Trade law Part 13 in the United States

131
LEGAL TRANSPLANTS IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS: UNDERSTANDING THE EXPORTATION OF U.S. LAW TO LATIN AMERICA
Eric Gillman
Georgetown Journal of International Law
Volume 41, Number 1, Fall 2009    p.263 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

132
Cartel output restrictions — Construction and common sense collide and particularity of “persons” tinder the Trade Practices Act 1974
I S Wylie
Australian Business Law Review
Volume 38, Number 1, February 2010    p.23 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
This article examines parallel civil and criminal prohibitions on output restrictions which came into force on 24 July 2009, extending the previous law in ss 45, 4D and 45A of the Trade Practices Act 1974. As the new cartel prohibitions are untested, the relevant principles of construction are first noted, followed by analysis and construction of the relevant parts of s 44ZZRD and following sections in the Act. Reference is made to the extent to which conduct must be directed towards particular persons to give rise to other per se contraventions of the Act to inform that construction exercise. Finally, the scope of potential overreach of the output restriction cartel prohibitions to proscribe legitimate commercial activity, and the position in other jurisdictions, is considered.

133
An Entity Sui Generis in the WTO: Taiwan’s WTO Membership and Its Trade Law Regime
Han-Wei Liu
Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology
Volume 4, Number 4, 2009    p.252-261 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

134
When is Licensing a Trade Mark Deceptive?
Paul Sumpter
New Zealand Business Law Quarterly
Volume 15, Number 4, December 2009    p.276 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
Orthodoxy suggests that the primary raison d’etre of a trade mark is to guarantee origin and, more subtly, quality. Economic reasons to do with the interests of consumers justify this function. Because licensing means the person who produces trade marked goods is not the registered owner, the law has for long been disinclined to allow the practice for fear the public would be deceived. But trade marks have always involved more than the public interest. A strong argument – based upon the reap/sow theory — favours the economic rights of trade mark owners. Recognition of licensing and transferring marks under the trade marks legislation, therefore, has over the years been gradually extended. The New Zealand Trade Marks Act 2002 made radical changes. In the new regime restrictions on dealing in trade marks have now given way to laissez-faire. But to what extent? In particular, when will a registered trade mark be rendered invalid when used by someone else with the owner’s consent? The answer will impact upon a wider issue of the possible erosion of public confidence in the registration system.

135
Select Articles on International Economic & Trade Law, Law of the Sea, and Arbitration
Meenakshi Bhan
Indian Journal of International Law
Volume 49, Number 2, April-June 2009    p.344 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

136
Restraint of Trade Law in Sport
James Johnson
Sports Law eJournal
2009 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

137
Trade Mark Law
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume 40, Number 7, 2009 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

138
Enforcing a trade mark when nobody’s confused: where the law stands after L’Oréal and Intel
Darren Meale and Joel Smith
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
Volume 5, Number 2, February 2010    p.96-104 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

139
Trade Secret Law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Two Problems and Two Solutions
Kyle W. Brenton
University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy
Volume 2009, Issue 2, Fall 2009    p.429 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

140
CAVEAT ARBITRER: THE U.S.-PERU TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT, PERUVIAN ARBITRATION LAW, AND THE EXTENSION OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT TO NON-SIGNATORIES. HAS PERU GONE TOO FAR?
Rafael T Boza
Currents: International Trade Law Journal
Volume 17, Number 2, Summer 2009    p.65 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

141
THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION: POTENTIAL BIAS, HOLD-UP, AND THE NEED FOR REFORM
William Dolan
Duke Law & Technology Review
Volume 2009, Articles 1-11 LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW
The International Trade Commission (ITC) is an alternate venue for holders of U.S. patents to pursue litigation against infringing products produced abroad and imported to the United States. Because the ITC may only grant injunctive relief, it has awarded injunctions in situations where there may have been better and more efficient remedies to the infringement available through litigation in federal district court. The increased likelihood of injunctive relief bolsters the position of patent holders against a wide range of producers in royalty negotiations and can harm the end consumers through a process known as “patent hold-up.” There are currently sweeping and aggressive proposed reforms to reduce this harm to consumers. This iBrief suggests that the optimal reforms would not change the overall structure or scope of the ITC or its jurisdiction. Rather it would harmonize the substantive law, available defenses for respondents, and requirements for injunctive relief between ITC proceedings and litigation in federal district court.