Well-known trade marks, foreign investment and local industry : a comparison of China and Indonesia

Strengthened protection for well-known trade marks in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement is an important issue for developing countries, which has led to trade pressures from industrialised nations in the past. ‘Trade mark squatting’, referring to the registration in bad faith of foreign well-known marks in order to sell them back to their original owners, is a much discussed phenomenon in this context. This article outlines the history and development of well-known trade marks and the applicable law in China and Indonesia. It looks not just at foreign and international brands subjected to ‘trade mark squatting’, but also at how local enterprises are using the system. Rather remarkably in view of the countries’ turbulent histories, local well-known marks have a long history and are well respected for their range of products. They are not normally affected by the ‘trade mark squatting’ phenomenon and are rarely the subject of disputes. Enhanced protection under the TRIPS Agreement is especially relevant for international brands and the article shows the approaches in the two countries. In China, government incentives assist the proliferation of nationally well-known and locally ‘famous’ marks. In Indonesia, lack of implementing legislation has left the matter of recognition to the discretion of the courts.

Unravelling the muddles of summary dismissal under contracts of employment

This article seeks to address some fundamental errors in the application of contract law to disputes involving the summary dismissal of employees. The pre-existing law which arose out of the master servant era was not absorbed by the contract paradigm. Instead, remnants of the law remained and is still applied today. The decision of Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner (2015) 229 FCR 221 demonstrates this where the court relied upon concepts arising out of that time to justify the employer's decision to summarily dismiss an employee. The article also considers some more practical matters if the law was to be modernised to accord more strictly with contract principles. It may not necessarily lead to different outcomes, but it will lead to a more cohesive set of principles and avoid the often jumbled terminology used in employment law disputes.

Taking statutory adjudication to the next level: a proposal for review mechanism of erroneous determinations

Statutory adjudication was introduced in the security of payment legislation to quickly and fairly resolve payment disputes in the construction industry. One of the interesting features in some legislation is the availability of an express limited right of aggrieved parties to apply for review against erroneous adjudication decisions. In Singapore, the legislation has no equivalent elsewhere in that it provides for a full review mechanism of erroneous determinations considering the fact that adjudicators often have to grapple with complex issues as sheer volume of documents within a very tight timeframe. This paper discusses the various review mechanisms of erroneous adjudication determinations then asks the question as to whether an appropriately devised legislative review mechanism on the merits, should be an essential characteristic of any effective statutory adjudication scheme. The paper concludes by making the case that an appropriately designed review mechanism as proposed in the paper could be the most pragmatic and effective measure to improve the quality of adjudication outcome and increase the disputants' confidence in statutory adjudication. This paper is based upon a paper by the author which received a High Commendation in the Student Division of the Society of Construction Law Australia Brooking Prize for 2016.

Supersession of the senior-most judges in Bangladesh in appointing the chief justice and the other judges of the appellate division of the supreme court : a convenient means to a politicized bench

The Constitution of Bangladesh has provided the President with the unfettered power to appoint the Chief Justice of Bangladesh. However, the President is required by the Constitution to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Chief Justice, in appointing the puisne judges of the Supreme Court - the apex court of the nation. This Article finds that in the absence of any specific constitutional provisions specifying that the senior-most judge of the Appellate Division - the higher Division of the Supreme Court - should be appointed as the Chief Justice, a convention to this effect was developed for ensuring that extraneous considerations did not play a part in the pivotal appointment of the Chief Justice. In the same vein, a convention of appointing the senior-most judges of the High Court Division, which is the lower Division of the Supreme Court, as the judges of the Appellate Division was developed. But both these conventions have been transgressed at regular intervals by succeeding generations of executives, particularly by the current one, for politicizing the superior judiciary of the nation, thereby undermining its credibility in the eyes of the litigants as an impartial arbitrator of disputes. Accordingly, this article concludes that in order to exclude the possibility of appointments on extraneous considerations, the principles of appointing the Chief Justice and the other judges of the Appellate Division on the basis of seniority should be inserted in the Constitution by means of an amendment.