Cover des Buchs: The Notion of Secrecy
Monographie Open Access Vollzugriff

The Notion of Secrecy

A Balanced Approach in the Light of the Trade Secrets Directive
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2021

Zusammenfassung

Im digitalen Zeitalter ist Information zu einem immer wertvolleren, aber gleichzeitig auch verletzlichen Gut geworden. Die strategische Rolle, die Geschäftsgeheimnisse in der Wirtschaft des Binnenmarktes spielen, und der verstreute Rechtsrahmen in den verschiedenen EU-Rechtsordnungen haben die EU-Kommission dazu veranlasst, diesen Rechtsbereich zu harmonisieren und die Richtlinie über Geschäftsgeheimnisse zu verabschieden.

Die Arbeit analysiert die Bedingungen, unter denen Informationen ihren geheimen Charakter verlieren, in den öffentlichen Bereich gelangen und dann von Wettbewerbern frei genutzt werden können. Dabei wird der durch die Richtlinie über Geschäftsgeheimnisse geschaffene rechtliche Rahmen berücksichtigt.

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Auflage
1/2021
Copyrightjahr
2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-7146-2
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-1197-5
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC Studies
Band
39
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
640
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 22 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. § 1 Object, scope and structure of the research
    2. § 2 Research methodology
  3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. § 1 The significance and concept of trade secrets
        1. I. Commercial ethics
        2. II. Labour value theory
        3. III. Contractarian theory
        1. I. Incentives to innovate
        2. II. Incentives to disclose
        3. III. Limit to the arms race
        4. IV. The privacy rationale
      3. C) Conclusion on the doctrines underlying trade secrets protection
          1. 1. Trade secrets prior to patenting
            1. a) Analysis of economical empirical evidence
            2. b) Advantages of secrets over patents
            3. c) The risks of secrecy
          3. 3. Simultaneous protection of trade secrets and patents
        2. II. Trade secrets and copyright
        3. III. Trade secrets and trade marks
          1. 1. The EU two-tier legal regime for the protection of databases and its interplay with trade secrets protection
          2. 2. The problem of protecting created data under the sui generis database right and the possibility of resorting to contractual protection
        5. V. Conclusion on the relationship between trade secrets and IPRs
          1. 1. International intellectual property convention system
            1. a) England
            2. b) U.S.
            1. a) Italy
            2. b) Germany
          4. 4. European Union approach
          1. 1. Preliminary remarks: the problematic conceptualisation of information as such as the object of IPRs
          2. 2. The debate in the U.S.: INS v. Associated Press and its influential dissent
          3. 3. Semiotics approach to the property debate
          4. 4. Example case: data producer’s right
          5. 5. Concluding remarks on the treatment of information as property
        3. III. Dissecting the proprietary debate in the light of the harmonised framework created by the TSD
    4. § 4 Conclusion
  4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
        1. I. General framework
        2. II. Negotiation history of Article 39 TRIPs
          1. 1. Hybrid nature of the protection
          2. 2. Construing Article 10bis PC in the context of undisclosed information
          1. 1. Scope of the obligation
            1. a) Information
            2. b) Secrecy: Information not generally known or readily accessible
            3. c) Commercial value
            4. d) Reasonable steps to maintain secrecy
      2. B) Considerations from a soft law perspective: The WIPO Model Provisions on the protection of unfair competition
      1. A) Evolution of trade secret law in the U.S.: main legislative sources
        1. I. Definitional aspects
          1. 1. Secrecy: information not generally known or readily ascertainable
          2. 2. Independent economic value
            1. a) Assessment of the “reasonableness” of the measures adopted
            2. b) Criticism
      3. C) The legal regime for the protection of trade secrets under the UTSA, the DTSA and the Restatements of the law
    3. § 3 Conclusion
  5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. § 1 Scattered protection across the internal market before the implementation of the Trade Secrets Directive: Different models
      1. A) Development of the law of trade secrets
        1. I. Constitutional Law
            1. a) Unauthorised trade secret disclosure in the course of employment
            2. b) Industrial espionage
            3. c) General prohibition
          2. 2. § 18 UWG Use of models
          1. 1. Criminal accessory claims
          2. 2. Civil autonomous claims
      1. A) A note on Brexit
      2. B) Development of the law of confidentiality
          1. 1. Contract
          2. 2. Equity
          3. 3. Property
          4. 4. Tort
          1. 1. The quality of confidence
            1. a) Disclosure by confider to confidant
            2. b) Accidental acquisition
            3. c) Surreptitious acquisition
            4. d) Third party liability
          3. 3. Unauthorised use
        3. III. The “springboard doctrine”
    4. § 4 Concluding remarks on the comparative law analysis
      1. A) Background of the Directive
      2. B) Legal basis and grounds for harmonising trade secrets protection
        1. I. General remarks
          1. 1. Scope of application
          2. 2. Definition of trade secret holder and infringer
          3. 3. Infringing goods
          1. 1. Lawful acquisition, use and disclosure
            1. a) Unlawful acquisition
            2. b) Unlawful use and disclosure
            3. c) Third party liability
            4. d) Import and export
          3. 3. Exceptions
          1. 1. General provisions
          2. 2. Limitation period
          3. 3. Preservation of confidentiality during litigation
            1. a) Provisional and precautionary measures
            2. b) Injunctions and corrective measures
            3. c) Damages
            4. d) Publication of the judicial decision
            5. e) Claims for information and preserving evidence
    6. § 6 Conclusion
  6. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A) Increasing vulnerability of confidential information
      2. B) Constructing the public domain
        1. I. Distinction between Geschäftsgeheimnis and Betriebsgeheimnissen
          1. 1. Information
          2. 2. Information connected to a business — Geschäftsbezogenheit
          3. 3. Secrecy — Nichtoffenkundigkeit
          4. 4. Will to keep the information secret — Geheimhaltunsgswille
          5. 5. Interest in keeping the information secret — Geheimhaltungsinteresse
        1. I. Concepts of confidential information and trade secret in England
          1. 1. Commercial value: protection of trivial information?
          2. 2. Information that is vague
          3. 3. Immoral and false information
          1. 1. The general test of inaccessibility
          2. 2. Form of the information
          3. 3. No need to adopt reasonable measures
      1. A) Preliminary remarks
      2. B) Terminology
      3. C) Commercial value
      4. D) Private and personal information
      5. E) Adoption of reasonable steps
      6. F) A requirement of identification of the information concerned?
      1. A) Evaluating the degree of secrecy required
        1. I. Absence of a normative standard
        2. II. Criticism
        1. I. The “Third Party Doctrine” of trade secrets law and its limitations: conceptualising the different types disclosures
            1. a) England as an example case
            2. b) Guiding principles
            1. a) England as an example case
            2. b) Confidentiality in the acquis communautaire and the right of access to documents
            3. c) Protection of competing interests in the TSD
            4. d) Guiding principles
            1. a) U.S.
            2. b) England
            3. c) Germany
            4. d) Guiding principles
            1. a) U.S.
            2. b) England
            3. c) Germany
            4. d) Guiding principles
            1. a) U.S.
            2. b) England
            3. c) Germany
            4. d) Guiding principles
            1. a) General considerations and outline of the problem
            2. b) Guiding principles
        1. I. U.S.
        2. II. England
        3. III. Germany
        4. IV. Guiding principles
          1. 1. Novelty under the EPC
            1. a) Analysis of the relevant case law
            2. b) The “law of ideas”
          3. 3. English cases that demand novelty under the breach of confidence action
          1. 1. U.S.
          2. 2. England
        3. III. Conclusion – protection of abstract ideas
        1. I. The Data Economy and the associated phenomena
          1. 1. Reconciling the legal requirements of protection of trade secrets law with Big Data
          2. 2. Additional problems: identifying the trade secret holder and the risk of infringement
          3. 3. Conclusion on the applicability of the trade secrets liability regime to Big Data
    5. § 5 Conclusion
  7. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. § 1 Preliminary remarks on the methodology applied
    2. § 2 The perfume industry
        1. I. Object of protection
          1. 1. Literary and artistic work
          2. 2. Originality: author’s own intellectual creation
          3. 3. Fixation
        3. III. Evaluation
          1. 1. Aromatic compounds
          2. 2. Aromatic compositions
        2. II. Requirements for protection
        3. III. Evaluation
        1. I. Object of protection
          1. 1. Signs
          2. 2. Representation
          3. 3. Distinctiveness
          4. 4. Functionality
        3. III. Evaluation
        1. I. Object of protection
          1. 1. Two-step test: Definition of comparative advertisement and the appraisal of fairness
          2. 2. Presentation of products as imitations in the wake of L’Oréal v Bellure
        3. III. Evaluation
      1. A) Importance of trade secrets for the perfume industry
        1. I. Reverse engineering
        2. II. Demands for disclosure and transparency
        3. III. Electronic information storage and transmission
        4. IV. Employment mobility
        5. V. Measures adopted to protect the company’s trade secrets
    5. § 5 Conclusion
  8. Download Kapitel (PDF)
        1. I. Implied duty of confidentiality during the course of the employment relationship
              1. aa) U.S.
              2. bb) England
              3. cc) Germany
            2. b) Implied secrecy obligation of departing employees under the TSD
            3. c) Guiding principles
              1. aa) U.S.
              2. bb) England
              3. cc) Germany
            2. b) Post-contractual obligations under the TSD
          1. 1. Object and legal nature
            1. a) Pre-contractual obligations of secrecy
              1. aa) Secrecy obligations of the licensor
              2. bb) Secrecy obligations of the licensee
            3. c) After the termination of the contract
          1. 1. Object and legal nature
          2. 2. Secrecy obligations
      1. A) Independent discovery and creation
        1. I. Conceptual introductory remarks
        2. II. Rationales underlying reverse engineering
          1. 1. TRIPs
          2. 2. U.S.
