999 resultados para Names, Geographical


Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Issued in 25 pts. Pt. 1: Inledning, by Ivar Lundahl, issued by Kungl. Ortnamnskommissionen; pts. 2-25, by Kungl. Ortnamnskommittén.

Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Mode of access: Internet.

Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Title varies slightly; some issues <1951-> have title: Cumulative decision list.

Relevância:

40.00% 40.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

This paper examines the dispute between the Seattle company Virtual Countries Inc. and the Republic of South Africa over the ownership of the domain name address southafrica.com. The first part of the paper deals with the pre-emptive litigation taken by Virtual Countries Inc. in a District Court of the United States. The second part considers the possible arbitration of the dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and examines the wider implications of this dispute for the jurisdiction and the governance of ICANN. The final section of the paper evaluates the Final Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.

Relevância:

40.00% 40.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Marketing of goods under geographical names has always been common. Aims to prevent abuse have given rise to separate forms of legal protection for geographical indications (GIs) both nationally and internationally. The European Community (EC) has also gradually enacted its own legal regime to protect geographical indications. The legal protection of GIs has traditionally been based on the idea that geographical origin endows a product exclusive qualities and characteristics. In today s world we are able to replicate almost any prod-uct anywhere, including its qualities and characteristics. One would think that this would preclude protec-tion from most geographical names, yet the number of geographical indications seems to be rising. GIs are no longer what they used to be. In the EC it is no longer required that a product is endowed exclusive characteristics by its geographical origin as long as consumers associate the product with a certain geo-graphical origin. This departure from the traditional protection of GIs is based on the premise that a geographical name extends beyond and exists apart from the product and therefore deserves protection itself. The thesis tries to clearly articulate the underlying reasons, justifications, principles and policies behind the protection of GIs in the EC and then scrutinise the scope and shape of the GI system in the light of its own justifications. The essential questions it attempts to aswer are (1) What is the basis and criteria for granting GI rights? (2) What is the scope of protection afforded to GIs? and (3) Are these both justified in the light of the functions and policies underlying granting and protecting of GIs? Despite the differences, the actual functions of GIs are in many ways identical to those of trade marks. Geographical indications have a limited role as source and quality indicators in allowing consumers to make informed and efficient choices in the market place. In the EC this role is undermined by allowing able room and discretion for uses that are arbitrary. Nevertheless, generic GIs are unable to play this role. The traditional basis for justifying legal protection seems implausible in most case. Qualities and charac-teristics are more likely to be related to transportable skill and manufacturing methods than the actual geographical location of production. Geographical indications are also incapable of protecting culture from market-induced changes. Protection against genericness, against any misuse, imitation and evocation as well as against exploiting the reputation of a GI seem to be there to protect the GI itself. Expanding or strengthening the already existing GI protection or using it to protect generic GIs cannot be justified with arguments on terroir or culture. The conclusion of the writer is that GIs themselves merit protection only in extremely rare cases and usually only the source and origin function of GIs should be protected. The approach should not be any different from one taken in trade mark law. GI protection should not be used as a means to mo-nopolise names. At the end of the day, the scope of GI protection is nevertheless a policy issue.

Relevância:

40.00% 40.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Over a century of fi shery and oceanographic research conducted along the Atlantic coast of the United States has resulted in many publications using unofficial, and therefore unclear, geographic names for certain study areas. Such improper usage, besides being unscholarly, has and can lead to identification problems for readers unfamiliar with the area. Even worse, the use of electronic data bases and search engines can provide incomplete or confusing references when improper wording is used. The two terms used improperly most often are “Middle Atlantic Bight” and “South Atlantic Bight.” In general, the term “Middle Atlantic Bight” usually refers to an imprecise coastal area off the middle Atlantic states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, and the term “South Atlantic Bight” refers to the area off the southeastern states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida’s east coast.