Filter by
  • G Dinwoodie, 'Use, Intent to Use, and Registration in the United States' in (ed), Trademark Use (2005)
  • A Johnston, 'Putting the Cart Before the Horse? Privacy and the Wainwrights' (2004) Cambridge Law Journal 15 [Case Note]
  • A Johnston and A.A. Dashwood, 'The Institutions of the Enlarged EU under the regime of the Constitutional Treaty' (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 1481
  • G Dinwoodie, 'The International Intellectual Property Law System: New Actors, New Institutions, New Sources' in (ed), Proceedings of the 98th annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (ASIL 2004)
    International intellectual property norms are now being developed by a wide range of institutions - some national, some international, and some that do not fit neatly into either category; by bodies designed to address intellectual property; by trade and other bodies; and by actors public, private, and indeterminate. This new wave of international norm creation not only augments a growing body of substantive norms but also raises difficult structural questions about the future development of the international intellectual property system. This essay, a lecture delivered to the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in 2004, is being reprinted as part of a symposium on ?TRIPS after ten years.?
  • G Dinwoodie and R. Dreyfuss, 'International Intellectual Property Law and the Public Domain of Science' (2004) 7 Journal of International Economic Law 431
    The TRIPS Agreement can be read to reflect a static view of the structure of intellectual property law. In this paper, we address wither - and how - the TRIPS Agreement can, on the other hand, be read with more fluidity, and thus to allow adjustments in national intellectual property regimes designed to reflect the the dynamic nature of information production. To focus that inquiry, we concentrate on efforts to ensure a broader public domain for 'upstream' inventions by modifying various elements of US patent law. The paper considers three stylized examples and asks whether each approach could be adopted by the United States without falling afoul of the TRIPS Agreement as it is currently understood. Our purpose is to identify interpretive approaches that allow member states to keep their laws attuned to the development and needs of science. But in so doing, we also raise broader questions regarding the level of formalism generated by the WTO dispute settlement system, and the extent to which the TRIPS Agreement allocates power between supranational and national institutions, and between international and national laws.
  • G Dinwoodie, 'Private Ordering and the Creation of International Copyright Norms: The Role of Public Structuring' (2004) 160 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 161
    International copyright law must be based on an assessment of what types and levels of protection best further the purposes of copyright law. But constructing the international copyright regime is difficult as the international system must wrestle with copyright dilemmas that exist at the national level as well as broader challenges facing international law. This paper delineates the connection between international copyright law and the generation and distribution of knowledge by discussing two recent examples of (possible) unconventional international copyright rulemaking, namely, norms generated by Internet Service Providers in responding to infringement claims, and norms arising out of digital rights management systems (JEL: K 29).
  • G Dinwoodie, 'Trademarks and Territory: Detaching Trademark Law from the Nation-State' (2004) 41 Houston Law Review 885
    It is an axiomatic principle of domestic and international trademark law that trademarks and trademark law are territorial. This paper critiques the principle of territoriality in four ways. First, I suggest that statements about trademark territoriality mask a variety of related propositions. In disaggregating the "principle of territoriality" into its component parts, it becomes apparent that different rules of trademark law possess a territorial character for different reasons. For example, common law trademark rights are territorial because the intrinsic purpose of trademark law suggests extending (and limiting) rights to the geographic reach of goodwill. In contrast, registration systems designed to promote economic expansion derive their territorial character from their grounding in economic policymaking, effected by institutions that focus on the regulation or development of discrete economic regions. And rules regarding the enforcement of trademark rights assume their territorial quality because of their connection to political institutions with territorially defined sovereignty. Thus, some aspects of territoriality are rooted in social and commercial practices that dictate the reach of a brand, while other aspects are a function of political or policymaking authority. In an era of global trade and digital communication, social and commercial practices are less territorially confined and less commensurate with the nation-state. But economic policymaking and political institutions may prove more resistant to change than social or commercial behavior.

    Second, I argue that although the principle of trademark territoriality has nominally remained constant since the conclusion of the Paris Convention, recent developments at both the national and international level suggest that the principle may have a different intensity today. Third, the paper begins an investigation of the ways in which the principle of territoriality should be revisited in light of the globalization of markets and concomitant changes in modern marketing practices. Although the multidimensional nature of the territoriality principle suggests that an overarching reconfiguration would be unwise and perhaps impossible, some shared dilemmas can be derived from analysis of discrete rules. If the territorial character of a rule reflects the intrinsic purpose of trademark law and is thus rooted in social practices that are already in flux, the character of these doctrines will almost inevitably mutate as the notion of territoriality evolves in line with social change. Such revisions will swim with the current of socially constructed territoriality. If, however, the territoriality of a doctrine instead mirrors the national nature of economic and political institutions, then efforts to revise the doctrines will first require altering the underlying institutional and policymaking apparatus. Moreover, in deciding whether particular territorial aspects of trademark law warrant reassessment, it is important to consider whether trademark law should be structured reactively to protect whatever consumer understandings or producer goodwill develops, or should it instead proactively seek to shape the ways in which consumers shop and producers sell or seek to acquire rights, thus shaping how the economy functions?

