Search

Copyright of Computer und Recht is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Encouraging innovation by rewarding pharmaceutical patent holders is a key to societal progress, given mandatory disclosure and adequate reimbursement. Following debate on fair prices from a competition law perspective, the recent Health Trade Assessment Regulation provides Member States with a harmonized tool to help them set prices in a more sustainable way. This article discusses the extent to which the Regulation will provide comprehensive access to healthcare as an expression of patient welfare, framing the debate in terms of sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the European Union has been pursuing media policy for decades, its legal competence for the media sector remains limited. Since its inception in the 1980s, the EU had to base its media policy on its responsibility to enforce the internal market and the direct application of competition law, which has led to a one-sided economic perspective on the media. With references to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the enshrinement of European values in the EU Treaty, the rule of law mechanism, and driven by the European Parliament, the EU Commission has recently shown a new direction in its media-related activities, which acknowledge the important role of the media in democracy and increasingly place media freedom and media pluralism at the center of its media policy. The draft European Media Freedom Act presented by the Commission in autumn 2022 brings together the numerous activities aimed at protecting the freedom of the media and their independence, and at the same time seems to test the limits of the scope for its media policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explains the historical development of Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention and discusses core concepts underlying the international provision, in particular, the overarching requirement of honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, the question of a competitive relationship and the examples of unfair practices given in Article 10 bis. It also sheds light on guidance following from the Model Provisions on Protection Against Unfair Competition which the World Intellectual Property Organization presented in 1996. The analysis shows that the honest practices test need not be understood in a traditional, empirical sense. More modern, functional approaches can be adopted to align the application of Article 10 bis with a broader spectrum of policy goals: not only fair play between competitors but also consumer protection and the general public interest in a well-functioning marketplace. Similarly, the requirement of a competitive relationship need not focus on direct competition in the same market segment. An indirect competitive relationship can be deemed sufficient. While the prohibited acts listed in Article 10 bis (3) reflect central categories of unfair behaviour and harm, current developments and challenges—ranging from computational advertising, influencer marketing and product recommender systems to questions surrounding data exclusivity and sustainability issues—raise the question whether an update and enrichment of the catalogue of prohibited acts could be necessary to provide guidance at the international level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some Arab countries incorporate unfair competition clauses within their IP laws, while others address these issues through separate legal frameworks, adding complexity to the legal landscape. The crucial distinction between clauses filling gaps in IP laws and the broader concept of unfair competition is vital for establishing a clear and comprehensive legal environment conducive to sustained innovation and equitable business practices. Fortifying IP protection and safeguards against unfair competition in the Arab region can unlock the full potential of its innovation narrative. This approach fosters an environment where creativity thrives, securely anchored in legal principles. Viewing unfair competition rules not as replacements but as complementary measures enhances overall protection. By aligning these rules with the ongoing wave of innovation, the Arab world can establish a framework that not only attracts talents but also ensures a harmonious balance between fostering creativity and safeguarding IP rights. This presents a promising avenue for the collective pursuit of progress and prosperity in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The general concepts of free trade and unfair competition are regulated by Andean Community decisions. National legislation provides more detailed regulations. Andean Community Decision 608 promotes and protects free competition across the region. The scope of application of this Decision is limited to practices that have origin and effects in one or more Andean Community countries. Local transactions within the country must observe internal legislation. While Andean law covers cross-border transactions, intra-country operations are governed by local bodies of law. There are yet not many decisions at the Andean level, but the local agencies in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru have issued several decisions that dig into the different elements of unfair acts. The following analysis provides an overview of protection against unfair competition in the region and sheds light on current developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article summarizes the current status of protection against unfair competition in 19 Member States of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) as well as South Africa. Since several study countries are Member States to at least one Regional Economic Community (RECs) or customs union, which have introduced regional or sub-regional competition regimes to advance