The significance of food is beyond its gastronomic value. Food symbolises a community's enriched past and holds cultural expressions and traditional knowledge. The linkage of food with religious beliefs, geo-climatic factors, social standards, and various health benefits builds the reputation of the food, which is essentially attributable to its geographic origin. Following the ratification of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the contracting states that have enacted Geographical Indications (GI) legislation (particularly those in Asia) have come forward to protect foodstuffs as GI in order to safeguard their communities and their traditional knowledge associated with foodstuffs. Against this background, the present article attempts to compare foodstuff GIs in eight selected Asian countries with a sui generis system of GI protection as TRIPS compliance. The comparative analysis of the evolution and scope of foodstuff protection, pre-registration and post-registration impact, and quality maintenance provides important insights into convergence and divergence among the selected Asian countries. The study further identifies policy implications for the sustenance of GI.

From the size of A4 paper to 5G in the telecommunications sector, standards are ubiquitous. Standard essential patents (SEPs), which protect technology essential to standards, enable their proprietors to gain significant market power. Antitrust authorities therefore scrutinize the exercise of SEPs for breaches of competition law. In this regard, the ability of SEP proprietors to obtain injunctions against implementers as a remedy for infringement of SEPs where licensing negotiations have broken down or are ‘ongoing’ has proven controversial. Some fear that this enables SEP proprietors to threaten injunctions unless implementers agree to unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory terms. In Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:477, the Court of Justice of the European Union identified circumstances where a SEP proprietor's application for injunctive relief as a remedy for infringement of its SEP constitutes an abuse of a dominant position, with the classification of the SEP proprietor's application as being abusive forming a ‘FRAND Defence’ which implementers may invoke against the grant of the injunction requested. This article analyzes whether this approach can be replicated by the Singapore Courts and whether the Chinese Courts, which have already dealt with SEP licensing disputes, adopt a similar approach.

This paper highlights two recurring facets of the way UK courts approach the construction of patent claims: the adoption of methods typically applied to the interpretation of contracts and the recognition that immaterial variations not expressly claimed nevertheless fall within the scope of protection. Drawing on the normative implications arising out of Ronald Coase's paper on the problem of social cost, this paper argues that the patent system operates as a substitute for an explicit bargain between economically active entities operating in the market under which a duty is accepted by one party in return for acceptance of a burden of risk by the other. This perspective incorporates both the static costs and the dynamic benefits of the system and accords with the monopoly-profit-incentive theory most commonly advanced in support of the patent system. It is shown how the contemporary approach to claims construction is supported by the object of giving effect to the presumed intentions of the parties to this hypothetical bargain and that this underpins both the implication of terms which go beyond those expressly agreed to by parties to a contract and the construction of patent claims so as to embrace immaterial variations not expressly within their scope.

‘Revenge pornography’ is a concept which embraces a broad spectrum of the non-consensual distribution of private sexual images. Acknowledging the harms that arise from this practice and the human rights implications of ‘revenge pornography’, this paper focuses on the difficulty of removing those images from the Internet. It considers the legal vehicles which can be employed to force websites and third-party operators to remove private sexual images, including privacy law and copyright notice and takedown systems. It concludes that the piecemeal approach to image removal is insufficient, and that a more cohesive and appropriate approach to image removal is required to ensure that victim-survivors’ rights to private and family life are properly protected.

In its ruling in IMS Health, the European Court of Justice formulates four cumulative conditions to test whether there has been abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC in the case of a refusal to license an intellectual property right (IPR). The Community courts only find an abuse of dominance in cases of non-licensing of an IPR in ‘exceptional circumstances’. The four conditions are an elaboration of this main criterion, and they revolve around the elements of ‘indispensability’, ‘new product’, ‘exclusion of all competition’ and ‘objective grounds for a licence refusal’.

However, the judgment leaves several questions unanswered, such as on the requirement of the introduction of a new product and on the issue whether the conditions stipulated are (equally) applicable in all competition cases in which IPRs play a central role. In the Microsoft case, currently pending before the Court of First Instance, the Community judicature will have to deal with these questions once more.

One of the situations in which a different interpretation might pertain to the main criterion of ‘exceptional circumstances’, an interpretation that tends more towards a general ‘essential facilities’ approach combined with elements of the ‘leverage theory’, concerns the field of information technology and software development. This scenario involves cases in which a software producer is asked to release certain information to enable other software products to connect with its operating system. The question is whether a small part of an innovation protected by intellectual property law should be disclosed to a competitor. With such information, it would be possible for that competitor to market his own software product. It is important, of course, that the information provided should not represent an essential part of the core activity or functionality of the licensee's product.