    Finally, the paper briefly highlights the extent to which there is, or should be, an assimilation of the "territorial" and the "national." Analysis of the choices facing trademark law might be better achieved by consciously separating nationality and territoriality. Recognition of the territoriality of goodwill is linked to the basic purposes of trademark law, while nationality-grounded doctrines are more likely driven by economic policy and by institutional issues such as the practical demands of current political structures. Recognizing this distinction would assist in highlighting where reform is likely to be evolutionary and where modification of political structures - whether judicial or administrative - must first occur.

  • G Dinwoodie and M. Janis, Trademarks and Unfair Competition: Law & Policy (Aspen Publishers Inc. 2004)
  • G Dinwoodie and R. Dreyfuss, 'TRIPs and the Dynamics of Intellectual Property Lawmaking' (2004) 36 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 95

    In prior work, we took up the question of the TRIPs Agreement's resilience to changes in domestic law. We argued that such resilience is necessary because information production is a dynamic enterprise. As new industries emerge and mature, nations must have the flexibility to modify their intellectual property rules to readjust the balance between public and private rights. In the course of that study, we examined approaches to TRIPs dispute resolution that could cabin the choices of legislation available to deal with emergent substantive problems, and which could distort the legal environment in which creative enterprises are conducted. In this piece, we continue our consideration of the resilience of the Agreement and its commitment to neo-federalism. Here, however, we move from a focus on outcomes to the dynamics of the legislative process, examining the extent to which TRIPs dispute resolution adequately accommodates the operation of each member's political economy as it relates to intellectual property lawmaking.

    Frequently, as intellectual property lawmaking becomes fiercely contested, reforms can only occur when a balanced package of rules can be reached. We ask whether such deals (or perhaps which of such deals, depending upon the connection between the reforms) should be taken into account by WTO panels. We argue that when legislation represents offsetting benefits and detriments, respect for domestic political dynamics requires panels to consider constituent pieces of such legislation in the context of the package in which they were enacted.

    In previous work, we questioned whether the jurisprudence that has developed with regard to the GATT's trade provisions should apply equally to intellectual property, noting that differences between trade and intellectual property policy mandated different approaches. Here we reiterate that position, but make something of a converse argument as well: there are commonalities between the problems that nations experience in executing their trade commitments and their intellectual property commitments. Thus, it is significant that in its early years, the GATT incorporated strategies that created flexibility and permitted nations to deal autonomously with matters of domestic trade; we argue that similar mechanisms are required in TRIPs jurisprudence, especially in the Agreement?s formative stage.

    We also focus on the effect that TRIPs, as currently understood, has on domestic lawmaking. If WTO panel decisions intrude more into national law, might lawmakers begin to enact legislation in reliance on international invalidation of whole or parts of the enactment? Should formulation of domestic policy take this into account? Further, would the formalistic approach that has been taken to TRIPs jurisprudence benefit domestic lawmaking by reducing the effect of lobbying? Or would it simply induce more nuanced log-rolling, or the enactment of laws aimed at influencing intellectual property production but under a different legislative rubric (such as food and drug regulation or consumer law)? Indeed, answers to these questions might affect not only lawmaking at the national level but, in turn, the form of WTO dispute settlement. We go so far as to suggest that there may be a role for the (much-feared) nonviolation complaints in navigating these complexities.

  • A Johnston, A.A. Dashwood, C. Hillion and M. Dougan, 'Draft Constitutional Treaty of the European Union and related documents' (2003) 28 European Law Review 3
  • A Johnston, S.F. Deakin and B.S. Markesinis, Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law (5th edn Oxford University Press 2003)
    The fifth edition of Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law has been fully revised and updated to cover all important developments which have occurred in this field since the previous edition appeared in 1999. The structure of the book remains the same as in previous editions, as has its underlying philosophy - to provide a good general overview of the law of tort for students and their lecturers which will also be of interest to practitioners and judges in the field. The book includes discussion of much new material, including important appellate court decisions on wrongful birth, defamation, privacy, nuisance, the liability of public authorities, causation and many others; the growing impact of the Human Rights Act upon tort law, including discussion of many important cases decided since the Act came into force; important recent legislative developments, including the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Throughout the book the relationship between the common law and legislative policy is a key theme, while economic and comparative analysis of the cases and issues are used where appropriate.
    ISBN: 9780199257126
  • A Johnston, 'Review of: Danny Nicol, EC Membership and the Judicialization of British Politics' (2003) 40 Common Market Law Review 525 [Review]
  • A Johnston, 'Review of: Rex Zedalis, International Energy Law, and Martha Roggenkamp et al, Energy Law in Europe' (2003) 3 Yearbook of European Environmental Law 803 [Review]
  • A Johnston, 'Review of: Diana Woodhouse, The Office of the Lord Chancellor' (2002) Cambridge Law Journal 715 [Review]
  • G Dinwoodie, W. Hennessey and S. Perlmutter, International and Comparative Patent Law (LexisNexis Publishing 2002)
  • A Johnston, 'Judicial Reform and the Treaty of Nice' (2001) 38 Common Market Law Review 499
  • A Johnston and A.A. Dashwood (eds), The Future of the Judicial System of the European Union (Hart Publishing 2001)
    Originating in a conference organised by the Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS),Cambridge in July 1999, this book contains a number of pieces on the highly topical issue of the reform of the European judicial system. Including copies of the major contributions to the debate from the institutions of the European Union, the volume aims both to provide a useful reference point for the major proposals currently under consideration and to stimulate further thinking on the subject. Contributors to this collection include Ross Cranston, Advocate General Francis Jacobs, Judge Pernilla Lindh, Henry Schermers, Anthony Arnull and Ole Due.
    ISBN: 9781841132419
  • G Dinwoodie and L. Helfer, 'Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy' (2001) 43 William and Mary Law Review 141
    The article critically assesses the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) as a potential model for solving the immense legal challenges presented by transborder activity. Inaugurated in late 1999 by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the UDRP creates a fast, inexpensive online mechanism for trademark owners to recapture domain names held by persons who, in bad faith, register and use domain names that are confusingly similar to those marks. At present, the UDRP applies only to a narrow segment of disputes between trademark owners and domain name registrants. But the UDRP has been heralded by some as the model for a new non-national approach to lawmaking and dispute settlement applicable to a broader set of legal issues that transcend national borders.

    In this article, we describe the conditions that led to the UDRP's formation and consider whether the UDRP can and should be replicated elsewhere. The process by which the UDRP was created, and the way in which it is structured, departs significantly from preexisting approaches to international lawmaking and dispute settlement. The UDRP is the product not of national legislation nor an international treaty, but rather of a web of contractual obligations imposed by a private, non-profit corporation with a monopoly over a valuable resource. Through its agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce, ICANN serves as the gatekeeper for anyone seeking to acquire the most commercially valuable internet addresses. Exclusive control of access to the root server enables ICANN to dictate the terms and conditions for domain name ownership. This technological control also facilitates enforcement of UDRP panel decisions compelling domain name registrars to cancel ownership of contested domain names or transfer them from registrants to trademark owners.

    The UDRP deviates from preexisting lawmaking and dispute settlement paradigms in other ways that make its advantages considerable (and which may make it attractive for replication). For example, the UDRP is a hybrid dispute settlement system. It contains an amalgam of elements from three distinct decision making paradigms - judicial, arbitral and ministerial - and it draws inspiration from international, supranational, and national legal systems. The UDRP thus reveals how dispute settlement structures can be tailored to the needs of new technologies and new types of legal conflicts. The UDRP is also non-national. Neither its substantive content nor its prescriptive force necessarily depends upon the laws, institutions, and enforcement mechanisms of any single nation-state or treaty regime. It thus suggests ways to bypass the often slow and cumbersome mechanisms of national and international lawmaking and to fulfil the demand for effective dispute settlement mechanisms that, like so much current social activity, transcend national borders.

    Even assuming the UDRP can be applied to other situations where the conditions of monopolistic technological control do not subsist, however, we do not believe that it should be uncritically extended to other contexts without first questioning how non-national systems ought to be structured. In particular, while we applaud the effort to construct a non-national model that draws upon but is not constrained by existing paradigms, the current iteration of that model fails to incorporate appropriate checking mechanisms to control the scope and pace of lawmaking and the limited powers granted to dispute settlement decisionmakers. Moreover, the tensions between national and non-national values may be more difficult to reconcile in other settings; cybersquatting, in contrast, was universally condemned, and thus competing national values were less frequently implicated. We seek to identify these and other variables that should guide the authors of new checking mechanisms for new non-national structures.