regional integration in this area, the relevant RECs and customs unions are also briefly analysed. This is followed by some reflections on the impact of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the AfCFTA's recently adopted Phase II protocols on Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy. The article then examines the different approaches adopted in the study countries to fulfil the obligation to ensure effective protection against unfair competition, as stipulated in Article 10bis(1) of the Paris Convention (PC), and investigates how the concept of 'honest practices in industrial or commercial matters' (Article 10bis(2) PC) is interpreted and applied. The article also explores how study countries have implemented the examples of prohibited acts of unfair competition contained in Article 10bis(3) PC, and addresses the question whether additional acts fall within the scope of protection against unfair competition in the study countries. The findings here are presented in such a way that observations from several countries are typically clustered together to exemplify general approaches and categories. The article observes that while countries in the region typically provide some form of legal protection to safeguard fair play in the business sector, study countries represent a variety of legal systems (civil law, common law, a combination of civil law and common law and/or religious law). This influences the way of how they address unfair competition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an overview of the complex interplay between harmonized rules of unfair competition law at EU level and national approaches in the Member States. It discusses case law, sheds light on the objectives underlying protection against unfair competition and describes intersections with intellectual property rights. The analysis addresses general clauses that allow unfair competition law in the EU to keep pace with constantly changing marketing practices. It discusses the concept of confusion from a comparative trademark and unfair competition law perspective. Moreover, misleading practices, discrediting and denigrating allegations, slavish imitation, unfair free-riding, trade secret rules and transparency obligations will be explored. The analysis includes recent extensions of the canon of unfair competition rules, in particular in the field of product rankings within search results, influencer marketing and greenwashing. Particular attention will also be devoted to the growing body of transparency obligations in online marketing contexts, including obligations in the area of targeted behavioural advertising that follow from the Digital Services Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both the United States and Canada present unfair competition law in a way that is complex and indicative of their kindred beginnings. Sharing a closely paralleled history in the development of unfair competition law, these countries exhibit unique similarities in both substance and approach, likely not found in any other jurisdiction. Born out of English common law, the early trajectory of unfair competition was inextricably linked to trade mark law. Both countries' legislatures passed ambitious trade mark statutes that created federal regulation of certain areas of unfair competition, while also reserving large areas for the state or provincial legislatures to regulate. Claimants therefore navigate substantial variety in unfair competition protections depending on the cause of action. Even so, obligations under international agreements such as the Paris Convention and interaction with other bodies of law further extend the unfair competition legal landscape. Despite its complexity, the United States and Canada share remarkably similar paths to unfair competition protection. Understanding their history, limited national legislative powers, policy rationales, obligations under international agreements and the interplay between federal and state or provincial law create a rich and multifaceted unfair competition landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the question of overlap in unfair competition law in Japan and Korea and discusses whether the introduction of a general clause could address the problem of overlap. Positive laws regulating unfair competition in Japan and Korea have adopted a similar set of rules based on specific conduct regulation, with some variation. Notably, Korean law now prohibits the unfair use of another's achievement based on an open clause, complementing the specific list of prohibited conduct. The article first presents an overview of unfair competition law in Japan and Korea, highlighting the requirements for protection and limitations, and then explores the problem of overlapping claims surrounding data misappropriation. Contrasting the legislative techniques used by Japan and Korea, this article notes that an open norm may provide the judiciary with an interpretative tool to dynamically address emerging unfair conduct. However, as there is a danger of limiting free competition and potential internal inconsistencies, to avoid asymmetric convergence, open norms should be carefully coordinated with specific conduct prohibitions, with clear prioritization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the interpretation of confusion and the consequences it has on legal action, considering its compliance with the international framework and with regard to the case law of the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) Member States. It argues that provisions of the Bangui Agreement (2015), in particular Annex VIII on unfair competition, are in compliance with international agreements, and the substantial interpretation of confusion made by the case law of the OAPI countries is appropriate. Although OAPI statutory bodies have the possibility to appreciate likelihood of