Abstract In Turkish law, pursuant to Industrial Property Code No. 6769, a request for the revocation of a trade mark must first be filed before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office. The Office’s decision is subject to judicial review. Although this procedure does not entirely eliminate the right of access to a court, it weakens the effectiveness of the right to a fair trial due to the prolonged duration of the process, high costs and restrictions on the submission of new evidence. In cases where commercial activities are heavily dependent on trade marks, such procedural complications may undermine legal certainty and create significant economic uncertainty. A comparative analysis reveals that the legal systems of the European Union, Spain and Germany provide more flexible and efficient solutions. In EU and Spanish law, the complementary design of administrative and judicial remedies strengthens the right of access to a court. In the German legal system, the possibility of choosing between administrative and judicial remedies for the revocation of trade marks not only broadens the scope of judicial review but also promotes the resolution of disputes within a reasonable time. This comparison indicates that the current model governing trade mark revocation in Turkish law requires reconsideration. Adopting the dual-track approach embraced under German law would reinforce the right to seek legal remedies and provide a more balanced and effective protection of the right to a fair trial.

Abstract The article compares mechanisms for resolving online copyright disputes concerning user-uploaded content in selected EU and common law systems. It examines the EU standard under Article 17(9) of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 (DSM) (situated within the broader EU digital acquis, including the Digital Services Act, and relevant CJEU case law) and its national implementations in Germany and France, and contrasts these with notice-and-takedown under safe harbour regimes in the USA and Australia. Applying a uniform set of evaluative criteria—accessibility and efficiency (timeframes, costs and transparency), independence and impartiality in decision-making, safeguards for lawful uses and anti-abuse measures—the article identifies two overarching paradigms. The EU model treats disputes primarily through a complaint-and-redress mechanism centred on expeditious handling, free access and human review at the complaint stage, with Germany adding ex ante lawful-use safeguards and anti-abuse tools, and France complementing the internal stage with an external review pathway before Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique. The US and Australian systems follow a safe harbour notice-and-takedown paradigm shaped by liability incentives for rapid takedown, with safeguards for lawful uses and abuse control operating largely ex post through counter-notice and misrepresentation rules. Australia remains close to the US model but improves accessibility through statutory forms and a ‘substantial compliance’ standard. The analysis develops a set of regulatory choices for improving online copyright dispute resolution. Building on the comparative findings, the article proposes a hybrid model combining enforceable time limits, standardized submissions and information duties, an accessible and functionally independent external review component, and anti-abuse measures combining liability for misrepresentation with proportionate procedural consequences for repeated misuse.

Abstract Although the adaptation right has been explicitly harmonized in the Software Directive and the Database Directive, there is no such explicit harmonization in Directive 2001/29. Because of the absent explicit harmonization, the literature is divided on the question whether the adaptation right is harmonized in Directive 2001/29. The central research question of this article is therefore whether the adaptation right is harmonized in Directive 2001/29.

Abstract The most common way to protect the rights arising from a trademark is to register the trademark. However, this registration may not be sufficient to protect the trademark owner in some aspects. In such cases, it is possible to protect the rightholders by insuring the trademark. This article explains trademark insurance under Turkish law and addresses some potential issues that may arise.

Abstract While there has been extensive consideration of whether generative artificial intelligence (GAI) developers infringe copyright when scraping online works to train their systems, there has been limited analysis of the legal status and treatment of the underlying shadow libraries, which facilitate such infringement. ‘Shadow libraries’ are vast online repositories of textual content, the majority of which are copyrighted works that have been compiled without permission. The objective of this paper is to develop effective copyright datasets laws that calibrate the protection of author rights with the support of GAI innovation. The paper begins by developing a three-step test (author incentives, access to works and public interest) for determining what constitutes ‘effective’ copyright law in the AI era. Applying this three-step test to the selected case of Australian copyright law, the paper advocates for the implementation of a modified version of the European Union’s copyright exception for text and data mining to provide GAI developers with broader legitimate access to works, with opt-out provisions preserving author rights. Additionally, a more clearly defined requirement that copied works be ‘lawfully accessible’ would operate to exclude pirated works being scraped from shadow libraries. The paper further recommends accompanying mandatory disclosure obligations to assist rightsholders to identify and prosecute extractions of their works from shadow libraries for AI training. It is hoped that this multifaceted and nuanced suite of recommended reforms will provide insights to law and policy makers globally who are seeking to design copyright laws for AI datasets.

