Filter by
  • A Johnston, 'Focus article – The European Union, the United Kingdom and Terrorist Asset Freezing: Getting into Hot Water?' (2008) European Current Law Monthly Digest
  • A Johnston, 'Freezing Terrorist Assets Again: Walking a Tightrope over Thin Ice?' (2008) Cambridge Law Journal 31 [Case Note]
  • G Dinwoodie, W. Hennessey, S. Perlmutter and G. Austin, International Intellectual Property: Law and Policy (2nd ed. LexisNexis Publishing 2008)
  • A Johnston, 'Legal issues raised by the introduction of take-or-pay contracts for renewables deployment in the UK' in B. Delvaux, M. Hunt and K. Talus (eds), EU Energy Law and Policy Issues – The Energy Law Research Forum Collection (Euroconfidentiel/European Study Service 2008)
    ISBN: 978-2930066707
  • A Johnston, 'Review of: Elizabeth O’Neill and Emma Sanders (with Margaret Bloom and Anneli Howard), UK Competition Procedure: The Modernised Regime' (2008) Cambridge Law Journal 434 [Review]
  • A Johnston, 'State aid to tackle leakage: EC law considerations' in K. Neuhoff and F. Matthes (eds), The Role of Auctions for Emissions Trading (Climate Strategies 2008)
  • G Dinwoodie, 'What Linguistics Can Do For Trademark Law' in Bently, Davis & Ginsburg (ed), Trade Marks and Brands: An Interdisciplinary Critique (Cambridge Univ. Press 2008)
    This contribution to an inter-disciplinary book on Trademarks and Brands responds to the work of Alan Durant, a linguist who (in his chapter of the book) provides legal scholars with both a rich understanding of how linguists view terms that are part of the basic argot of trademark law and a potentially vital explanation of the different social functions that word marks might serve. The Response explains why linguistics should matter to trademark law, but also why trademark law might on occasion ignore the precise reality of consumer understanding as might be provided by linguistics. I suggest that, while trademark law should not become beholden to linguistics, the lessons of Durant?s linguistic analysis are to some extent already accommodated in the practice of trademark law, and could be important guides in the further development of a number of legal principles. In particular, I explain how trademark law does in large part take into consideration Durant?s observation that legal analysis would comport more with the reality of how words function if it focused on marks as they are used. The Chapter also argues that Durant?s exploration of the concepts of ?distinctiveness? and ?descriptiveness?, as understood by lawyers and linguists, respectively, should reinforce important lessons for legal scholars about the complex policy prescriptions embodied in those concepts. Finally, I argue that particular insights developed by Durant from the field of linguistics may prove valuable in illuminating several points of contention in contemporary trademark law. In particular, Durant stresses that determining whether a defendant?s use has evoked the source-identifying aspect of plaintiff?s mark, as opposed to the descriptive properties of that term, can only be done by analyzing the ?discourse ?setting? in which interpretations are constructed.? Thus, although the type of use should be relevant to assessing infringement, any analysis of use type must be highly contextualized. This insight should inform the choice of doctrinal vehicles by which trademark law establishes limits on the scope of protection.
  • D S Gangjee, '(Re)Locating Geographical Indications: A Response to Bronwyn Parry' in L. Bently, J. Davis and J. Ginsburg (eds), Trade Marks and Brands: An Interdisciplinary Critique (CUP, Cambridge 2008)
  • D S Gangjee, 'Geographical Indications and Human Rights' in Paul Torremans (ed), Intellectual Property and Human Rights (Kluwer, The Hague 2008)
  • D S Gangjee, 'The Polymorphism of Trade Mark Dilution in India ' (2008) 17 Journal of Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 611
  • G Dinwoodie and M. Janis (eds), Trademark Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar Press 2008)
  • J. Reichman, G Dinwoodie and P. Samuelson, 'A Reverse Notice and Takedown Regime To Enable Fair Uses of Technically Protected Copyrighted Works' (2007) 22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 981
    The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) recognized the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest in updating copyright law in light of advances in information and communications technologies. But the translation of this balance into the domestic laws of the United States and European Union has not been fully successful. In the DMCA, Congress achieved a reasonable balance of competing interests in its creation of safe harbors for internet service providers. However, contrary to its apparent intention, Congress failed to achieve a similar balance of interests when establishing new rules forbidding circumvention of technical protection measures (TPMs) used by copyright owners to control access to and use of their works. The EU Copyright Directive spoke of a commitment to ensuring that certain public interest uses can be made of technically protected works but contains limits that seemingly undermine this commitment. As a result, national implementations of the Copyright Directive have not adequately facilitated public interest uses of technically protected content.
    We believe that practical judicial and administrative measures can and should be devised to implement the spirit of the WCT in both the U.S. and EU without reopening the contentious debates that engulfed the process leading up to enactment of the DMCA and the EU Copyright Directive. To this end, we propose adoption of a ?reverse notice and takedown? procedure to help achieve some of the balance in anti-circumvention rules that the WCT endorsed, but which implementing legislation has thus far failed to deliver. Under this regime, users would be able to give copyright owners notice of their desire to make public interest uses of technically protected copyrighted works, and rights holders would have the responsibility to take down the TPMs or otherwise enable these lawful uses.
