Chillin'Competition

Intellectual Property Protection in the Fashion Industry: Too Pretty to Protect? – Julie De Bruyn

The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the protection granted to fashion designs. By first discussing EU law and secondly by comparing the later regulatory framework with the (lack of) protection in the USA, this dissertation seeks to assess whether (or not) fashion designers nowadays are getting the protection they need. This assessment will not only be based on a static analysis of the regulatory framework. It will also draw on concrete empirical information obtained through “field interviews” with designers and professionals of the fashion industry. Should there be a different regulation for “functional clothing” (dry fit, gore tex, etc.) vis à vis “purely esthetical clothing” (e.g. “haute couture”)? And is it true that, as argued by some economists, imitation is actually the biggest incentive for the fashion industry to keep on innovating? These are some of the questions that will be dealt with in this dissertation, with the ultimate goal of reaching a conclusion on the optimal standard of protection (the standard that will satisfy both industry interests and the consumer).

Are Leniency Programs Efficient Detection Instruments? – A Practical Assessment – Romain Douny

Leniency programs are mushrooming. The present dissertation seeks to ascertain, from both a critical and an empirical standpoint, whether those programs are – as alleged by many competition authorities – efficient detection tools to detect competition law infringements. To this end, this dissertation first reviews the leniency programs adopted in the main competition jurisdictions of the EU.  It seeks, in particular, to highlight the upsides and downsides of the various leniency models. This dissertation then provides some empirical data (statistics) on the record of leniency programs: number of leniency applications lodged and outcomes. This analysis will help determine whether certain regulatory features of leniency programs have an empirical impact on their effectiveness. It will also helps us determine whether member states should harmonize their leniency programs and, if so, on which model. Finally, this dissertation concludes in offering critical, philosophical, and prospective reflections leniency program.

State Aid Control and the Financial Crisis – Quentin Metz

The present dissertation analyzes the Commission’s state aid policy in the context of the financial crisis. To this end, the dissertation is divided into four sections. The first section describes the causes of the financial crisis and recalls the essential components of EU State aid control. The second section reviews the different soft law instruments issued by the European Commission during the crisis, i.e. the Banking Communication, the Recapitalisation Communication, the Impaired Assets Communication and the Restructuring Communication. The third section analyses the Commission’s evolving case-law under Article 107(3) c) and b) both before and after September 2008. It focuses on cases such as Crédit Lyonnais; Northern Rock; Banco di Napoli; Fortis; Dexia and Commerzbank. The fourth and final section seeks to compare the main types of rescuing measures adopted by the Member States (in Belgium, France, Germany and the United Kingdom), and tries to ascertain which national measures are preferred by the Commission.

The Standard of Proof under Articles 101/102 TFUE – Which lessons to learn from Merger Proceedings? – Benjamin Disteche

Over the past years, the case-law delivered in the field of merger control, in particular following Airtours, Schneider and Tetra Laval, has little by little increased the standard of proof in EC Merger Regulation. By contrast, under the impetus of the Court of Justice, the evidentiary thresholds which the Commission must meet under articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU have seemed to progressively decline. Whilst there has been little debate on this issue, the purpose of this dissertation is to verify whether the emerging discrepancy between the ECMR and Articles 101/102 TFEU is appropriate or, in the alternative, should be eliminated.

The Brussels I Regulation and intellectual property disputes : which way forward? – Willem de Vos

The present dissertation addresses two specific problems relating to the Brussels I Regulation and intellectual property disputes: the exclusive jurisdiction issue and jurisdictional problems arising in situations involving multiple defendants. Whilst it intends to review those problems in depth, the scope of the research is restricted to patent litigation. Following a brief historical background, the dissertation first provides an overview of the current state of the law. It then reviews the solutions enshrined in a General Study ordered by the European Commission and referred to in the Green Paper, and by the Principles for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) drafted by the European Max Planck Group. Finally, the proposed amendments to the Brussels I Regulation are discussed, with a specific emphasis being placed on issues of coherence and effectiveness. In this context, the dissertation also reviews proposals for an enhanced patent system (e.g., European Patent Court, Community patent, EPLA). In conclusion, the dissertation will seek to formulate public policy proposals.

Which Regulation for Search Engines? – A Review of the Intellectual Property, Competition and Privacy Law Issues – Anastacia Chaidron

Search engines’ business practices, and in particular those of the leading search company Google, raise an increasing number of issues at the intersection of several bodies of law. In so far as IP issues are concerned, the use of terms that are also trademarks for meta tags, keywords suggestion tools, keyword selling and linked advertisements, Google Images’ thumbnails, Google News and Google Book Search, generate a spate of intricate legal questions which range from trademark protection to copyright laws. The same holds true of Google’s prominent market position and conduct, which are increasingly being scrutinized by competition authorities, in the US and in Europe. Finally, the collection (and commercial use) of personal data sparks a great deal of issues in respect of privacy law – and consumer protection regulation.

The present dissertation purports to review those issues and, in turn, pleads for a regulation of search engines, by means of a balance of interests. It examines the costs and benefits of various regulatory approaches, and considers whether a search-engine-specific “hard”, binding regulatory framework is the most appropriate approach.

With best wishes for the holiday season, Alfonso and I would like to thank you again for your visits over the past months. Feeding this blog is a lot of work great fun. Merry christmas and happy new year to all of you. We will be back in early January.

Meanwhile, I will post on this blog brief summaries of the dissertations which my students of the LLM in Competition and IP law have to submit in 2010.

Alfonso and Nicolas

The joke was attributed to Paul Samuelson, a major american economist who passed away a few days ago. As explained here by Edward Glaeser, Samuelson’s is the person who “forever fused economics with math“.

(Image possibly subject to copyright: source here)