Abstract Increasing the affordability of repair choices and participation of independent service providers is at the core of the recently adopted Directive 2024/1799 on common rules promoting the repair of goods, which is part of the EU legislative agenda fostering the transition to a competitive, climate-neutral and circular economy. This article takes a critical look at the scope of the Directive 2024/1799 and specifically into the ‘obligation to repair’ and its relationship with the protection of intellectual property (IP). The obligation to repair binds primarily manufacturers of certain type of products, namely those under ‘repairability requirements’ that are laid down by a distinct body of regulatory measures. Its goal is to facilitate access to spare parts, repair tools and manuals so that a wider choice of repair options is available to consumers. The article analyses the mandatory nature of the obligation to repair and its practical consequences. The main shortcoming identified is derived from the legal possibility conferred on manufacturers to impede repair by various means if justified by the protection of IP. The article focuses on the issues of ‘spare parts’ and ‘repair’ to demonstrate the difficulty of meeting the IP-compliance requirement if a party that uses a spare part within the ambit of the ‘obligation of repair’ under Directive 2024/1799 were to relate to the design repair clause. This example supports the argument that the most likely effect of the Directive 2024/1799 is that repairing products set under the repairability requirements will be possible on the market yet will remain under the terms and control of the manufacturers.

Abstract Reasonable royalty analysis in patent litigation often involves apportioning value between the licensor and licensee based on their relative contributions to the invention’s commercialization. Comparable licenses are often considered for this purpose under the Market Approach. However, apportionment of profits determined through an Income Approach or Cost Approach has proven challenging over the years, with methodologies like the 25 percent Rule and Nash Bargaining rejected by the courts for lacking economic rigour and specificity to case facts. This article introduces the Reasonable Profit Approach, a fact-specific and economically sound methodology to address these issues. The Reasonable Profit Approach uses a three-step process: (i) determining the Apportioned Market Value generated by the implemented invention, (ii) calculating related Incremental Profit, and (iii) deriving Reasonable Profit and Royalty based on a reasonable and acceptable profit allocation to the licensee and licensor. Grounded in economic principles and consistent with case law, this approach has been successfully applied in numerous cases without admissibility challenges. By offering a robust solution, this article provides experts with a practical framework for profit apportionment in reasonable royalty analysis.

This article examines two recent copyright law cases in Lithuania, where rightholders attempted to enforce their rights against online copyright pirates.These cases exposed essential limitations and difficulties in interpreting IP enforcement rules under Directive 2004/48/EC (IPRED) and the pertinent national copyright law.While the rightholders ultimately won both cases, the legal victories proved to be Pyrrhic.The courts delivered very restrictive interpretations of the substantive rules, which proved discouraging and disproportionately costly for any rightholder attempting to enforce their copyright against online infringers.• This article examines the key rules of IPRED that relate to these cases and discusses how they were interpreted and applied by the judiciary.As a result, the limitations of these rules and inconsistencies in their interpretation by national courts become apparent.• The article highlights the urgent need for clarification of IP enforcement rules in the European Union, particularly focusing on the status, purpose and scope of the general obligation and the broad interpretation of IPRED.In the author's opinion, this approach will efficiently align the national implementation of that directive with the evolving online piracy landscape, without necessitating major legislative reforms.

... France, Germany and the UK are signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Article 50(1) of TRIPs envisages that national courts shall have the authority to order prompt and effective provisional measures to prevent an infringement of any IP right from occurring. TRIPs also prescribes that courts shall have the authority to require the applicant to provide reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the right holder and that the applicant’s right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent.1 Except for these requirements, TRIPs does not provide any additional criteria for the availability of preliminary injunctions in adversarial proceedings. Following a similar pattern, in the European Union, Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of IP rights (the Enforcement Directive) also contains open-ended provisions. Article 9(1) of the Directive obliges the Member States to ensure that the judicial authorities may issue against the alleged infringer an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an IP right, to forbid the continuation of the alleged infringements of that right or to make such continuation subject to the lodging of guarantees intended to ensure the compensation of the rightholder. Like TRIPs, the Enforcement Directive stipulates that courts shall have the authority to require the applicant to provide any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the rightholder and that the applicant's right is being infringed, or that such infringement is imminent.2 Again similarly to TRIPs, the Enforcement Directive subjects preliminary injunctions to the non-specificity and leaves to the Member States considerable leeway for implementation at the national level.