Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

23 results

Page 1 of 2

  • 18 - Certification and Collective Marks in the United States
  • from V - Certification and Collective Marks
  • Edited by Irene Calboli, Jane C. Ginsburg
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law
  • Published online: 18 September 2020
  • Print publication: 24 September 2020, pp 308-321
  • View extract

    Summary

    This chapter will discuss certification (and, to a lesser extent, collective) marks, which comprise an increasingly important proportion of marks in use within interstate and international commerce.1 Unlike trademarks and service marks, which serve primarily as indicators of source, certification marks have other acknowledged functions in trademark law and policy. For example, certification marks in the United States exist “to certify regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of such person’s goods or services or that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization.”2 According to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), “a certification mark … inform[s] purchasers that the goods or services of a person possess certain characteristics or meet certain qualifications or standards established by another person. [It] does not indicate origin in a single commercial or proprietary source the way a trademark or service mark does.”3

  • Remarks by Margaret Chon
  • Margaret Chon
  • Journal: Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting / Volume 114 / 2020
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 March 2021, pp. 314-316
  • Print publication: 2020
  • View extract

    Thanks to Professor Dreyfuss for this invitation and to Professor Rutschman for her thought-provoking paper. Professor Rutschman is deeply engaged with the law of pharmaceutical innovation. And she is also deeply committed to a public health perspective. For many reasons, the two domains often speak past each other. Her paper provides a basis for shared vocabulary if not a common language.

  • 12 - Innovation Law and Policy Choices for Climate Change-Related Public–Private Partnerships
  • from Part III - Environmental Issues: Green Technologies and Agriculture
  • Edited by Margaret Chon, Pedro Roffe, Ahmed Abdel-Latif
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Public-Private Partnerships, Intellectual Property Governance, and Sustainable Development
  • Published online: 14 September 2018
  • Print publication: 20 September 2018, pp 245-288
  • View extract

    Summary

    This chapter addresses choices that government policy-makers, private actors, and certain public-private partnerships (PPPs) must make following the Paris Agreement. It discusses the global inequalities that are likely to result from existing unequal patterns of creation and distribution of climate change technologies and associated IP ownership rights. It discusses how costs of accessing climate change technologies protected by IP rights may further exacerbate the current unequal impacts and differential climate change obligations of countries. It presents a typology of public-sector choices in innovation funding and explains how these basic policies may affect the nature, direction, and roles of PPPs in the climate change and energy development domains. It explains why geographical imbalances of wealth and innovation capacity may pose serious problems for technology transfer, particularly when attempting to leverage PPP efforts across jurisdictional borders. It proposes 3 approaches to overcoming the constraints that may result from public-sector policies that rely primarily on PPPs, on private markets, and on IP rights to fund development and transfer of climate change-related technologies.
  • 19 - The Triple Interface: Findings and Future Directions
  • from Conclusion
  • Edited by Margaret Chon, Pedro Roffe, Ahmed Abdel-Latif
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Public-Private Partnerships, Intellectual Property Governance, and Sustainable Development
  • Published online: 14 September 2018
  • Print publication: 20 September 2018, pp 425-438
  • View extract

    Summary

    This book explores and analyzes key areas of public-private partnership (PPP) involvement across a variety of development fields—the ‘triple interface’ of PPPs, intellectual property, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The final chapter provides a partial synthesis, situating the various contributions within a global knowledge governance framework - that is, by evaluating whether and how PPPs encourage innovation, build innovation capacity, engage in technology transfer or sharing, or otherwise ensure wide dissemination and diffusion of innovation results across borders to advance the progress of the SDGs. Based on the evidence presented in this book, this chapter summarizes findings according to four thematic sections: aligning with public policy objectives; coordinating with other knowledge governance efforts; managing the partnership boundaries; and enhancing sustainable development. After this summary, which is illustrated with references to specific chapters, the chapter concludes with suggestions for a future policy and research agenda.

Page 1 of 2