          3. 3. England before the implementation of the TSD
          4. 4. Germany before the implementation of the TSD
          1. 1) Scope of the reverse engineering pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) TSD
          2. 2) Contractual limitations on the possibility of reverse engineering and in particular the interplay with the Software Directive
          3. 3) Guiding principles
      3. C) Competition law as an inherent limitation to the protection conferred by a trade secret
      1. A) The Nordhaus model and trade secrets protection
      2. B) Legal application of the Nordhaus model to trade secrets protection: introduction of a presumption regarding post-contractual duration in business-to-business relationships
  9. Conclusion 561 - 568 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  10. Annex 1: Transcript of the Interview with head of IP Perfume Company 1 569 - 570 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  11. Annex 2: Transcript of the interview with Perfumist Rosendo Mateu 571 - 572 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  12. Zusammenfassung 573 - 600 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  13. Bibliography 601 - 640 Download Kapitel (PDF)

Literaturverzeichnis (783)

  1. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Draft Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Right – Communication from the European Communities (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/68). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  2. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Draft Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – Communication from the United States (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/70). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  3. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Draft Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – Communication form Switzerland (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/73). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  4. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Draft Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – Chairman’s Report to the Group of Negotiations on Goods (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/76). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  5. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Draft Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations submitted by the Group of Negotiation on Goods (MTN.TNC/W/35/Rev. 1). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  6. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Draft Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN.TNC/W/FA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  7. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Guidelines for Negotiations that strike a Balance Between Intellectual Property Rights and Development Objectives – Communication from Peru (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/45). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  8. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Meeting of 30 October - 2 November 1989 – Note by the Secretariat (MTN.GNG/NG11/16). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  9. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Meeting of the Negotiating Group dated 12 September 1989 (MTN.GNG/NG11/14). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  10. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Note of the Secretariat on the Meeting of Negotiating Group on 2, 4 And 5 April 1990, dated 24 April 1990 (MTN.GNG/NG11/20). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  11. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Standards and Principles Concerning the Availability, Scope and Use of Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights – Communication from Switzerland – Addendum on Proprietary Information (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/38/Add.1). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  12. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Standards and Principles concerning the Availability Scope and Use of Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights – Communication from India (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/37). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  13. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  14. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Powder Co. v. Masland, 244 U.S. 100 (1917). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  15. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  16. INS v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  17. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  18. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  19. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  20. A.L. Labs., Inc. v Philips Roxane, Inc., 803 F.2d 378 (8th Cir. 1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  21. American Can Co. v. Mansukhami, 728 F.2d 818 (7th Cir. 1982). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  22. AMP Inc. v. Fleischhacker, 823 F.2d 1199 (7th Cir. 1987). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  23. Anaconda Company v. Metric Tool & Die Company, 485 F. Supp. 410 (E.D. Pa 1980). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  24. Cataphote Corporation v. Hudson, 444 F.2F 1313 (5th Cir. 1971). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  25. Conmar Products Corp. v. Universal Slide Fastener Co., 172 F.2d 150 (2d Cir.1949). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  26. CVD, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 769 F2d 842 (1st Cir. 1985). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  27. Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  28. Epic Systems Corporation v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited et al, No. 3:2014cv00748 - Document 243 (W.D. Wis. 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  29. Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd. et al., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  30. Head Ski Co. v. Kam Ski Co., 158 F. Supp. 919 (D. Md. 1958). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  31. Julie Research Laboratories, Inc. v. Select Photographic Engineering Inc., 998 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  32. Learning Curve Toys Incorporated v. Playwood Toys Inc., 342 F. 3d 714 (7th Cir. 2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  33. Leo M. Hall, 781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  34. Lumey Inc. v. Highsmith, 919 F Supp. 624 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  35. Matter of Innovative Construction Systems, Inc., 793 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  36. Metallurgical Industries v. Fourtek Inc., 790 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  37. Murray v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 844 F.2.d 988 (2d Cir. 1988). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  38. National Basketball Association (BA) v. Motorola Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  39. Nickelson v. General Motors Corporation, 361 F.2d 196 (7th Cir. 1966). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  40. Northern Petrochemical Co. v. Tomlinson, 484 F.2d 1057 (7th Cir. 1973). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  41. On-Line Technologies, Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  42. Painton Company v. Bourns Inc., 442 F2d 216 (2d Cir. 1971). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  43. Papa John’s International, Inc. v Pizza Magia International, LLC, No. 00-10071 (5th Cir. 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  44. Penalty Kick Management, Ltd. v. Coca-Cola Co, 318 F. 3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  45. Pepsi Co, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  46. Q-CO Industries, Inc. v. Hoffman, 625 F.Supp. 608 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  47. Religious Technology Center v. Lerma 908 F.Supp. 1362 (E.D. Va. 1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  48. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Commc’n Servs., Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1231 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  49. Richter v. Westab, Inc., 529 F.2d 896 (6th Cir. 1976). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  50. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 925 F.2d 174 (7th Cir. 1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  51. Servo Corp. of Am. v. General Electric Co., 393 F.2d 551 (4th Cir. 1968). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  52. Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Guardian Glass Co., 322 F. Supp. 854 (E.D. Mich. 1970). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  53. Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed Cir. 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  54. Timely Products Corp v. Arron 523 F 2d 288 (2d Cir. 1975). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  55. VD, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 769 F.2d 842 (1st Cir. 1985). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  56. Abba Rubber Co. v. Seaquist, 286 Cal.Rptr. 2d 518 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  57. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Davis, 2006 WL 3837518 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  58. Colony Corp. of America v. Crown Glass Corp., 430 N.E.2d 225(Ill. App. Ct.1981). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  59. Data Gene Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls Inc., 297 A.2d 437, 439 (Del. 1972). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  60. Dayton Superior Corp. v. Yan et al, No. 3:2012cv00380 (S.D. Ohio 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  61. Disher v. Fulgoni, 464 N.E.2d 639 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  62. DVD Copy Control Association Inc. v. Andrew Bunner, 75 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  63. Eastman Co. v. Reichenbach, 20 N.Y.S. 110 (1892). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  64. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  65. Furr’s Inc. v. United Speciality Advertising Co., 338 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. App. 1960). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  66. Hamer Holding Group, Inc. v. Elmore, 560 N.E.2d 907 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  67. Hyde Corporation v. Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 763 (1958). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  68. L.M. Rabinowitz & Co. v. Dasher, 82 N.Y.S.2d 431 (1948). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  69. McCrady v. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, 122 P.3d 473 (Okla. 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  70. Merck v. Smithkline Beecham Pharm Co., No. C.A. 15443-NC (Del. Ch 1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  71. Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 452 (1868). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  72. Sinclair v. Aquarius Electronics, Inc., 116 Cal.Rptr. 654 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  73. Smith v. Recrion Corporation, 541 P.2d 663 (Nev. 1975). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  74. Smithkline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Co. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 766 A.2d 442 (Del. 2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  75. Tan-Line Studios Inc. v. Bradley, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 2032 (E.D. Pa. 1986). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  76. Teller v. Teller, 53 P.3d 240 (Haw. 2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  77. TGC Corp. v. HTM Sports, B.V., 896 F. Supp. 751 (E.D. Tenn. 1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  78. U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Office of Consumer Advocate, 498 N.W.2d 711 (Iowa 1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  79. Vacco Indus., Inc. v. Van Den Berg, 5 Cal. App. 4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App.1992). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  80. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. The P.O. Market Inc., 66 S.W.3d 620 (Ark. 2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  81. Wilson. v. Barton & Ludwig Inc., 296 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  82. Wissman v. Boucher, 240 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. 1951). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  83. BAG NJW 1983, 134, 135 – Thrombosol. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  84. BAG NZA 1988, 502 – Weinhändler. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  85. BAG NZA 1994, 502 – Titandioxid. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  86. BAG NZA 1996, 310 – Nachvertragliches Wettbewerbsverbot. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  87. BAG NZA 2010, 1175 – Anspruch auf KarenzentschÄdigung nur bei verbindlichem Wettbewerbsverbot. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  88. BAG BeckRS 2013, 67444. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  89. BayObLG GRUR 1991, 694 – Geldspielautomat. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  90. BGH GRUR 1955, 388 ‒ Dücko. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  91. BGH GRUR 1955, 468 ‒ Schwermetall-Kokillenguß. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  92. BGH GRUR 1962, 207 – Kieselsäure. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  93. BGH GRUR 1963, 367 – Industrieböden. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  94. BGH GRUR 1964, 31 – Petromax II. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  95. BGH GRUR 1966, 576 ‒ Zimcofot. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  96. BGH GRUR 1972, 541 ‒ Imidazolines. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  97. BGH GRUR 1975, 206 – Kunststoffschaum-Bahnen. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  98. BGH GRUR 1977, 539 – Prozessrechner. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  99. BGH GRUR 1980, 750 – Pankreaplex. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  100. BGH GRUR 1981, 267 – Dirlada. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  101. BGH GRUR 1983, 179 – Stapel-Automat. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  102. BGH GRUR 1999, 934 – Weinberater. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  103. BGH GRUR 2003, 356 – Präzisionsmessgeräte. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  104. BGH GRUR 2009, 603 – Versicherungsvertreter. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  105. BGH GRUR 2010, 47 – Füllstoff. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  106. BGH GRUR 2012, 1048 ‒ Movicol. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  107. BGH IIC 2004, 449 – Spritzgießwerkzeuge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  108. BGH MMR 2006, 815 – Kundendatenprogramm. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  109. OLG Hamburg GRUR-RR 2001, 137, 139 – Nachbau einer technischen Vorrichtung nach Ablauf des Patentschutzes. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  110. OLG Karlsruhe MMR 2016, 562. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  111. RGZ 1907 65, 333 ‒ Pomril. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  112. RGZ 1935 149, 329– Stiefeleisenpresse. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  113. Ackroyds (London) Ltd v Islington Plastics Ltd [1962] RPC 97 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  114. Alfa Laval Cheese Systems Ltd and Another v Wincanton Engineering Ltd [1990] FSR 583 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  115. Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No2) [1990] 1 AC 109 (HL). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  116. Attorney General v Newspaper Publishing Plc and Others [1989] 2 FSR 27 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  117. Barclays Bank Plc v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2009] EWHC 591 (QB). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  118. Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (HL). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  119. Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 (HL). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  120. Carflow Products (UK) Ltd v Linwood Securities [1996] FSR 424 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  121. Coco v A.N.Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  122. Coulthard v Disco Mix Club Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 707 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  123. Cray Valley Ltd v Deltech Europe Ltd [2003] EWHC 728 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  124. Creations Records Ltd v News Group Newspaper Ltd [1997] EWHC Ch 370 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  125. De Maudsley v Palumbo [1996] FSR 447 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  126. Department of Health v Information Commissioner, (EA/2008/0018, 18 November 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  127. Douglas v Hello! Ltd and others [2007] UKHL 21. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  128. DWP v IC (EA/2010/0073, 20 September 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  129. Dyson Technoloy Ltd v Strutt [2005] EWHC 2814 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  130. English & American Insurance Co Ltd v Herbert Smith 2 [1988] FSR 232 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  131. Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  132. Financial Times Ltd & Ors v Interbrew SA [2002] EWCA Civ 274 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  133. Football Dataco & Others v Stan James Plc & Others and Sportradar GmbH & Other [2013] EWCA Civ 27 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  134. Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team SDN BHD [2012] EWHC 616 (Pat). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  135. Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team SDN BHD [2013] EWCA civ 780 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  136. Franchi v Franchi [1967] RPC 149 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  137. Fraser v Thames Television Ltd [1984] QB 44 (QB). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  138. Gartside v Outram [1857] 26 LJ Ch 113. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  139. HEFCE v Information Commissioner and the Guardian News and Media Ltd (EA/2009/0036, 10 January 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  140. Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard [2007] FSR 385 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  141. Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] AC 688 (HL). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  142. International Scientific Communications Inc v Pattinson and Others [1979] FSR 429 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  143. L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2007] EWCA Civ 968 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  144. L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2010] EWCA Civ 535 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  145. Lamb v Evans [1893] 1 Ch 218 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  146. Lancashire Fires Limited v S.A. Lyons & Company Limited and Others [1996] FSR 629 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  147. Malone v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (No 2) [1979] 2 All ER 620 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  148. Marcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1992] Ch 225 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  149. Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge Ltd [2000] FSR 138 (Pat). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  150. McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  151. Morison v Moat (1851) 9 Hare 241. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  152. Mustad v Son v Dosen and another [1964] 1 WRL 109 (HL). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  153. Nichrotherm Electrical Co Ltd v Percy [1956] RPC 272 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  154. Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1984] AC 535 (HL). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  155. Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289 (Pat). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  156. Petrofina (Great Britain) Ltd v Martin [1966] Ch 146 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  157. Polymasc Pharmaceuticals plc v Charles [1999] FSR 711 (Pat). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  158. Prince Albert v Strange [1849] 2 De G & Sm 652. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  159. Re Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd [1990] 1 AC 64 (HL). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  160. Regina Glass Fibre v Werner Schuller [1972] RPC 229 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  161. Robb v Green [1895] 2 QB 1 (QB). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  162. Rolls-Royce Ltd v Jeffrey (Inspector of Taxes) [1962] 1 WLR 425 (HL). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  163. Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Philip Tan Kok Ming [1995] 2 AC 378 (PC). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  164. Sales v Stromberg [2006] FSR 7 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  165. Saltman Engineering v Campbell Engineering [1948] 65 RPC 203 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  166. SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Limited [2013] RPC 17 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  167. Schering Chemicals Ltd v Falkman Ltd [1982] QB 1 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  168. Seager Limited v Copydex Limited [1967] 2 All ER 415 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  169. Shelley Films Limited v Rex Features Limited [1994] EMLR 134 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  170. Spencer v Marchington [1988] IRLR 392 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  171. Stephens v Avery [1988] FSR 510 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  172. Sun Valley Foods Ltd v Vincent [2000] FSR 825 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  173. Susan Thomas v Elizabeth Pearce and Another [2000] FSR 718. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  174. Terrapin Ltd v Builders’ Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd [1962] RPC 375 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  175. Thomas Marshall (Exports) Limited v Guinle [1979] FSR 208 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  176. Under Water Welders & Repairers Ltd v Street and Longthorne [1968] RPC 498 (QB). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  177. University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601 (Ch). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  178. Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 424 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  179. Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd [2013] UKSC 31. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  180. Voila ES Nottinghamshire Ltd and Nottinghamshire County Council v Dowen [2010] EWCA Civ 1214 (CA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  181. Wainwright v Home Office [2003] 3 WLR 1137 (HL). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  182. Moorgate Tobacco Co, Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No 2) [1984] 156 CLR 414. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  183. Tablot v General Television Corp [1981] RPC 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  184. Kecofa B.V. v. Lancôme parfumes et beauté. Et cie S.N.C, No. C04/327 Hoge Raad (16 June 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  185. Lancôme Parfums et Beauté et Cie S.N.C., v. Kecofab B.V., C0200726/MA (8 June 2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  186. Fabrique de Produits de Chimie Organique de Laire v. Societé de parfums Marcel Rocha, Tribunal Commercial de Paris (7 Januar 1974); unpublished. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  187. Thierry Mugler Parfums v. SA GLB Molinard, T.com. Paris, 15th ch., 24 Septembre 1999, LPA 3 March 2000, pp 13-16. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  188. Beauté Prestige International v. Bellure, CA Paris, 4th ch., (17 September 2004) unpublished. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  189. Beauté Prestige International v. Senteur Mazal, Cass. 1st Civ (1 July 2008) 07-13952 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  190. Bsiri-Babur v. Haarmann &Reimer et al, Cass. 1st Civ.(13 June 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  191. Rochas v. de Laire, CA Paris, 4th ch., 3 July 1975, Gaz. Pal.21-22 January 1976, pp. 43-45. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  192. L’Oréal v. Bellure, TGI Paris, 3rd ch., 26 May 2004, D. 2004; 2641-2645. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  193. Cour de Cassation, Tresor-Armani-Mania (10 December 2013) Case No. 11-19.872, IIC 2014, 829-831. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  194. 6/64 Flaminio Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  195. 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR I-837. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  196. 120/78 Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) [1979] ECR I-649. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  197. 238/87 AB Volvo v Erik Veng (UK) Ltd [1988] ECR I-6211. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  198. C–267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithurard [1993] ECR I-6097. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  199. C-241/91 P and C-242/91 Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications (ITP) v Commission of the European Communities [1995] ECR I-00743. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  200. C–112/99 Toshiba Europe GmbH v Katun Germany GmbH [2001] ECR I-07945. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  201. C–2/00 Hölterhoff v Freiesleben [2002] ECR I-4187. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  202. C–273/00 Sieckmann v DPMA [2002] ECR I-1173. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  203. C–299/99 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [2002] ECR I-05475. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  204. C–46/02 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Oy Veikkaus Ab [2004] ECR I-10396. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  205. C–136/02 P Mag Instrument Inc v OHIM [2004] ECR I-09165. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  206. C–203/02 The British Horseracing Board Ltd v William Hill Organization Ltd [2004] ECR I-10415. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  207. C–338/02 Fixtures Marketing v Svenska Spel AB [2004] ECR I-10497. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  208. C–418/01 IMS Health v NDC [2004] ECR I-05039. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  209. C–444/02 Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Organismos prognostikon agonon podosfairou AE (OPAP) 1 [2004] ECR I-10549. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  210. C–468/01 P to C-472/01 P Procter & Gamble Companyv. OHIM [2004] ECR I-05141. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  211. C–321/03 Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trademarks [2007] ECR I-687. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  212. C–381/05 De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comité interprofessional du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA [2007] ECR I-03115. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  213. C–450/06 Varec SA v Belgium [2008] ECR I-581. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  214. C–5/08 Infopaq International v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECR I-6569. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  215. C–487/07 L’Oréal v Bellure [2009] ECR I-05185. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  216. C–48/09 P Lego Juris v OHIM [2010] ECR I-08403. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  217. C–92/09 and C–93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert [2010] ECR I-11063. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  218. C 393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace v Ministerstvo kultury [2010] ECR I-13971. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  219. C 145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH and Others [2011] ECR I-12533. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  220. C–323/09 Interflora Inc and others v Marks & Spencer and others [2011] ECR I-08625. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  221. C 403/08 and C 429/08 Football Association Premier League and Others [2011] ECR I-9083. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  222. C–404-10 P Lagardère SCA v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (CJEU, 29 June 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  223. C–406/10 SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd (CJEU, 2 May 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  224. C–477/10 P European Commission v Agrofert Holding a.s. (CJEU, 28 June 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  225. C 604/10 Football Dataco Ltd and others v Yahoo! UK Ltd and others (CJEU, 1 March 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  226. C–30/14 Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV (CJEU, 15 January 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  227. C–481/14 Jørn Hansson v Jungpflanzen Grünewald GmbH [2016] (CJEU, 9 June 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  228. T–76/98 Independent Television Publications Ltd v Commission [1991] ECR II-575. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  229. T–305/04 Eden SARL v OHIM [2005] ECR II-04705. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  230. T–129/04 Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG v OHIM [2006] II-0811. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  231. T–194/01 Unilever NV v OHIM [2006] ECR II-00383. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  232. T–201/04 Microsoft v Commission [2007] ECR II-03601. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  233. T–508/08 Bang & Olufsen A/S v OHIM [2011] ECR II-06975. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  234. T–189/14 Deza v ECHA (13 January 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  235. T–718/15 PTC Therapeutics International Ltd v EMEA (GC, 5 February 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  236. Microsoft (Case COMP/C-3/37.792) Commission Decision 2007/53/EC [2007] OJ L32/23. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  237. EPO T 381/87 [1990] OJ EPO 213. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  238. EPO T 931/92 (10 August 1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  239. T 426/88 [1992] OJ EPO 427. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  240. G 1/92 [1993] OJ EPO 277. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  241. T 830/90 [1994] OJ EPO 713. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  242. T 472/92 [1998] OJ EPO 161. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  243. G 2/99 [2001] OJ EPO 83. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  244. G 3/98 [2001] OJ EPO 62. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  245. T 681/01 (28 November 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  246. T 355/07 (28 November 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  247. EPO T1553/06 (12 March 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  248. Case R 156/1998-2 Vennootschap onder Firma Senta Aromatic [1999] OHIM OJ 1239. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  249. Case R 711/1999-3 Myles Limited (OHIM Boards of Appeal, 5 December 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  250. Hertel v Switzerland (1998) 28 EHHR 534. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  251. Société Colás Est v France (2004) 39 EHRR 17. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  252. Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHHR 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  253. Ashby Donald and Others v France App no 36769/08 (ECtHR, 10 January 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  254. WTO, Argentina – Footwear (EC), WTO Appellate Body Report, WT/DS121/AB/R (14 December 1999) . Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  255. WTO, United States –Upland Cotton, WTO Appellate Body Report, WT/DS267/AB/ (2 March 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  256. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) (adopted 15 April 1994) (Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization) 1869 UNTS 183. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  257. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1886) 828 UNTS 221 (BC). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  258. Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation (signed on 14 July 1967 and amended on 28 September 1979). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  259. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended on 1 June 2010) (ECHR). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  260. Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973 (as revised by the Act revising Article 63 EPC of 17 December 1991 and the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 2000) (EPC). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  261. Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part [2004] OJ L304. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  262. Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part [2010] OJ L127/6. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  263. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (adopted 30 October 1947) 55 UNTS 194 (GATT Agreement). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  264. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (adopted 15 April 1994) 1867 UNTS 154 (WTO Agreement). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  265. North American Free Trade Agreement (United States-Canada-Mexico) (adopted 17 December 1992, entered into force 1 January 1994) ILM 289 (NAFTA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  266. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (adopted 29 March 1883, as revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967 and as amended on 28 September 1979) 21 UST 1583, 828 UNTS 305 (PC). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  267. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGAs 217 A (III) (UDHR). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  268. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  269. Washington Act (adopted 2 June 1911, entered into force 1 May 1913) TRT PARIS 006. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  270. WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted 20 December 1996, entered into force 6 March 2002) 2186 UNTS 121 (WCT). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  271. Communications Decency Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 133-145 (1996) (codified in scattered sections of U.S.C. § 223 et seq.). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  272. Copyright Act, Public Law 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (1976) (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332) (U.S. Copyright Act). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  273. Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-153, 130 Stat. 376 (2016) (codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831 et seq) (DTSA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  274. Patent Act of 1952, Public Law 593, 66 Stat. 792 (1952) (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq) (U.S. Patent Act). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  275. The Economic Espionage Act Pub. L. No. 104-294, 110 Stat. 3488 (1996) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.§§ 1831 -1839) (EEA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  276. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (codified in scattered sections of 35 U.S.C.)(America Invents Act of 2011 or AIA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  277. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §16600 (West. 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  278. Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Am. Law Inst. 1979, as amended in 1985). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  279. Restatement (First) of Torts (Am. Law Inst. 1939). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  280. Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition (Am. Law Inst. 1995). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  281. Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  282. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  283. European Union Notification of Withrawal Bill 2017. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  284. European Union Referendum Act 2015. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  285. Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  286. Patents Act 1977. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  287. The Building Societies Act 1997. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  288. The Corporation Tax Act 2009. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  289. Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG) vom 19. Dezember 1986 (Stand am 1. Juli 2016) (UWG). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  290. Gesetz über Arbeitnehmererfindungen in der im Bundesgesetzblatt Teil III, Gliederungsnummer 422-1, veröffentlichten bereinigten Fassung, das zuletzt durch Artikel 7 des Gesetzes vom 31. Juli 2009 (BGBl. I S. 2521) geändert worden ist (Act on Employee Inventions). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  291. Gewerbeordnung in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 22. Februar 1999 (BGBl. I S. 202), die zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 17. Oktober 2017 (BGBl. I S. 3562) geändert worden ist. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  292. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in der im Bundesgesetzblatt Teil III, Gliederungsnummer 1001, veröffentlichten bereinigten Fassung, das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 13. Juli 2017 (BGBl. I S. 2347) geändert worden ist (German Constitution or GG). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  293. Handelsgesetzbuch in der im Bundesgesetzblatt Teil III, Gliederungsnummer 4100-1, veröffentlichten bereinigten Fassung, das zuletzt durch Artikel 3 des Gesetzes vom 10. Juli 2018 (BGBl. I S. 1102) geändert worden ist (HGB or German Commercial Code). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  294. Markengesetz vom 25. Oktober 1994 (BGBl. I S. 3082; 1995 I S. 156; 1996 I S. 682), das zuletzt durch Artikel 11 des Gesetzes vom 17. Juli 2017 (BGBl. I S. 2541) geändert worden ist. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  295. Patentgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 16. Dezember 1980 (BGBl. 1981 I S. 1), das zuletzt durch Artikel 4 des Gesetzes vom 8. Oktober 2017 (BGBl. I S. 3546) geändert worden ist (German Patent Act). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  296. Strafgesetzbuch in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 13. November 1998 (BGBl. I S. 3322), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 30. Oktober 2017 (BGBl. I S. 3618) geändert worden ist (StGB or German Criminal Code). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  297. Urheberrechtsgesetz vom 9. September 1965 (BGBl. I S. 1273), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 1. September 2017 (BGBl. I S. 3346) geändert worden ist. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  298. Ley 3/1991, de 10 de enero, de Competencia Desleal (Spanish Unfair Competition Act). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  299. Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal (Spanish Criminal Code). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  300. Ley 17/2001, de 7 de diciembre, de Marcas (Spanish Trade Mark Act). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  301. Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y armonizando las disposiciones legales vigentes sobre la materia (Spanish Copyright Act). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  302. Decreto legisltaivo 10 febbraio 2005, n. 30 1 Codice della proprietà industriale, a norma dell’articolo 15 della legge 12 dicembre 2002, n. 273, aggiornato a seguito del decreto legislativo di correzione 13 agosto 2010, n. 13 (Italian Industrial Property Code). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  303. Code de la propriété intellectuelle (version consolidée au 25 avril 2016) (French Intellectual Property Code). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  304. Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG) vom 19. Dezember 1986 (Stand am 1. Juli 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  305. Agreement on a Unified Patent Court [2013] OJ C–175/01. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  306. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/391 (ChFREU). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  307. Commission Regulation (EC) No 772/2004 of 27 April 2004 on the application of Article 81 (3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements [2004] OJ L123/11. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  308. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1217/2010 of 14 December 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of research and development agreements [2010] OJ L335/36 (R&DBER). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  309. Commission Regulation (EU) No 316/2014 of 21 March on the application of Article 101 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements [2014] OJ L93/17 (TTBER). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  310. Council Directive (EC) 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [2001] OJ L167/10 (Information Society Directive). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  311. Council Directive 87/54/EEC of 16 December 1986 on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products [1987] OJ L24/36. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  312. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty [2003] OJ L 1/1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  313. Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 [2013] OJ L181/1 (Customs Regulation). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  314. Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark [2009] OJ L 78/1 and Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [2008] OJ L299/25. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  315. Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [2015] OJ L336/1 (Trade Mark Directive or TMD). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  316. Directive (EU) 2016/943 of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure [2016] OJ L157/1 (Trade Secrets Directive or TSD). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  317. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market [2000] OJ L178 (Directive on Electronic Commerce). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  318. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2005] OJ L149/22 (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  319. Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (codified version) [2006] OJ L372/12 (Term of Protection Directive). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  320. Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases [1996] OJ L77/20 (Database Directive). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  321. Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs [1998] OJ L289/28 (Design Directive). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  322. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2006/114/EC of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising [2006] OJ L376/21 (Misleading and Comparative Advertisement Directive). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  323. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs [2009] OJ L122/9 (Software Directive). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  324. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [1995] OJ L281/0031 (Data Protection Directive). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  325. Directive of the European Parliament and the Council 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights [2004].OJ L195/16 (Enforcement Directive). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  326. European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1223/2009 of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products [2009] OJ L342/59. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  327. Regulation (EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1223/2009 of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products [2009] OJ L342/59. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  328. Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [2015] OJ L341/21 (Amending Regulation). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  329. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) [2016] OJ L119/01 (GDPR). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  330. Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark [2017] OJ L154/1 (European Union Trade Mark Regulation or EUTMR). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  331. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents [2001] OJ L145/43. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  332. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council E 608/2013 of 12 June 2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights [2013] OJ L 181/15 (Customs Regulation). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  333. Commision, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of computer programs’ COM (88) 816 final. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  334. Commission, ‘Building a European Data Economy Initiative’ COM(2017) 9 final. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  335. Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Document on the free flow of data and emerging issues of the European data economy’ SWD(2017) 2 final. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  336. Commission, ‘Commission Statement concerning Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights’ [2005] OJ L 94/37. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  337. Commission, ‘Commission Statement on Directive 2004/48/EC’ [2005] OJ L94/3. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  338. Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European and economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights. Boosting creativity and innovation to provide economic growth, high quality jobs and first class products and services in Europe’ COM (2011) 287 final, 3. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  339. Commission, ‘Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ COM(2010) 2020 final. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  340. Commission, ‘Explanatory Memorandum, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure’. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  341. Commission, ‘Final report on the E-commerce Sector Inquiry’ COM(2017) 229 final <http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_final_report_en.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  342. Commission, ‘First evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases’ (2005) DG Internal Market and Services Working Paper. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  343. Commission, ‘Green Paper on Copyright and Challenge of Technology – Copyright Issues Requiring Immediate Action COM (88) 172, final’ [1988] OJ C71. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  344. Commission, ‘Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to technology transfer agreements’ [2014] OJ C89/3. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  345. Commission, ‘Impact Assessment accompanying the document proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure’ SWD(2013) 471 final. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  346. Commission, ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure’ COM (2013) 813 final. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  347. Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to non-contractual obligations (“ROME II”)’ COM (2003) 427 final. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  348. Commission, ‘Public Consultation On The Protection Against Misappropriation Of Trade Secrets And Confidential Business Information, Summary Of Responses’ (2013) 11 <http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/intellectual-property/trade-secrets/index_en.htm> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  349. Commission, ‘Synopsis Report on the Consultation on the Building a European Data Economy Initiative.’ 2018 <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/synopsis-report-public-consultation-building-european-data-economy> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  350. Commission, ‘Synopsis Report on the Consultation on the Building a European Data Economy Initiative’. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  351. Commission, ‘Towards a common European data space’ COM(2018) 232 final. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  352. Commission, ‘Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe’ COM(2012) 529 final. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  353. Commission, ʻGuidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to technology transfer agreementsʼ [2004] OJ C101/2. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  354. DG Internal Market and Services Working Paper. First evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  355. Council, ‘General Approach on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure’ 2013/0402 (COD) <http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%209870%202014%20INIT> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  356. Council, ‘Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994)’ [1994] OJ L336. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  357. Ahrens HJ and McGuire MR, Modellgesetz für Geistiges Eigentum, Normtext und Begründung (GRUR 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  358. Anderson M, Technology Transfer (3rd edn, Haywards Heath 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  359. Aplin T and others, Gurry on Breach of Confidence (2nd edn, OUP 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  360. Ballester Rodes A and others, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal (8th edn, 2016 EPO). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  361. Bartenbach K and Volz F, Arbeitnehmererfindungen (6 edn, Carl Heynemanns Verlag 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  362. Bartenbach K, Patentlizenz-und Know-how-Vertrag (Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  363. Beater A, Unlauterer Wettbewerb (2nd edn, C.H. Beck 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  364. Benkler Y, The Wealth of Networks (Yale University Press 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  365. Bentham J, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (first published 1781, Batoche Books 2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  366. Bently L and Sherman B, Intellectual Property Law (4th edn, OUP 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  367. Beyerbach H, Die geheime Unternehmensinformation (Mohr Siebeck 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  368. Blayn JF and others, Questions de Parfumerie (Corpman Editions 1988). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  369. Bodenhausen G H C, Guide to the application of the Paris Convention (BIRPI 1967). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  370. Brearley K and Bloch S, Employment covenants and confidential information (Butterworths1993). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  371. Burrows A and Feldman D, Oxford Principles of English Law (2nd edn, OUP 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  372. Byrne N and McBratney A, Licensing Technology (3rd edn, Jordans 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  373. Coleman A, The Legal Protection of Trade Secrets (Sweet&Maxwell 1992). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  374. Cornish W, Llewellyn D and Aplin T, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (8th edn, Sweet&Maxwell 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  375. Correa C, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, A commentary on the TRIPs Agreement (OUP 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  376. Craig P and de Búrca G, EU Law, Text, Cases, and Materials (5th edition OUP 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  377. Derclaye E and Leistner M, Intellectual Property Overlaps (Hart 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  378. Derclaye E, The legal protection of Databases (Edward Elgar 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  379. Dorner M, Know-how Schutz im Umbruch (Carls Heymanns 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  380. Dreier T and Hugenholtz P B, Concise European copyright law (2nd ed, Kluwer Law International 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  381. Floridia G and others, Diritto Industriale Proprietà Intellettuale e concorrenza (4th edn, Giappichelli Editore 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  382. François Lévêque and Yann Ménière, The Economics of Patents and Copyright (The Berkeley Electronic Press 2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  383. Frenz W, Handbuch Europa-Recht, vol 6 (1st edn, Springer 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  384. Fröhlich S, Düfte als geistiges Eigentum (Mohr Siebeck 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  385. Gervais D, The TRIPs Agreement (4th edn, Sweet&Maxwell 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  386. Gintare S The Refusal to Disclose Trade Secrets as an Abuse of Market Dominance – Microsoft and Beyond (Stämpfli 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  387. Gordon R, EC Law in judicial review (1st edn, OUP 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  388. Groß M, Der Lizenzvertrag (Deutsche Fachverlag 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  389. Grosse Ruse-Kahn H, ‘The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Law’ (OUP 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  390. Guillemin C, Law & Odeur (Nomos 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  391. Harguth A and Carlsson S, Patents in Germany and Europe (2nd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  392. Harte-Bavendamm H and Henning-Bodewig F, Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (4th edn, C.H. Beck 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  393. Henning-Bodewig F and Ruijsenaars H E, Protection against Unfair competition (WIPO 1994). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  394. Henning-Bodewig F, International Handbook on Unfair Competition (C.H. Beck 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  395. Heydon J D, The restraint of trade doctrine (2nd edn, Butterworths 1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  396. Hillenbrand S, Der Begriff des Betriebs- und Geschäftsgeheimnisses (Herbert Utz Verlag 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  397. Hirsch G and others, Münchener Kommentar zum Lauterkeitsrecht (2nd edn, C.H. Beck 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  398. Hull J, Commercial Secrecy (1st edn, Sweet&Maxwell 1998). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  399. Ianeva I, Registration of Non-conventional Signs Under the Community Trademark Regime (Wissenchaftlicher Verlag Berlin 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  400. Jager M F, Trade Secrets Law (Thompsons Reuters 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  401. Kalbfus B, Know-how Schutz in Deutschland zwischen Strafrecht und Zivilrecht-welcher Reformbedarf besteht? (1st edn, Carl Heymanns Verlag 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  402. Kamperman Sanders A, Unfair Competition Law (1st edn, OUP 1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  403. Kant I, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (first published 1785, CUP 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  404. Köhler H, Bornkamm J and Feddersen J, Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (36 edn, C. H. Beck 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  405. Kolasa M, Trade Secrets and Employee Mobility (CUP 2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  406. Kraßer R and Ann C, Patentrecht (6th edn, C.H. Beck 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  407. Kur A and Dreier T, European Intellectual Property Law (Edward Elgar 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  408. Kur A and Senftleben M, European Trade Mark Law (OUP 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  409. Ladas S P, Patents; Trademarks, and Related Rights – National and International Protection (HUP 1975). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  410. Landes W and Posner R, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Belknap Press 2003). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  411. Laszlo P and Rivière S, Perfume, Arte y Ciencia (Omega 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  412. Lehmer L, UWG: Kommentar zum Wettbewerbsrecht (Luchterhand 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  413. Lessig L, Free Culture (The Penguin Press 2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  414. Locke L, The Selected Political Writings of John Locke (Paul E. Sigmund ed, Norton& Company 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  415. Melvin F. Jager, Trade Secrets Law (Thomsons Reuters 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  416. Merges R P and Duffy J F, Patent Law and Policy, Cases and Materials (6th edn, Lexis Nexis 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  417. Merges R P, Justiffying Intellectual Property Law (HUP 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  418. Milgrim R G, Milgrim on Trade Secrets (Matthew Bender 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  419. Nordhaus W D, Invention Growth, and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change. (The MIT Press 1969). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  420. Ohly A and Lucas-Schloetter A, Privacy, Property and Personality (CUP 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  421. Ohly A and Sosnitza O, Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (7th edn, C.H. Beck 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  422. Ohly A and Spence M, The Law of Comparative Advertising (Hart Publishing 2000). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  423. Peel E, The Law of Contract (14th edn, Sweet&Maxwell 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  424. Pires de Carvalho N, The TRIPs Regime of Antitrust and Undisclosed Information (Wolters Kluwer 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  425. Pires de Carvalho N, The TRIPS Regime of Antitrust and Undisclosed Information (Kluwer Law International 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  426. Pooley L, Trade Secrets (Law Journal Press 2002). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  427. Rahmatian A, Copyright and Creativity (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  428. Rawls J, A Theory of Justice (OUP 1972). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  429. Reger G, Der internationale Schutz gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb und das TRIPS-Übereinkommen (Carl Heymanns Verlag 1999). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  430. Rosati E, Originality in EU Copyright (Edward Elgar 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  431. Roudnitska E, Une vie au service du parfum (Thérèse Vian Editions1991). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  432. Rowe E A and Sandeen S K, Trade Secrecy and International Transactions: Law and Practice (Edward Elgar 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  433. Scheppele K M, Legal Secrets: Equality and Efficiency in the Common Law (The University of Chicago Press 1992). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  434. Schlötter R, Der Schutz von Betriebs- und Geschäftsgeheimnissen und die Abwerbung von Arbeitnehmern (Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  435. Schweyer F, Die rechtliche Bewertung des Reverse Engineering in Deutschland und den USA (Mohr Siebeck 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  436. Scotchmer S, Innovation and Incentives (1st edn, The MIT Press 2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  437. Sundbo J, The Theory of Innovation: Entrepreneurs, Technology and Strategy (Edward Elgar 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  438. Suñol A, El Secreto Empresarial (Thomson Reuters 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  439. Thomas M. Cooley on Torts, A Treatise on the Law of Torts, Or, The Wrongs which Arise Independent of Contract (2nd edn, Callaghan 1879). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  440. Toulson R M and Phipps C M, Confidentiality (3rd edn, Sweet&Maxwell 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  441. UNCTAD-ICTSD, Resource Book on TRIPS and Development (CUP 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  442. van Caenegem W, Trade Secrets and Intellectual Property (Kluwer Law International 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  443. van den Bossche P and Zdouc W, The Law and Policy of The World Trade Organization (3rd edn, CUP 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  444. van Eechoud M and others, Harmonizing European Copyright Law (Kluwer Law International 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  445. Wadlow C, The Law of Passing-off (4th edn, Swett&Maxwell 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  446. Westerman I, Handbuch Know-how-Schutz (C.H. Beck 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  447. Winzer W, Forschungs- und Entwicklungsverträge (2nd edn, C.H. Beck 2001) Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  448. WIPO, Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (WIPO Publications 1978). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  449. Aplin T, ‘A right of privacy for corporations?’ 475 in Torremans P LC (ed), Intellectual Property and Human Rights (Kluwer Law International 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  450. Aplin T, ‘Right to Property and Trade Secrets’ 421 in Geiger C (ed), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  451. Aplin T, ‘Subject Matter’ 49 in Derclaye E (ed), Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright Law (Edward Elgar 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  452. Arrow K J, ʻAllocation of Resources for inventionʼ 609 in Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research and Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council (ed), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton University Press 1962). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  453. Bently L, ‘Patents and trade secrets’ 57 in Wilkof N and Basheer S (eds), Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights (OUP 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  454. Bently L, ‘Trade Secrets Intellectual Property but not property?’ 60 in Howe H R and Griffiths J (eds), Concepts of property in Intellectual Property Law (CUP 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  455. Bertsch C, ‘Research Agreement’ 38 in Weitnauer W and others (eds), Life Sciences Agreements in Germany (C.H. Beck 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  456. Bone R G, ‘Trade Secrecy, Innovation and the Requirement of Reasonable Secrecy Precautions’ 46 in Dreyfuss R C and Strandburg K J (eds), The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  457. Bukow J W, ‘Defences’ in Maximilian Haedicke and Henrik Timmann (eds), Patent Law Handbook (C.H. Beck 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  458. Conde Gallego B, ‘Unilateral refusal to license indispensable intellectual property rights – US and EU approaches’ 215 in Drexl J (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law (Edward Elgar, 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  459. Cornish W, ‘The Expansion of Intellectual Property Rights’ 9 in Schricker G, Dreier T and Kur A (eds), Geistiges Eigentum im Dienst der Innovation (Nomos 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  460. Denicola R, ‘The Restatements, the Uniform Act and the status of American trade secret law’ 18 in Dreyfuss R C and Strandburg K J (eds), The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  461. Dessemontet F, ‘Protection of Trade Secrets and Confidential information’ 271 in Correa C and Yusuf A (eds), Intellectual Property and International Trade (2nd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2008). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  462. Dreier T, ‘How much ‘property’ is there in intellectual property?’ 116 in H R and Griffiths J (eds), Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law (CUP 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  463. Dreier T, ‘Regulating information: Some thoughts on a perhaps not quite so new way of looking to intellectual property’ 35 in Drexl J and others (eds), Technology and Competition, Contributions in Honour of Hanns Ullrich (Larcier 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  464. Drexl J, ‘Die Verweigerung der Offenlegung von Unternehmensgeheimnissen als Missbrauch marktbeherrschender Stellung’ 437 in Hilty R and others (eds), Schutz von Kreativität und Wettbewerb (C.H. Beck 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  465. Drexl J, ‘Refusal to grant access to trade secrets as an abuse of market dominance’165 in Anderman S and Ezrachi A (eds), Intellectual Property and Competition Law (OUP 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  466. Dusollier S, ‘Pruning the European intellectual property tree: in search of common principles and roots’ 24 in Geiger C (ed), Constructing European intellectual property (Edward Elgar 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  467. Dusollier S, ‘The commons as a reverse intellectual property-from exclusivity to inclusivity’ 258 in Howe H R and Griffiths J (eds), Concepts of Property in Intellectual Property Law (CUP 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  468. Fisher W, ‘Theories of Intellectual Property’ 168 in Munzer S R (ed), New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (CUP 2001). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  469. Foucault M, ‘The Order of Discourse’ 52 in Young R (ed), Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader (1st edn, Routledge & Kegan Paul 1981). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  470. Fromer J C, ‘Trade Secrecy in Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory’ 3 in Dreyfuss R C and Strandburg K J (eds), The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  471. Gete-Alonso Valero M C, ‘Artículo 43’ 756 in Bercovitz Rodríguez-Cano R (ed), Comentarios a la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual (3rd edn, Tecnos 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  472. Ghidini G and Falce V, ‘Trade secrets as intellectual property rights: a disgraceful upgrading – Notes on an Italian reform’ 140 in Dreyfuss R C and Strandburg K J (eds), The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  473. Graf M and Zech H, ‘IP in Research and Development Agreements: object and legal qualification’ 293 in Matthews D and Zech H (eds), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and the Life Sciences (Edward Elgar 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  474. Graves C T, ‘Trade Secrecy and Common Law Confidentiality: The Problem of Multiple Regimes’ 77 in Dreyfuss R C and Strandburg K J (eds), The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  475. Harte-Bavendamm H, ‘§ 77 Schutz von Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnissen (§§ 17-19 UWG)’ in Loschelderr M and Erdmann W (eds), Wettbewerbsrecht (4th edn, C.H. Beck 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  476. Heath C, ‘Employees, Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants in Germany’ 85 in Heath C and Kamperman Sanders A (eds), Employees, Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants (Wolters Kluwer 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  477. Henning-Bodewig F, ‘International Unfair Competition Law’ 53 in Hilty R and Henning-Bodewig F (eds), Law Against Unfair Competition (Springer 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  478. Hon W K and Millard C, ‘Control, Security, and Risk in the Cloud’ 18 in Millard C (ed), Cloud Computing Law (OUP 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  479. Hon W K and Millard C, ‘What is Regulated as Personal Data in Clouds’ 165 in Millard C (ed), Cloud Computing Law (OUP 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  480. Höpperger M and Senftleben M, ‘Protection Against Unfair Competition at the International Level – The Paris Convention, the 1996 Model Provisions and the Current Work of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’ 61 in Hilty R and Henning-Bodewig F (eds), Law Against Unfair Competition (Springer 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  481. Hugenholtz P B ‘Something Completely Different: Europe’s Sui Generis Database Right’ 205 in Frankel S and Gervais D (eds), The Internet and the Emerging Importance of New Forms of Intellectual Property (Wolters Kluwer 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  482. Janssen G and Maluga G, ‘§17 Verrat von Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnissen’ in Joecks W and Miebach K (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum StGB (1st edn, C.H. Beck 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  483. Jestaedt B and Benkard G, ‘Art. 64’ in Adams T and others (eds) Europäisches Patentübereinkommen (4th edn, C.H. Beck 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  484. Kaiser L, ‘Vetragsmanagement’ 257, 268 Wurzer A and Kaiser L (eds), Handbuch Internationaler Know-how-Schutz (Bundesanzeiger Verlag 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  485. Kämmerer J A, ‘European Commission’, The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law (OUP 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  486. Kamperman Sanders A, ‘The Actio Servi Corrupti” from the Roman Empire to the Globalised Economy’ 3 in Heath C and Kamperman Sanders A (eds), Employees, Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants (Wolter Kluwer 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  487. Katzenberger P and Kur A, ‘TRIPs and Intellectual Property’ 10 in Beier FK and Schricker G (eds), IIC Studies, Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, From GATT to TRIPs – The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Weinheim 1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  488. Knospe M, ‘Germany’ 62 in Melvine F. Jager (ed), Trade secrets throught the world (2012 Thomsom West). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  489. Kraßer R, ‘The Protection of Trade Secrets in the TRIPs Agreement’ 216 in Beier FK and Schricker G (eds), IIC Studies, Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, From GATT to TRIPs – The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Weinheim 1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  490. Kur A, ‘What to Protect, and How? Unfair Competition, Intellectual Property, or Protection Sui Generisʼ 11 in Lee N and others (eds), Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity (Edward 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  491. Kur A, ‘Too pretty to protect? ’139 in Drexl J and others Technology and Competition, Contributions in honour of Hanns Ullrich (Editions Larcier 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  492. Landry F, ‘The proceedings for grant’ 338 in Haedicke M and Timmann H (eds), Patent Law Handbook (C.H. Beck 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  493. Lee KD and von Lewinski S, ‘The Settlement of International Disputes in the field of Intellectual Property’ 278 in Beier FK and Schricker G (eds), IIC Studies, Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, From GATT to TRIPs – The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Weinheim 1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  494. Lee N, ‘Public domain at the interface of trade mark and unfair competition law: The case of referential use of trade marks’ 309 in Lee N and others (eds), Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity (Edward Elgar 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  495. Lehmann M, ‘European Market for Digital Goods’ 111 in de Franceschi A (ed), European Contract Law and the Digital Single Market – the Implications of the Digital Revolution (Intersentia 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  496. Leistner M, ‘The Legacy of International News Service v Associated Press (USA)’ 33 in Heath C and Kamperman Sanders A (eds), Landmark Intellectual Property Cases and Their Legacy (Kluwer Law International 2010). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  497. Leistner M, ‘The Protection of Databases’ 427 in Derclaye E (ed), Research handbook on the future of EU Copyright (Edward Elgar 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  498. Leistner M, ‘Unfair Competition and Freedoms of Movement’, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of European Private Law (OUP 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  499. Lemley M A, ‘The surprising virtues of treating trade secrets as IP rights’ 109 in Dreyfuss R C and Strandburg K J (eds), The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  500. Levin M, ‘Trade Secret Protection and the Computation of Damages under Swedish Law’ 735 in Dreier T, Götting HP, Haedicke M, Macdonald J and Crail R, John Macdonald on the Law of Freedom of Information (3rd edn, OUP 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  501. Mayring P, ‘Qualitative content analysis’ 266 in Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardoff and Ines Steinke (eds), A companion to qualitative research (Sage 2004). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  502. Menell P S and Scotchmer S, ʻIntellectual Propertyʼ 1473 in Polinsky A M and Shave S (eds), Handbook of Law and Economics, vol 2 (Elsevier 2007). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  503. Michaels R, ‘Property’, The Max Planck Encyclopaedia of European Private Law (OUP 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  504. Milbradt C and Stief M, ‘Forschungs- und Entwicklungsvertrag’ 126 in Marco Stief and Boris Bromm (eds), Vertragshandbuch Pharma und Life Sciences (C.H. Beck 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  505. Nägerl J and Walder-Hartmann L, ‘Differentiation from the state of the art’ 129 in Haedicke M and Timmann H (eds), Patent Law A Handbook on European and German Patent Law (C.H. Beck 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  506. Ohly A, ‘Gibt es einen Numerus clausus der Immaterialgüterrechte?’ 105 in Ohly A and others (eds), Perspektiven des Geistiges Eigentums und Wettbewerbsrechts (C.H. Beck 2005). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  507. Ohly A, ʻHarmonising the Protection of Trade Secretsʼ 2 in de Werra J (ed), La protection des secrets d’affaires (Schulthess 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  508. Ohly A, ʻUnfair Competitionʼ, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of European Private Law (OUP 2012). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  509. Ohly A, ‘Reverse Engineering: Unfair Competition or Catalyst for Innovation?’ 540 in Drexl J and others (eds), Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World (Springer 2009). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  510. Passa J, ‘La protection des secrets d’affaires en droit français’ 47 in de Werra J (ed), La protection des secrets d’affaires (Schulthess 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  511. Peter M and Wiebe A, ‘Art. 39’ in Busche J and Stoll T (eds), TRIPs (Carl Heymanns 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  512. Prentice D, ‘Illegality and Public Policy’ in Beale H (ed), Chitty on contracts (32th edn, Sweet&Maxwell 2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  513. Reichman J, ‘How trade secrecy law generates a natural semicommons of innovative know-how’ 185 in Dreyfuss R C and Strandburg K J (eds), The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  514. Samuelson P, ‘Challenges in Mapping the Public Domain’ 7 in Hugenholtz P B and Guibault L (eds), The Public Domain of Information (Kluwer International Law 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  515. Sandeen S K, ‘The limits of trade secret law: Article 39 of the TRIPs Agreement and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act on which it is based’ 537 in Dreyfuss R C and Strandburg K J (eds), The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  516. Schaffert W, ‘4 Nr 11’ Rdn 68 in Heermann P W and others (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum Lauterkeitsrecht (1st edn, C.H. Beck 2006). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  517. Straus J, ‘Implications of the TRIPs Agreement in the Field of Patent Law’ 160 Beier FK and Schricker G (eds), IIC Studies, Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, From GATT to TRIPs – The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Weinheim 1996). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  518. Suñol A, ʻTrade Secrets vs Skill and knowledgeʼ 197 in Cafaggi F and others (eds), The Organizational Contract, From Exchange to Long-term network Cooperation in European Contract Law (Ashgate 2013). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  519. Surblyte G, ‘Enhancing TRIPS: Trade Secrets and Reverse Engineering’ 725 in Ullrich H and others (eds), TRIPS plus 20 – From Trade Rules to Market Principles (Springer 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  520. Ullman E and Deichfuß H, ‘§15 Übertragbarkeit des Rechts; Lizenzen’ in Benkard G (ed), Patentgesetz (11th edn, C.H. Beck 2015). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  521. van der Laan N, ‘The use of trade marks in keyword advertising: Developments in CJEU and national jurisprudence’ 231 in Lee N and others (eds), Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity (Edward Elgar 2014). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  522. Zech H, ‘Data as a Tradable Commodity’ 51 in De Franceschi A (ed), European Contract Law and the Digital Single Market – The Implications of the Digital Revolution (Insertia 2016). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  523. Zech H, ‘Data as Tradeable Commodity – Implications for Contract Law’ 2 in Drexl J (ed), Proceedings of the 18th EIPIN Congress: The New Data Economy between Data Ownership, Privacy and Safeguarding Competition (Edward Elgar forthcoming). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  524. Zimmerman D L, ‘Trade secrets and the “philosophy” of copyright: a case of culture crash’ 299 in Dreyfuss R C and Strandburg K J (eds), The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2011). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  525. Abramowicz M and Duffy J F, ʻIntellectual Property for Market Experimentationʼ [2008] 83 NYULR 337. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  526. Ackermann-Blome N and Rindell J, ‘Should trade secrets be protected by private and/or criminal law? A comparison between Finnish and German laws’ [2018] 13 JIPLP 78. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  527. Adams K D, ‘Blaming the Mirror: The Restatements and the Common Law’ [2007] 40 Indiana LR 205. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  528. Alexander C, ‘Gegenstand, Inhalt und Umfang des Schutzes von Geschäftsgeheimnissen nach der Richtlinie (EU) 2016/943 1034’ [2017] WRP 1034. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  529. Almeling D S, ‘Seven Reasons Why Trade Secrets are Increasingly Important’ [2012] 27 Berkeley Technology LJ 1091. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  530. Amir O and Lobel O, ‘Driving Performance: A Growth Theory on Noncompete Law’ [2013] 16 Stanford Technology LR 833. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  531. Ann C, ‘Know-how- Stiefkind des Geistiges Eigentums?’[2007] GRUR 39. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  532. Aplin T, ‘A critical evaluation of the proposed Trade Secrets Directive’ [2014] IPQ 257. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  533. Aplin T, ‘Reverse Engineering and Commercial Secrets’ [2013] 66 Current Legal Problems 341. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  534. Aplin T, ‘The future of the breach of confidence action and the protection of privacy’ [2007] Oxford University Commonwealth J 137. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  535. Aplin T,‘Confidential Information as property?’ [2013] 24 King's LJ 172. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  536. Arundel A V, ‘The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation’ [2001] 30 Research Policy 611. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  537. Balañá S, ‘El entorno digital, ¿segunda oportunidad para la marca olfativa?: estudio acerca de la capacidad del signo olfativo’ [2005-2006] 26 Actas de Derecho Industrial y Derecho de Autor 18. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  538. Balañá S, ‘La perfumería toma posiciones en torno al derecho de autor “¿...fumus boni iuris?”’ [2005] 19 Pe.i. 37. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  539. Balasubramanian N and Sivadasan J, ‘What happens when firms patent? New evidence from U.S. economic census data’ [2011] 93 The Review of Economics and Statistics 126. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  540. Barrett M, ‘The “Law of Ideas” Reconsidered’ [1989] 71 J Patent & Trademark Office Society 691. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  541. Bassard A, ‘La composition d’une formule de parfum est-elle une (oeuvre de l’esprito au sens de la loi du 11 mars 1957?’ [1979] 118 RIPIA 461. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  542. Beier FK and Straus J, ‘The Patent System and Its Informational Function - Yesterday and Today’ [1977] IIC 387. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  543. Beier FK, ‘Traditional and Socialist Concepts of Protecting Inventions’ [1970] IIC 328. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  544. Beier FK, ʻDie Bedeutung des Patentsystems für den technischen, wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Fortschrittʼ [1979] GRUR Int 227. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  545. Benkler Y, ʻFree As the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domainʼ [1997] 74 NYULR 354. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  546. Bishara N D, Martin K J, Thomas R S, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Noncompetition Clauses and Other Restrictive Postemployment Covenants’ [2015] 68 Vandervilt LR 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  547. Björkenfeldt M, ‘The Genie is out of the Bottle: the ECJ’s Decision in L’Oréal v Bellure’ [2010] 5 JIPLP 105. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  548. Blind K, Edler J, Frietsch R and Schmoch U, ‘Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany’[2006] 35 Research Policy 655. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  549. Bone R G, ʻA New Look at Trade Secret Law: Doctrine in Search of Justificationʼ [1998] 86 California LR 241. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  550. Bone R G, ʻThe Still Shaky Foundations of Trade Secret Lawʼ [2014] 92 Texas LR 1803. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  551. Boyle J, ‘Foreword: The Opposite of Property?’ [2003] 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  552. Bronckers M and McNelis N, ‘Is the EU Obliged to improve the Protection of Trade Secrets? An Inquiry into TRIPS, the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ [2013] 34 EIPR 673. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  553. Bronckers M, ‘The Impact of TRIPs: Intellectual Property Protection in Developing Countries’ [1994] 31 Common Market LR 1245. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  554. Cannan J, ‘A [Mostly] Legislative History of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016’ [2017-2019] 109 Law Library Journal 363. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  555. Chally J R, ʻThe Law of Trade Secrets: Toward a More Efficient Approachʼ [2004] 57 Vanderbilt LR 1269. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  556. Chiappetta V, ʻMyth, Chameleon or Intellectual Property Olympian?ʼ [1999] 8 George Mason LR 69. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  557. Claeys ER, ʻPrivate Law Theory and Corrective Justice in Trade Secrecyʼ [2011] 4 J of Tort Law 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  558. Cohen J E, ‘Reverse Engineering and the Rise of Electronic Vigilantism: Intellectual Property Implications of "Lock-Out" Programs’ [1995] 68 Southern California LR 1091. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  559. Cornish W ‘Genevan Bootstraps’ [1997] 19 EIPR 336. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  560. Cornish W, ‘The Essential Criteria for Patentability of European Inventions: Novelty and Inventive Step’ [1983] IIC 765. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  561. Cornish W, ‘The International Relations of Intellectual Property’ [1993] 52 Cambridge LJ 46. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  562. Cundiff V A, ‘Reasonable Measures to Protect Trade Secrets in a Digital Environment’ [2009] 49 IDEA 359. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  563. Cundiff V A and others, ‘The Global Harmonisationof Trade Secret Law: The Convergence of Protection for Trade Secrets in the US and EU’ [2016] 38 EIPR 738. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  564. Davison M J and Hugenholtz P B, ‘Football fixtures, horse races and spin-offs: the ECJ domesticates the database right’ [2005] 27 EIPR 113. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  565. Denicola R, ‘The New Law of Ideas’ [2014] 28 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 195. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  566. Derclaye E, ‘Databases sui generis right: what is a substantial investment?’ [2005] IIC 2. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  567. Derclaye E, ‘Intellectual Property Rights on Information and Market Power- Comparing European and American Protection of Databases’ [2007] IIC 275. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  568. Derclaye E, ‘The Court of Justice copyright case law: quo vadis?’ [2014] 36 EIPR 716. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  569. Determann L, ‘What Happens in the Cloud: Software as a Service and Copyrights’ [2015] 29 Berkeley Tech LJ 1095. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  570. DiCicco-Bloom B and Crabtree B F, ‘The qualitative research interview’ [2006] 40 Medical Education J 314. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  571. Dinwoodie GB, ‘The International intellectual property law system: new actors, new institutions, new sources’ [2006] 10 Marquette IPLR 206. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  572. Doerfer G L, ‘The Limits on Trade Secret Law Imposed by Federal Patent and Antitrust Supremacy’ [1967] 80 Harvard LR 1432. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  573. Dorner M, ‘Big Data und “Dateneigentum”’ [2014] CR 617. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  574. Dreier T, ‘The Council Directive of 14 May 1991 on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs’ [1991] 13 EIPR 319. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  575. Drexl J, ‘Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law – IMS Health and Trinko – Antitrust Placebo for Consumers Instead of Sound Economics in Refusal-to-Deal Cases’ [2004] IIC 788. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  576. Drexl J, ‘Nach “GATT und WIPO”: Das TRIPs-Abkommen und seine Anwendung in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft’ [1994] 43 GRUR Int 777. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  577. Dreyfuss R C, ‘Trade Secrets: How Well Should We Be Allowed to Hide them? The Economic Espionage Act of 1996’ [1998] 9 Fordham IP Media & Entertainment LJ. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  578. Elias B, ‘Do scents signify origin? - An argument against trademark protection for fragrances’ [1992] 82 TMR 475. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  579. Falce V, ‘Trade Secrets – Looking for (Full) Harmonization in the Innovation Union’ [2015] IIC 940. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  580. Feldman M J, ‘Toward a Clearer Standard of Protectable Information: Trade Secrets and Employment Relationship’ [1994] 9 Berkeley Technology LJ 151. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  581. Field T G, ‘Copyright protection for Perfumes’ [2004] 45 IDEA 19. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  582. Finger P, ‘Die Offenkundigkeit des mitgeteilten Fachwissens bei Know-how-Verträgen’ [1970] GRUR 3. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  583. Fisk C, ‘Working Knowledge: Trade Secrets, Restrictive Covenants in Employment, and the Rise of Intellectual Property’ [2001] 52 Hastings LJ 441. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  584. Former J C, ʻExpressive Incentives in Intellectual Propertyʼ [2012] 98 Virginia LR 1745. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  585. Franzoni L A and Kaushik A, ‘The optimal scope of trade secrets law’ [2016] 45 International Review of Law and Economics 45. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  586. Galloux JCH, ‘Profumo di diritto – Le principe de la protection des fragrances par le droit d'auteur, note sous TGI Paris, 26 mai 2004’ [2004] 36 Recueil Dalloz 2641. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  587. Gandomi A and Haider M, ‘Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics’ [2015] 35 International J of Information Management 137. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  588. Gangjee D S and Burrell R, ‘Because You’re Worth It: L’Oréal and the Prohibition on Free Riding’ [2010] 73 Modern LR 282. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  589. Gervais D and Derclaye E, ‘The scope of computer program protection after SAS: are we closer to answers?’ [2012] 34 EIPR 562. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  590. Gervais D, ‘Feist Goes Global: A Comparative Analysis Of The Notion Of Originality In Copyright Law’ [2002] 49 LJ of the Copyright Society of the USA 948. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  591. Gervais D, ‘The compatibility of the skill and labour standard with the Berne Convention and the TRIPs Agreement’ [2004] 26 EIPR 75. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  592. Gielen C, ‘Netherlands: copyright - blend of ingredients in a perfume constituting a copyright work’ [2006] 28 EIPR 174. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  593. Gielen C,‘WIPO and Unfair Competition’ [1997] 19 EIPR 78. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  594. Gilburne M R and Johnston R L, ‘Trade Secret Protection for Software Generally and in the Mass Market’ [1981] 3 Computer LJ 211. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  595. Gilson R J, ‘The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not to Compete’ [1999] 74 NYULR 575. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  596. Glöckner J, ‘The Regulatory Framework for Comparative Advertisement in Europe - Time for a new Round of Harmonisation’ [2012] IIC 35. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  597. Goldman E, ‘The Defend Trade Secrets Act Isn’t an “Intellectual Property ” Law’ [2017] 33 Santa Clara High Technology LJ 541. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  598. Gomulkiewicz R W, ‘Leaky Covenants-Not-to-Compete’ [2015] 49 University of California Davis LR 251. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  599. Gordon S, ‘The Very Idea! Why Copyright Law is an Inappropriate Way to Protect Computer Programs’ [1998] 1 EIPR 10. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  600. Gordon W J, ʻOn Owning Information: Intellectual Property and the Restitutionary Impulseʼ [1992] 78 Vanderbilt LR 149. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  601. Graves C T and Macgillivray A, ‘Combination Trade Secrets and the Logic of Intellectual Property’ [2004] 20 Santa Clara High Technology LJ 261. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  602. Graves C T and Range B D, ‘Identification of Trade Secret Claims in Litigation: Solutions for a Ubiquitous Dispute’ [2006] 5 New JTechnology IP 68. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  603. Graves C T, ‘Trade Secrets as property: Theory and Consequences’ [2007] 15 JIPL 39. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  604. Hall B H, Helmers C, Rogers M and Sena V, ‘The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review’ [2014] 52 Journal of Economic Literature 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  605. Harabi N, ‘Appropiability of Technichal Innovations an Empirical Analysis’ [1995] 24 Research Policy 981. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  606. Harold Demsetz, ʻThe Private Production of Public Goodsʼ [1970] 13 Journal of Law and Economics 293. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  607. Hart RJ, ‘Interoperability information and the Microsoft decision’ [2006] 28 EIPR 361. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  608. Harte-Bavendamm H, ‘Wettbewerbsrechtliche Aspekte des Reverse Engineering von Computerprogrammen’ [1990] GRUR 657. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  609. Henning-Bodewig F, ‘A New Act Against Unfair Competition’ IIC [2005] 421. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  610. Henning-Bodewig F, ‘Internationale Standards gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb’ [2013] GRUR Int 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  611. Hernández-Martí C, ‘The possibility of IP protection for smell’ [2014] 36 EIPR 665. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  612. Heusch C and others, ‘Trade secrets: overlap with restrains of trade, aspects of enforcement’ [2015] GRUR Int 932. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  613. Hilton W E, ‘What sort of improper conduct constitutes misappropriation of a trade secret’ [1990] 30 IDEA 287. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  614. Hoeren T, ‘Zur Einführung: Informationsrecht’ [2002] JuS 947. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  615. Hofmann F, ‘“Equity” im deutschen Lauterkeitsrecht? Der “Unterlassungsanspruch” nach der Geschäftsgeheimnis-RL’ [2018] WRP 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  616. Hoisl K, ‘Tracing Mobile Inventors – The Causality between Inventor Mobility and Inventor Productivity’ [2007] 36 Research Policy 619. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  617. Holder N and Schmidt J, ‘Indirect patent infringement – latest developments in Germany’ [2006] 28 EIPR 480. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  618. Hon W K, Millard C and Walden I, ‘Negotiating Cloud Contracts: Looking at clouds from both sides now’ [2012] 16 Stanford Technology LR 79. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  619. Höpner M, ‘Der Europäische Gerichtshof als Motor der Integration’ [2011] 21 Berlin J Soziol 203. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  620. Hören T and Müncker R, ‘Die EU-RL für den Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen und ihre Umsetzug’ [2018] WRP 150. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  621. Hören T und Münkner R, ‘Die neue EU-Richtlinie zum Schutz von Betriebsgeheimnissen und die Haftung Dritter’ [2018] CCZ 85. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  622. Hughes J, ʻThe Philosophy of Intellectual Propertyʼ [1988] 77 George Mason LJ 287. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  623. Hull L, ʻTrade Secret Licensing: the art of the possibleʼ [2009] 14 JIPLP 203. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  624. Hunold W, ‘Rechtsprechung zum nachvertraglichen Wettbewerbsverbot’ [2007] NZA-RR 617. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  625. Hunt C, ‘Rethinking Surreptitious Takings in the Law of Confidence’ [2011] IPQ 66. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  626. Jehoram H C, ‘The Dutch Supreme Court Recognises Copyright in the Scent of a Perfume. The Flying Dutchman: All Sails, no Anchor’ [2006] 28 EIPR 629. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  627. Joachim B, McGuire MR, Künzel J and Weber N, ‘Der Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen durch Rechte des Geistigen Eigentums und durch das Recht des unlauteren Wettbewerbs’ [2010] GRUR Int 829. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  628. Jones G, ‘Restitution of Benefits Obtained in breach of another’s Confidence’ [1970] 86 LQR 463. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  629. Judge E F and Gervais D, ‘Of Silos and Constellations: Comparing notions of Originality in Copyright Law’ [2009] 27 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment LJ 375. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  630. Kalbfus B, ‘Die EU-Geschäftsgeheimnis-Richtlinie - Welcher Umsetzungsbedarf besteht in Deutschland?’ [2016] GRUR 1009. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  631. Kambatla K, Kollias G, Kumar V and Grama A, ‘Trends in big data analytics’ [2014] 74 J of Parallel and Distributed Computing 2561. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  632. Kerber W, ‘A New (Intellectual) Property Right for Non-Personal Data? An Economic Analysis’ [2016] GRUR Int 989. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  633. Kitch E, ‘The Nature and the Function of the Patent System’ [1977] 20 Journal of Law and Economics 265. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  634. Kokott J and Sobotta C, ‘The distinction between privacy and data protection in the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR’ [2013] IDPL 222. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  635. Koós C, ‘Die europäische Geschäftsgeheimnis-Richtlinie - ein gelungener Wurf? Schutz von Know-How und Geschäftsinformationen - Änderungen im deutschen Wettbewerbsrecht’ [2016] MMR 224. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  636. Kraßer R, ‘Der Schutz des Know-how nach deutschem Recht’ [1970] GRUR 587. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  637. Kraßer R, ‘Grundlagen des zivilrechtlichen Schutz von Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnissen sowie von Know-how’ [1977] GRUR 177. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  638. Kur A, ‘The Enforcement Directive - Rough Start, Happy Landing?’ [2004] IIC 821. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  639. Kur A, ‘Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles’ [2014] IIC 434. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  640. Kur A, Hilty R and Knaak R, ‘Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 3 June 214 on the Proposal of the European Commission for a Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know-How and Business Information (Trade Secrets) Against Their Unlawful Acquisition, Use and Disclosure of 28 November 2013, COM(2013) 813 Final’ [2014] IIC 45. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  641. Landes WM and Posner RA, ‘Some Economics of Trade Secret Law’ [1991] 5 JEP 61. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  642. Laskawy D H, ‘Die Tücken des nachvertraglichen Wettbewerbsverbots im Arbeitsrecht’ [2012] NZA 1011. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  643. Lavery P, ‘Secrecy, Springboards and the Public Domain’ [1998] 20 EIPR 93 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  644. Lederer F, ‘Equivalence of Chemical Product Patents’ [1999] IIC 275. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  645. Lehmann M, ‘The Theory of Property Rights and the Protection of Intellectual and Industrial Property’[1985] IIC 525. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  646. Lejeune M, ‘Die neue EU Richtlinie zum Schutz von Know-How und Geschäftsgeheimnissen’ [2016] CR 330. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  647. Lemley M A, ‘Does “Public Use” Mean the Same Thing It Did Last year?’ [2014] 93 Texas LR 1119. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  648. Lemley M A, ‘Intellectual Property and the Shrinkwrap Licenses’ [1995] 68 Southern California LR 1239. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  649. Lemley M A, ‘Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding’ [2004] 83 Texas LR 1031. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  650. Lemley M A, ʻThe Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rightsʼ [2008] 61 Stanford LR 311. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  651. Levin R C, Klevorick A K, Nelson R R and. Winter S G ‘Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development’ [1987] 18 Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 783. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  652. Lieberman M B, ‘First-Mover Advantage’ [1988] 9 Strategic Management J 41. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  653. Loewenheim U, ‘Der Schutz der kleinen Münze im Urheberrecht’ [1987] GRUR 761. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  654. Machnicka A A, ‘The Perfume Industry and Intellectual Property Law in the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and National Courts’ [2012] IIC 123. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  655. Malgieri G, ‘Trade Secrets v Personal Data: a possible solution for balancing rights’ [2016] 6 International Data Privacy LR 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  656. Mansfield E ‘Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study’ [1986] 32 Management Science 173. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  657. McCullagh K, ‘A tangled web of access to information: reflections on R (on the application of Evans) and another v Her Majesty’s Attorney General’ [2015] 21 European J of Current Legal Issues. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  658. McGuire M, ‘Der Schutz von Know-how im System des Immaterialgüterrechts’ [2016] GRUR 1000. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  659. Mcguire MR, ‘Know-how:Stiefkind, Störenfried oder Sorgenkind?’ [2015] GRUR 424. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  660. Merges R P, ‘Priority and Novelty Under the AIA’ [2012] 27 Berkeley Technology LJ 1023. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  661. Merges R P, ‘The Law and Economics of Employee Inventions’ [1999] 13 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  662. Mes P, ‘Indirect Patent Infringement’ [1999] IIC 531. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  663. Moffat V R, ‘Making Non-Competes Unenforceable’ [2012] 54 Arizona LR 939. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  664. Montville C, ‘Reforming the Law of Proprietary Information’ [2007] 56 Duke LJ 1159. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  665. Mummenthey H, ‘Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarungen’ [1999] CR 651. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  666. Nimmer M B, ‘The Law of Ideas’ [1954] 27 Southern California LR 119. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  667. Ohly A, ‘Der Geheimnisschutz im deutschen Recht: heutiger Stand und Perspektiven’ [2014] GRUR 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  668. Ohly A, ‘The Freedom of Imitation and Its Limits – A European Perspective’ [2010] IIC 506. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  669. Ohly A, ‘Vergleichende Werbung für Zubehör und Warensortimente - Anmerkungen zu den EuGH-Urteilen ‘Siemens/VIPA’ und ‘LIDL Belgium/Colruyt’’ [2007] GRUR 3. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  670. Ottoz E and Cugno F, ‘Patent-Secret Mix in Complex Product Firms’ [2008] 10 American Law & Economics R 142. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  671. Pace C R J, ‘The Case for a Federal Trade Secrets Act’ [1995] 8 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 427. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  672. Pajak S, ‘Do innovative firms rely on big secrets? An analysis of IP protection strategies with the CIS 4 survey’ [2016] 25 Economics of Innovation and New Technology 516. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  673. Paterson G, ‘The Novelty of Use Claims’ [1996] IIC 179. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  674. Peterson G R, ‘Trade Secrets in an Information Age’ [1995] 32 Houston LR 385. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  675. Pooley J, ‘The Uniform Trade Secrets Act: California Civil Code 3426’ [1985] 1 Santa Clara High Technology LJ 193. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  676. Posner R, ‘Trade Secret Misappropriation: A Cost-Benefit Response to the Fourth Amendment Analogy’ [1992] 106 Harvard LR 461. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  677. Psaroudakis G, ‘Trade Secrets in the Cloud’ [2016] 38 EIPR 344. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  678. Reichman J H, ‘Computer Programs as applied scientific know-how: implications of copyright’ [1989] 42 Vanderbilt LR 639. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  679. Reichman J H, ‘Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigm’ [1994] 94 Columbia LR 2432. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  680. Reimann T,‘Einige Überlegungen zur Offenkundigkeit im Rahmen von §§ 17 ff. UWG und von § 3 PatG’ [1998] GRUR 298. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  681. Risch M, ‘Hidden in Plain Sight’ [2016] 31 Berkeley Technology LJ 1635. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  682. Risch M, ʻWhy Do We Have Trade Secrets?’ [2007] 11 Marquette IPLR. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  683. Robert P. Merges and Richard R. Nelson, ‘On the complete economics of patent scope’ [1990] 90 Columbia LR 839. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  684. Rønde T, ‘Trade secrets and information sharing’ [2001] 10 J of Economics & Management Strategy 391. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  685. Rosati E, ‘Originality in a work, or a work of originality: the effects of the Infopaq decision’ [2011] 33 EIPR 746. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  686. Rosati E, ‘Originality in U.S. and UK Copyright Experiences as a Springboard for an EU-Wide Reform Debate’ [2010] IIC 524. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  687. Rowe E A, ‘Contributory Negligence, Technology, and Trade Secrets’ [2009] 17 George Mason LR 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  688. Rowe E A, ‘When Trade Secrets become Shackles: Fairness and the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine’ [2005] 7 Tulane J of Technology & IP 167. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  689. Samuelson P and others, ‘A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs [1994] 94 Columbia LR 2308. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  690. Samuelson P and Scotchmer S, ‘The law and economics of reverse Engineering’ [2002] 111 Yale LJ 1575. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  691. Samuelson P, ‘Information as Property: Do Ruckelshaus and Monsanto Carpenter Signal a Changing Direction in Intellectual Property Law’ [1988] 38 Catholic University LR 365. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  692. Samuelson P, ‘Principles for Resolving Conflicts Between Trade Secrets and the First Amendment’ [2007] 58 Hastings LJ 777. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  693. Sandeen S K and Seaman C B, ‘Toward a Federal Jurisprudence of Trade Secret Law’ [2017] 32 Berkeley Technology LJ 829. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  694. Sandeen S K, ‘A Contract by Another Name is Still a Contract: Examining the Effectiveness of Trade Secrets Clauses to Protect Databases’ [2005] 45 IDEA 119. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  695. Sandeen S K, ‘Lost in the Cloud: Information Flows and the Implications of Cloud Computing for Trade Secrets Protection’ [2014] 19 Virginia Journal of Law & Technology 2. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  696. Sandeen S K, ‘The Evolution of Trade Secret Law and why courts commit error when they do not follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act’ [2010] 33 Hamline LR 493. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  697. Sander C, ‘Schutz nicht offenbarter betrieblicher Informationen nach der Beendigung des Arbeitsverhältnisses im deutschen und amerikanishchen Recht’ [2013] GRUR Int 217. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  698. Schulze G, ‘Schleichende Harmonisierung des urheberrechtlichen Werkbegriffs? - Anmerkung zu EuGH “Infopaq/DDF”’ [2009] GRUR 1019. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  699. Scotchmer S, ‘Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law’ [1991] 5 JEP 29. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  700. Senftleben M, ‘Function Theory and International Exhaustion – Why It Is Wise to Confine the Double Identity Rule to Cases Affecting the Origin Function’ [2014] 36 EIPR 518. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  701. Shmueli G, ‘To Explain or to Predict?’ [2010] 25 Statistical Science 289. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  702. Short J L, ‘Killing the Messenger The Use of Nondisclosure Agreements to Silence Whistleblowers’ [1999] 60 University of Pittsburgh LR 1207. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  703. Simpson M P, ‘The Future of Innovation: Trade Secrets, Property Rights, and Protectionism—An Age-Old Tale’ [2005] 70 Brooklyn LR 1121. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  704. Sobel L S, ‘The Law of Ideas, Revisited’ [1994] 1 UCLA Entertainment LR 9. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  705. Sołtysiński S, ‘Are Trade Secrets Property?’ [1986] IIC 331. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  706. Sousa e Silva N, ‘What exactly is a trade secret under the proposed Directive?’ [2014 ] 9 JIPLP 923. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  707. Steele C and Trenton A, ‘Trade secrets: the need for criminal liability’ [1998] 20 EIPR 188. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  708. Strandburg K J, ‘What does the public get? Experimental use and the patent bargain?’ [2004] 57 Wisconsin LR 81. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  709. Surblyte G, ‘6th GRUR Int / JIPLP Joint Seminar: Internet search engines in the focus of EU competition law – a closer look at the broader picture’ [2015] GRUR 127. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  710. Ullrich H, ‘Technologieschutz nach TRIPS: Prinzipien und Probleme’ [1995] GRUR Int 623. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  711. Unikel R, ‘Bridging the “Trade Secret” Gap: Protecting “Confidential Information” Not Rising to the Level of Trade Secrets’ [1998] 29 Loyola University Chicago LJ 841. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  712. van der Sloot B and van Schendel S, ‘Ten Questions for Future Regulation of Big Data: A comparative and Empirical Legal Study’ [2016] 7 JIPITEC 110. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  713. Vermont S, ‘Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement’ [2006] 105 Michigan LR 475. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  714. von Lewinski S, ‘Introduction: The Notion of Work under EU Law’ [2014] GRUR Int 1098. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  715. Wadlow C, ‘Trade secrets and the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations’ 30 EIPR [2008] 309. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  716. Warren S and Brandeis L, ‘The Right to Privacy’ [1980] 4 Harvard LR 193. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  717. Wiebe A, ‘Protection of industrial data – a new property right for the digital economy?’ [2016] GRUR Int 877. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  718. Wiebe A, ‘Reverse Engineering und Geheimnisschutz von Computerprogrammen’ [1992] CR 134. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  719. Wiesner R M, ‘A State-By-State Analysis of Inevitable Disclosure: A Need for Uniformity and a Workable Standard’ [2012] 16 Marquette IPLR 211, 217-228. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  720. Wilkie W L and Farris P W, ‘Comparison Advertising: Problems and Potential, Source’ [1975] 39 J of Marketing 7. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  721. Zech H, ‘Information as Property’ [2015] 6 JIPITEC 192. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  722. Zypries B, ‘Hypertrophie der Schutzrechte?’ [2004] GRUR 977. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  723. Baker McKenzie, ‘Study on Trade Secrets and Confidential Business Information in the Internal Market’ (MARKT/2011/128/D) (2013) <http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8269> accessed 15 September 2018> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  724. Federal Trade Commission, ‘Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion, Understanding the issues’ (2016) FTC Report, 1 <https://www.ftc.gov/reports/big-data-tool-inclusion-or-exclusion-understanding-issues-ftc-report> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  725. Grosse Ruse-Khan H, ‘The International Legal Framework for the protection of Utility Models’ (2012) WIPO Regional Seminar on the Legislative, Economic and Policy Aspects of the Utility Model System, Kuala Lumpur <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/aspac/en/wipo_ip_kul_12/wipo_ip_kul_12_ref_t2b.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  726. Hogan Lovells, ‘Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes) – Report on Parasitic Copying’ (MARKT/2010/20/D) (2012) <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiy8tzludndAhWDaFAKHfYHC3UQFjAAegQICRAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Finternal_market%2Fiprenforcement%2Fdocs%2Fparasitic%2F201201-study_en.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Ws2o9bYEnYOj5RM9bFb8y> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  727. Hogan Lovells, ‘Study on Trade Secrets and Parasitic Copying (Look-alikes) – Report on Trade Secrets’ (MARKT/2010/20/D) (2012) <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiz8ZrYt9ndAhVEiRoKHUfLBxsQFjACegQIBxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Finternal_market%2Fiprenforcement%2Fdocs%2Fparasitic%2F201201-study_en.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Ws2o9bYEnYOj5RM9bFb8y> accessed 15 September 2018.> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  728. Law Commission, Law Commission Report on Breach of Confidence (Law Com No 110, 1981). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  729. Law Commission, Legislating the Criminal Code: Misuse of Trade Secrets (Law Com No 150, 1997). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  730. Machlup F ‘Economic Review of the Patent System’ (1958) Study No. 15 of the subcommittee on the Judiciary-United States Senate 85th Congress, 2nd session, Washington. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  731. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition, ‘Study on the Overall Functioning of the European Trade Mark System’ (2011) 65-67 <http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/tm/20110308_allensbach-study_en.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  732. McGuire MR, Joachim J, Künzel J and Weber N,‘Protection of Trade Secrets through IPR and Unfair Competition Law’ (2010) AIPPI Report Question Q215, 10 <http://aippi.org/wp-content/uploads/committees/215/GR215germany_en.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  733. OECD, ‘Data-Driven Innovation: Big Data for Growth and Well-Being’ (OECD Publishing 2015) 11-15 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264229358-en> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  734. OECD, ‘Digital Economy Outlook’ (OECD Publishing 2015) 61 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264232440-en> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  735. Suthersanen U, ‘Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries’ (2006) ICTSD Issue Paper No. 13 <http://unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20066_en.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  736. The Tegernsee Group ‘Consolidated Report on the Tegernsee user consultation on substantive Patent Law Harmonization (Tegernsee V)’ (2014) <http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/harmonisation_de.html> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  737. The Tegernsee Group ‘Report on Prior User Right (Tegernsee III)’ (2012) <http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/harmonisation_de.html> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  738. ‘Data, data everywhere’ The Economist (London, 25 February 2010) <http://www.economist.com/node/15557443> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  739. ‘Huge volumes of data make real time insurance a possibility – Pay per risk’ The Economist (21 September 2017) <https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/09/21/huge-volumes-of-data-make-real-time-insurance-a-possibility> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  740. ‘News Pirating Case in Supreme Court’ The New York Times (New York, 3 May 1918) 1. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  741. ‘Where the smart is’ The Economist (San Francisco, 11 June 2016) <https://www.economist.com/news/business/21700380-connected-homes-will-take-longer-materialise-expected-where-smart> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  742. Chartrand S, ‘Patents; Many companies will forgo patents in an effort to safeguard their trade secrets’ New York Times (New York, 5 February 2001) C00005. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  743. Fontgivell C, ‘Equivalenza proyecta 20 aperturas en Estados Unidos’ Diario Expansión (Barcelona, 20 April 2015) <http://www.expansion.com/catalunya/2015/04/20/5534b784268e3ee1648b4576.html> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  744. Rand B and Severson K, ‘Recipe for Coke? One More to Add to the File’ New York Times (New York, 19 February 2011) WK3. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  745. ‘Amazon Web Service User Agreement’, para 3.1 <https://d1.awsstatic.com/legal/awsamendedCAterms/AWS%20Amended%20CA%20Terms_es.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  746. ‘Coca-Cola Moves Its Secret Formula to The World of Coca-Cola’ (The Coca-Cola Company, 8 December 2011) <http://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola-moves-its-secret-formula-to-the-world-of-coca-cola/> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  747. ‘Obama Administration unveils “Big Data” Initiative: Announces $ 200 million in new R&D investments’ (29 March 2012) <https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/big_data_press_release.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  748. Bradshaw S and others, ‘Contracts for Clouds: Comparison and Analysis of the Terms and Conditions of Cloud Computing Services’ (2010) Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 63/2010, 21-22 <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1662374> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  749. Carey F A, ‘Aromatic Compound’ The Encyclopaedia Britannica, <http://www.britannica.com/science/aromatic-compound> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  750. Cohen W, Nelson R R, Walsh J P, ‘Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)’ (2000) National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 7552 <http://www.nber.org/papers/w7552> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  751. Department for Business Innovation & Skills, ‘Non-compete clauses – Call for Evidence’ (2016) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525293/bis-16-270-non-compete-clause-call-for-evidence.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  752. Drexl J and others, ‘Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 26 April 2017 on the European Commission’s Public consultation on Building the European Data Economy’ (2017) Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 17-08 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2959924> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  753. Drexl J, ‘Designing Competitive Markets for Industrial Data – Between Propertisation and Access’ ( 2016) Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-13 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2862975> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  754. European Copyright Society, ‘Opinion on the pending reference before the CJEU in Case 310/17 (copyright protection of tastes)’ (19 February 2018) para 17 <https://europeancopyrightsocietydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ecs-opinion-on-protection-for-tastes-final1.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  755. Feldman Y, ʻBehavioral And Social Mechanisms that Undermine Legality in The Workplace: Examining The Efficacy of Trade-Secrets Laws Among Knowledge Workers in Silicon Valleyʼ (2005) Bar Ilan University Public: Law Working Paper No. 1-05, 24 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=714481> accssed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  756. Gasser U and Palfrey J, ‘Breaking Down Digital Barriers: How and When Interoperability Leads to Innovation, plus three companion case studies on DRM, Digital Identity, and Web Services’ (2007) Berkman Center Publications Series <http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2710237> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  757. Gintare S, ‘Data Mobility in the Digital Economy’ (2016) Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 16-03, 15 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2752989> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  758. Godman E and others, ‘Professors’ Letter in Opposition to the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015’ (November 17, 2015), 5 <https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/blogs/2015%20Professors%20Letter%20in%20Opposition%20to%20DTSA%20FINAL.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  759. GRUR, ‘Opinion on the proposal for a Directive on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure, COM (2013) 813 final’ (2014) <http://www.grur.org/uploads/tx_gstatement/2014-03-19_GRUR_Stellungnahme_zum_Know-how-Schutz_EN.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  760. Hall B H, Helmers C, Rogers M and Sena V, ‘The importance (or not) of patents to UK Firms’ (2013) NBER Working Paper No. 19089 <http://www.nber.org/papers/w19089> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  761. Hoss E, ‘Delays in Patent Examination and their Implications under the TRIPS Agreement’ (Master Thesis, MIPLC 2010/11) <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2166853> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  762. Hugenholtz P B, ‘Data Property: Unwelcome Guest in the House of IP’ (2017) <https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Data_property_Muenster.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  763. Hughes A and Mina A, ‘The Impact of the Patent System on SMEs’ (2010) Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge Working Paper No.411 Working Papers <https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/ipp-2011nov08-ukipo-1.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  764. Hussinger K, ‘Is Silence golden? Patent versus secrecy at the firm level, Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems’ (2005) ZEW Discussion Papers 04-78 <https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/2883.html> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  765. IFRA, ‘Comments on the Proposal for a Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know-How and Business Information (Trade Secrets)’ (2014) 2 <http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/library/tag/21005/s0> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  766. IFRA, ‘Valuable yet vulnerable: Trade Secrets in the fragrance industry’ (2013) IFRA Position Paper <www.ifraorg.org/view_document.aspx?docId=23107> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  767. IP Federation, ‘The EU Trade Secrets Directive’ (2014) Policy Paper PP04/15 <https://www.ipfederation.com/news/ip-federation-comments-on-the-compromise-text-for-the-eu-trade-secrets-directive/> 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  768. Kur A, Bently L and Ohly A, ‘Sweet Smells and a Sour Taste – The ECJ’s L'Oréal decision’ (2010) Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 09-12 2, Paper No. 10/01, 2 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1492032> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  769. Lapousterle J, Geiger C, Olszak N and Desaunettes L, ‘What protection for trade secrets in the European Union?’ (2015) Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) Research Paper No. 2015-02 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2970461> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  770. Lichtman D G, ʻHow the Law Responds to Self-Helpʼ (2004) John M. Olin Program in Law and economics Working Paper 232 <http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  771. Loukides M, ‘What is Data Science?’ (2010) <https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/what-is-data-science> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  772. Mell P and Grance T, ‘The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing’ (2011) The National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-145, 2 <https://www.nist.gov/publications/nist-definition-cloud-computing> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  773. Noller C R, ‘Chemical Comound’ The Encyclopaedia Britannica; <http://www.britannica.com/science/chemical-compound> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  774. Quaedvlieg A, ‘Copyright and Perfume: Nose, Intellect and Industry’ (2011) 6, 7 (English translation by Margaret Platt-Homme) <http://www.klosmorel.com/en/our-people/antoon-quaedvlieg/publications/copyright-and-perfume-nose-intellect-and-industry/> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  775. Risch M, ‘An Empirical Look at Trade Secret Law’s Shift from Common to Statutory Law’ (2013) Working Paper No. 2012-2008, 11-12 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1982209> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  776. Surblyte G, ‘Data as a Digital Resource’ (2016) Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper No. 16-12 <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2849303> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  777. The European Corporate Observatory, ‘A New Right To Secrecy For Companies, And A Dangerous EU Legislative Proposal Which Must Be Rejected’ (30 March 2016) <https://corporateeurope.org/power-lobbies/2016/03/trade-secrets-protection> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  778. United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office, ‘Consultation on draft regulations concerning trade secrets’ (18 February 2018) 28 <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/682184/Consultation_Trade_Secrets_Directive.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  779. Volkswagen, ‘With the aim of increasing safety in road traffic, Volkswagen will enable vehicles to communicate with each other as from 2019’ (28 June 2017) <https://www.volkswagen-media-services.com/en/detailpage/-/detail/With-the-aim-of-increasing-safety-in-road-traffic-Volkswagen-will-enable-vehicles-to-communicate-with-each-other-as-from-2019/view/5234247/7a5bbec13158edd433c6630f5ac445da> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  780. White House, ‘Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses’ (2016) <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/non-competes_report_final2.pdf> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  781. Winter R, ‘Big Data: Business Opportunities, Requirements and Oracle’s Approach’ (2011) Executive Report <http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/analystreports/infrastructure/winter-big-data-1438533.pdf.> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  782. Zaby AK, ‘Losing the lead: Patents and the disclosure requirement’ (2005) Tübinger Diskussionsbeitrag No. 296 <http://nbn.resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:21-opus-20528> accessed 15 September 2018. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975
  783. Multilateral Trade Negotiations: the Uruguay Round, Communication from Brazil (MTN.GNG/NG11/W/57). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/9783748911975

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus der Reihe "Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC Studies"
Cover des Buchs: The Relationship between Law and Biomedical Sciences in the Context of Article 53(a) of the European Patent Convention
Monographie Vollzugriff
Jurgita Randakevičiūtė-Alpman
The Relationship between Law and Biomedical Sciences in the Context of Article 53(a) of the European Patent Convention
Cover des Buchs: Personality Merchandising and the GDPR: An Insoluble Conflict?
Monographie Vollzugriff
Jingzhou Sun
Personality Merchandising and the GDPR: An Insoluble Conflict?
Cover des Buchs: Merger Regulation in Eastern and Southern Africa
Monographie Vollzugriff
Vincent Angwenyi
Merger Regulation in Eastern and Southern Africa
Cover des Buchs: Deceptive Conducts before the Patent Office
Monographie Vollzugriff
Eugenio Hoss
Deceptive Conducts before the Patent Office
Cover des Buchs: Unlocking the Right to Data Portability
Monographie Vollzugriff
Stephanie Elfering
Unlocking the Right to Data Portability

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login über Ihre Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex