named Boomerang Investments, and two Australian collecting societies) submitted that Love had been made available to the public without permission via two songs which copied, inter alia, the music and sound of the lyrics ‘love is in the air’. The songs were Warm in the Winter (‘Warm’), composed by Glass Candy, a US electronic pop duo, and France is...

In a path-breaking judgment for painters and artists, the Maritime and Commercial Court of Denmark forbade Kanske Denmark ApS from cutting, using, marketing and selling pieces of Tal Rosenzweig’s painting ‘Paris Chic’.

Being present on multi-sided music platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and SoundCloud is nowadays often seen as a necessity for any artist: there is currently no better way to connect with a prospective audience. As a result, multi-sided music platforms are extremely popular. However, the way they use copyright-protected content in digital advertising raises numerous questions with regard to copyright protection, competition and privacy alike. Chijioke Ifeoma Okorie’s book expertly guides the reader in a thorough exploration of the application of copyright law, privacy law and competition law in regulating multi-sided music platforms, using Nigeria and South Africa as the two focus countries. Structured into seven chapters, the book begins with an introduction as to the workings of multi-sided music platforms. Multi-sided platforms are ‘[an] avenue or means for several market participants to interact with themselves’. A multi-sided music platform is one which uses music as a free product to...

Review of the year in English patent litigation 2019 Trevor Cook Trevor Cook Email: trevor.cook@wilmerhale.com Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 15, Issue 6, June 2020, Pages 419–428, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa050 Published: 01 June 2020 Article history Received: 21 February 2020 Published: 01 June 2020