confusion, only the judicial judges have the ultimate authority to give a binding interpretation. When confusion concerns a registered intellectual property right (IPR), a plaintiff can introduce both an action for infringement and an action for unfair competition, or only one of these actions. However, the action for unfair competition has a larger spectrum; it can be introduced even when there is no registered IPR, provided that a separate fault is demonstrated, in combination with the other constitutive elements of unfair competition. Reference made by judges either to national civil liability provisions, to Annex VIII, or to both provisions, as the legal basis of the action for unfair competition, should be harmonized in favour of Annex VIII, even if, in practice, it has not proved to be damaging for any litigant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In keeping with other common law jurisdictions, India lacks a unified legal basis for protection against unfair competition. There is no single legislative reference point, or standalone tort of unfair competition. India instead offers up a menu of specific statutory options, common law torts and the equitable action against a breach of confidence, to satisfy its international obligations to prevent unfair competition. There have been two noteworthy developments in recent years: (i) the tort of malicious falsehood has gradually abandoned a strict malice requirement, such that (objectively assessed) disparaging advertising is now actionable; and (ii) an emerging right of publicity, to prevent image misappropriation, is taking shape but its foundations are unclear. One (non)development also deserves closer scrutiny. A claim drafting trend has emerged whereby plaintiffs petition courts to prevent 'unfair competition', or 'misappropriation'. This implies that a nominate tort of unfair competition, or one of misappropriation, exists in Indian law. However, when directly approached to create a tort against misappropriation per se , Indian courts have declined this invitation, based on compelling reasons. Both litigants and courts need to be more careful in their use of such terminology. As things presently stand, there is no tort of unfair competition, nor of misappropriation, in Indian law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia, New Zealand and other South Pacific countries whose laws are based on English law tend to rely on a patchwork of intellectual property statutes, equitable doctrines and common law actions to prevent acts of unfair competition. The most distinctive feature of the laws of these countries is their reliance on consumer protection statutes that contain broadly worded prohibitions on parties engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, in addition to the tort of passing off, to safeguard against unfair competition. This article traces the complex relationship between passing off and consumer protection statutes in Australia, New Zealand and throughout the South Pacific. It shows how the actions have come to have a largely mixed or merged operation that seeks to balance interests in protecting trading reputation, in ensuring that consumers are not deceived, and in leaving space for competitors, especially given the limits of intellectual property statutes and other doctrines. It does so in the course of providing a detailed explanation of how Australia, New Zealand and other countries in the region give effect to their obligations under Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article delves into the emergence of 'new types of unfair competition' in China, propelled by the rapid development of the digital economy. It primarily focuses on 'Internet Provision' and the proposed 'Data Provision'. Notably, China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law, enacted in 1993, underwent its first significant revision after a span of 24 years, leading to the introduction of the 'Internet Provision'. However, the typology of these provisions presented evident flaws, resulting in the frequent invocation of the 'catch-all clause' by the courts since its implementation. This lack of specific categorization for unfair competition in the Internet domain has led to the courts heavily relying on Article 2 of the 'Anti-Unfair Competition Law', which is regarded as a general provision. Unfortunately, this approach has given rise to convoluted reasoning, unstable outcomes and excessive judicial intervention in commercial competition matters. To address these issues, the newly proposed 'data clause' aims to reestablish clear typification. Nevertheless, it contains semantic ambiguities in its specific expression. More importantly, while the proposed rules consider the cost of public access to information, they do not sufficiently safeguard freedom of information. The lack of well-defined boundaries for data scraping tends to overly favour the original platforms that control the data. Confronting this novel form of unfair competition, it is crucial for codified law countries to endeavour to typify unfair competition acts. However, in designing the legal system, due consideration should be given to the principle of 'competitive neutrality' meaning that excessive judicial coercion and interference in the Internet competition landscape should be avoided to ensure a level playing field. The law's role is to establish clear parameters while allowing for technical solutions to address many of the arising problems. Therefore, it is essential to define a precise and consistent standard. This paper argues against an overly broad recognition of 'new unfair competition behaviour', as it may hinder market entry and stifle innovation in the long run. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK lacks a unified legal basis for the prevention of unfair competition. Instead, the UK offers up an unfair competition menu consisting of individual torts or equitable wrongs (primarily passing off, injurious falsehood, defamation and the breach of confidence), the prohibition of misleading practices under consumer protection law, trade mark law and codes of advertising regulation. In terms of their cumulative coverage, these regimes overlap considerably with the protection available under civilian unfair competition regimes. It is therefore more accurate to say that the UK has laws against unfair competition. But are they cumulatively sufficient? This article evaluates one important facet of this question—whether the UK approach complies with relevant international treaty obligations contained in Article10 bis of the Paris Convention—concluding that it does. The basis for this conclusion is the detailed analysis of international unfair competition prevention obligations contained in WTO Dispute Settlement Panel Report, Australia—Tobacco Plain Packaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the unfair competition main practices in the MERCOSUR countries and the challenges posed by new technologies. This analysis is based on the most common considerations of unfair behaviour such as intentional confusion, discrediting, misleading and other unfair competition acts. How the MERCOSUR countries are currently dealing with traditional unfair competition acts and how case law is developing toward a refined comprehension of the unfair competition acts are important to understand which initiatives should be addressed to regulate such acts in the new technological environment. Based on recent case law involving online platforms and the recent change in Brazilian case law regarding the responsibility of online platforms and the goods/services advertised by other parties in violation of IP Rights, we can conclude that transparency and ethical behaviour are essential topics to be addressed by the Courts and further research is necessary when facing unfair conducts today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers a brief review of the protection against unfair competition in the Member States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). More specifically, it highlights ASEAN's different legal systems and how ASEAN Members, respectively, implement Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention under national unfair competition or laws against passing off based on their respective legal system—Civil Law, Common Law and hybrid systems. Ultimately, this article notes that, despite these different legal systems, ASEAN Members share close similarities in their national implementation of Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention. The article concludes that these similarities are not surprising considering the shared history of several ASEAN Members and the fact that all these countries (with the exception of Myanmar) are signatories to the major international IP agreements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When Congress gave the Federal Trade Commission the power to identify and enjoin unfair methods of competition, it did not create a parallel private right of action as it had for other antitrust laws. Yet approximately two dozen states have since enacted their own "Little FTC Acts," under which private plaintiffs may sue for damages and other remedies. These poorly understood state laws are actively shaping American competition policy on a national scale. The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the nationwide injunction that Epic Games obtained against Apple under California's law despite concluding that Apple violated no federal or state antitrust law. Uber has faced liability under these laws from taxi companies seeking to enforce local regulatory monopolies. And employees have used these laws to challenge their employers' violations of labor laws. This Article provides the first scholarly overview of state laws against unfair methods of competition on a national scale. Although these laws generally require some degree of deference to federal precedent, most states have failed to acknowledge the FTC's evolving guidance on this subject. Nevertheless, application of these state laws broadly tracks the same categories of conduct that the FTC Act covers, including violations of the letter and spirit of antitrust law, statutory and common law, and vaguely defined public policy. These various applications share a common focus in equating unfairness with harm to competition, as understood under either economic theory or legislative policy, and not simply injury to competitors. Appreciation for this core concern can ensure these state laws minimize the risk of overdeterrence without having to eliminate their signature private right of action for damages or narrowing the range of potential plaintiffs to competitors or customers. Increased awareness of these state laws by the FTC itself will allow it to work more closely with state officials to align the objectives of competition policy on a national scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Yak is found in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and represents a meat of high nutritional value and good flavor. However, the production of yak is limited, and yak meat adulteration is a growing concern in the marketplace. To protect consumer rights and prevent unfair competition, it is necessary to use an efficient assay to identify the species of yak meat rapidly and accurately being sold. Methods. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) combined with hydroxy naphthol blue (HNB) was used to identify potential adulterants. The specificity and sensitivity tests of yak-derived components were carried out to achieve the monitoring of yak-derived components. Results. The optimal color development was achieved with an external primer-to-internal primer ratio of 400 nmol/L : 1200 nmol/L, 1.5 mmol/L dNTP, and 0.32 U/μL Bst DNA polymerase with 5 mmol/L MgSO4 at 62°C amplification temperature. The detection sensitivity of LAMP-HNB for yak-derived DNA was up to 1 pg/μL. Conclusion. The LAMP-HNB assays provided a valuable tool for the identification of yak gene from adulterated meat. This further enabled the LAMP-HNB assay to be applicable in the identification of other meat products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unfair business competition in the business world is not uncommon even though there has been a law on the prohibition of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition, namely Law Number 5 of 1999. Basically, in carrying out business activities, it is natural for business actors to compete with other business actors, but must comply with legal signs governing such competition. Along with the increasingly complex development of the business world and the ever older anti-monopoly and unfair business competition laws, unfair business competition practices are also developing. On this occasion, unfair business competition practices will be discussed by bankrupting competing business actors. The study in this paper uses the normative juridical research method which prioritizes literature studies through the applicable laws and regulations in Indonesia as well as several related book references and uses an analytical descriptive approach. Based on the studies carried out, along with the results of his research, competition for market share control for business actors is a very strategic matter as a result of which business actors often use unhealthy methods as stipulated in the anti-monopoly and unfair business competition law. Unfair business competition in the perspective of bankruptcy law as mentioned above can occur due to weaknesses in regulatory patterns regarding bankruptcy requirements as stated in Article 2 paragraph (1) UUK & PKPU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Made in China 2025 (MIC 2025) strategy was introduced in 2015 and aims to reduce Chinese reliance on foreign technologies by adopting the import-substitution policy. The United States (US) considers China's super-ambitious industrial policy as a serious threat and is concerned about its high-tech industries, especially as Chinese technological firms are receiving generous government subsidies and tax cuts. The US, thus, entered a direct trade war with China to protect its domestic industries from unfair and inequitable competition. The US-China trade war has seriously shifted and interrupted global supply chains, thus creating a situation of uncertainty and instability for businesses that import and export US and Chinese products. The article is policy-based, and we reviewed the existing literature in depth. We addressed the industrialization pursuits of China under the MIC 2025. Furthermore, the article has analyzed the impact of the US-China trade war on global supply chains. Finally, the article has many implications; the article provides the possible policy routes for the governments of developing countries and regulators to address the reservations of developed countries regarding state-sponsored industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why has US commercial policy become increasingly politicized in the twenty-first century? We argue that this politicization reflects an interaction between elite rhetoric on unfair trade practices and American meritocratic values. As the twenty-first century progressed, elites increasingly argued that economic malaise was a result of predatory practices by US trading partners. This "trade is unfair" rhetoric resonated most strongly with meritocratic Americans: individuals who believed in principles of market fairness but also worried about future economic prospects. To evaluate the argument that trade policy frames resonate differently among Americans, we draw on data from several survey experiments as well as a large, original panel data set with repeat observations of the same individuals. Individuals who are most tied to the myth of the classic American Dream are the most likely to respond to a frame blaming unfair trade for America's economic problems, and this contributes to rising antiglobalization sentiment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competition law enforcement is one of the cornerstones of sound business regulation; yet it faces a problem in the transnational context. Whereas transnational commerce seamlessly transcends borders, competition law has jurisdictional roots, lacking a true transnational response. Global frictions due to the enforcement of divergent domestic laws and policies seem inevitable yet are surprisingly rare. We argue this phenomenon cannot be fully explained by a doctrinal analysis of the global efforts towards policy or legal convergence. Instead, the focus should be on the competition law officials who operationalise the law in a transnational context. This ‘human element’ of the inquiry must embrace qualitative research methods, such as ethnographic studies commonly used in legal anthropology, to develop a comprehensive legal analysis in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antitrust analysis is famously complex, fact intensive, and time consuming. But should we aspire for it to be otherwise? I offer two cautionary conjectures in opposition to the search for simpler rules. First, I conjecture that efforts to convert vague antitrust standards into clear rules will rarely succeed without abandoning the underlying standards that the rules were meant to simplify. Second, I conjecture that failed efforts at simplifying antitrust will often have the opposite effect--increasing the apparent complexity and vagueness of this law. If these conjectures are correct, then the search for simpler rules could be not just unproductive but counterproductive in antitrust law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The