    A reverse notice and takedown regime would achieve for the anti-circumvention rules a comparable symmetry with the balance embedded in the ISP safe harbor rules. It would also effectuate the nascent, but not fully realized, legislative intent to permit public interest uses of technically protected digital content, while at the same time protecting copyright owners against circumvention of TPMs that would facilitate or lead to massive infringements. In the U.S., the most likely way to achieve this goal is through judicial interpretation of the anti-circumvention rules through case by case adjudication. In the EU, by contrast, member states could implement a reverse notice and takedown regime in the course of fulfilling their obligations under Article 6(4) of the Copyright Directive, which requires them to ensure that users of technically protected works can exercise certain public interest exceptions. Nations that have yet to implement the WCT may find our proposed reverse notice and takedown regime provides a far more balanced way to comply with the treaty than the approach being promoted by U.S. trade negotiators.
  • Richard Warner, G Dinwoodie, Harold J. Krent and Margaret Stewart, E-Commerce, the Internet and the Law, Cases and Materials (Thomson West 2007)
  • A Johnston, 'European Community Law and National Private Law: ‘Never the Twain Shall Meet’?' (2007) 3 Cambridge Student Law Review 56
  • G Dinwoodie, 'Foreign and International Influences on National Copyright Policy: A Surprisingly Rich Picture' in F. McMillan (ed), 6 New Directions in Copyright (Edward Elgar 2007)
    National copyright policy, traditionally reflective of domestic cultural and economic priorities, is increasingly shaped by foreign and international influences. In this chapter, I sketch some of the changes in copyright lawmaking that have given rise to this phenomenon. Especially when viewed in historical context, foreign and international influence on the development of copyright law is now quite pervasive ? albeit in ways, and effected through a number of institutions, that might appear surprising.
  • A Johnston, S.F. Deakin and B.S. Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law (Oxford University Press 2007)
    Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law is an authoritative, analytical, and well-established textbook, reaching its sixth edition in the space of twenty years. It provides a general overview of the law and full discussion of the academic debates on all major topics, highlighting the relationship between the common law, legislation, and judicial policy as well as the new European influences emanating from Luxembourg and Strasbourg. In addition, the authors provide a variety of comparative and economic perspectives on the law of tort and its likely development, always placing the subject in its socio-economic context thus giving students a deeper and richer understanding of tort law. Written by leading authorities on tort law, this detailed book offers teachers a wide range of topics to cover while offering students a text which is both descriptive and reflective of this branch of law. A bibliography and rich footnotes provide interested readers with further references.
    ISBN: 9780199282463
  • A Johnston, 'Review of: Barry Barton et al, (eds.), Energy Security: Managing Risk in a Dynamic Legal and Regulatory Environment' (2007) Cambridge Law Journal 240 [Review]
  • A Johnston, 'Review of: Paul Craig, EU Administrative Law' (2007) Cambridge Law Journal 715 [Review]
  • A Johnston, A. Kavali and K. Neuhoff, 'Take-or-Pay Contracts for Renewables Deployment' (2007) 36 Energy Policy 2481
    Renewables require support policies to deliver the European 20% target. We discuss the requirements for least-cost development and efficient operation and quantify how different schemes (i) allow for the development of a renewable energy technology portfolio; (ii) reduce rent transfers to infra-marginal technologies or better than marginal resource bases and (iii) minimise regulatory risk and thus capital costs for new projects. Long-term take-or-pay contracts minimise regulatory uncertainty, create appropriate incentives for location and operation, allow for efficient system operation and seem compatible with European state aid. We discuss how property rights legislation protects existing renewables investors, and thus can ensure ongoing investment during a transition towards the new scheme.
  • A Johnston, 'Thawing Out? The European Courts and the Freezing of Terrorist Assets' (2007) Cambridge Law Journal 273 [Case Note]
  • A Johnston and H. Unberath, 'The Double-Headed Approach of the ECJ concerning Consumer Protection' (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 1237
  • A Johnston, 'The European Union and the Ongoing Search for Terrorists’ Assets: Getting Warmer or Colder?' (2007) Cambridge Law Journal 523 [Case Note]
  • G Dinwoodie, 'The International Intellectual Property System: Treaties, Norms, National Courts and Private Ordering' in Gervais (ed), Intellectual Property, Trade and Development: Strategies to Optimize Economic Development in a TRIPS Plus Era (Oxford Univ. Press 2007)
    Although part of the political impetus for international intellectual property law making has long come from the economic gains that particular countries could secure in the global market, the recent situation of intellectual property within the institutional apparatus of the trade regime has been an important factor in the transformation of the classical system of international intellectual property law. This chapter analyses various aspects of this transformation. It suggests that viewing intellectual property through the prism of trade alone offers an incomplete explanation of the changes that have occurred in international intellectual property law making. For example, a full account of the contemporary system must reflect the role of both litigation in national courts and private ordering by commercial actors in establishing international intellectual property norms. This chapter stresses that these new contributors to the international system must be subject to no lesser scrutiny than traditional public international instruments such as treaties. The chapter also discusses the increasingly quick resort to international institutions in the field of intellectual property law. To ameliorate the costs associated with the speedy development of international rules, and perhaps to ensure that some international solution is adopted, policy makers have begun more overtly to support the adoption of soft law norms rather than hard law treaty obligations. In response, those skeptical of these trends in international intellectual property law making have sought to slow down the process or bring it to a complete halt. In order to achieve a political climate where public international law imposes fewer constraints on national law makers (particularly law makers in developing countries), skeptics have adopted a number of strategies, including the multiplication of international institutions in which intellectual property is considered, and the concomitant development of a range of rival norms that have massively complicated the political economy of public international intellectual property law. Using examples drawn primarily from copyright and trademark law, I illustrate the pressure to accelerate internationalization, the varying strength of adopted norms, and the changes to the political climate in which public international law making is occurring. To some extent, these changes reflect increased political and popular attention to trade and development. However, regardless of the catalyst, these systemic changes remain crucially important to trade and development because of the entanglement of intellectual property with trade and development policy.