subjects of the economic activity, whether they are natural persons or legal entities, are obliged to exercise their activity in good faith, according to honest usages, respecting the interests of consumers and the requirements of fair competition. Based on the principles of freedom of trade and freedom of competition, any merchant has the right to attract the clientele of his competitors. Thus, the act of competition, even if it causes damage to some economic agents, is not illegal by itself, but only if the means, acts or facts used to attract customers are unfair. A basic principle/inherent condition of the market economy is the competition between the companies carrying out economic activity on the respective market, of course when this competition is by the customs and provisions governing the rivalry of competitors. The present study is intended to analyze the phenomenon of competition through the legislation of the Republic of Moldova that regulates competitive relations, including, addressing issues related to the identification and responsibility of the actors/ subjects of competitive relations, the types of legal liability, and the impact of unfair competition on the competitive environment in general and, on the rights and interests of natural and legal persons, but also of the society in particular. The authors analyzed the provisions of competition legislation to identify the regulatory framework’s quality and its deficiencies. For this purpose, the authors analyzed the provisions of the competition law no. 183/2012 and the Republic of Moldova’s administrative, contraventional, and criminal Code. The conclusions reached by the authors revealed a series of legislative loopholes, but also new research directions that would constitute the basis for certain recommendations and proposals for improving the analyzed normative framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Privado (0123-4366) is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Departmento de Derecho Civil and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica is the property of George Bacovia University, Faculty of Sciences Economics, Juridical & Administrative and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Modern Science is the property of Alcide De Gasperi University of Euroregional Economy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In recent years, many states have undertaken to green their free trade agreements (FTA). As the pace of this evolution towards greener trade relations continues to accelerate, it has also been met with resistance. The inclusion of environmental commitments in FTAs has sometimes been dismissed as an attempt by high-income countries to level the playing field for their market actors by raising environmental standards abroad. Against this background, this article aims to investigate what underlying motive(s) (high-income) states pursue when they negotiate environmental provisions. Using the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) as a case study, it is argued that it is possible to rely on the legalization of these commitments to unravel treaty parties’ motives for negotiating such rules in the first place. In the case of the USMCA, it is found that the agreement’s environmental commitments could be interpreted as mirroring concern either for the environment or for unfair foreign competition. A closer look at the negotiation process leading to the adoption of the agreement suggests that it was mainly – although certainly not exclusively – out of environmental concerns that stringent environmental commitments were included in the USMCA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce." While Congress intended Section 5 to play a vital role in the development of competition policy, courts have struggled in applying this vague and ambiguous language, resulting in caselaw that lacks certainty and is inconsistently enforced. These difficulties are further highlighted in the context of unfair competition and data privacy. Data, the currency that our digital world trades in, is largely collected by a small group of companies, Google, Meta, and Amazon. Concerns over how this data is collected and used have existed for decades and the intersection of competition law and data privacy law continue to grow. Businesses, large and small, benefit from the data these big data giants collect but at what cost? The United States lacks federal law that elaborates on what unfair competition is in the context of data privacy. Should big data companies, in the interest of data privacy, be prohibited from sharing the data they collect at the expense of competition? By first examining approaches taken by other legal systems and then by looking at cases from other jurisdictions, this article proposes that the United States should take a more proactive role in finding the balance between these two slightly opposing areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of developing trademarks as a tool in economic activity and in marketing practice, in particular, is to establish a distinction for the products of its owner, serving both his/her interests and those of consumers as concerns to the absence of delusions and unambiguous awareness of the origin of goods and services. However, how this differentiation is achieved and protected in a regulated way against deliberate or apparently good faith encroachments is the subject of legislation that does not always manage to set clear criteria and at least needs several points of view and interpretations. In this context, the article derives and interprets selected texts from the most important national and international normative acts (such as the Paris Convention, the EU Regulation and the local competition law), and at the end points out an exemplary litigation that arose on the basis of "similarity" to a well-known brand, considered unfair competition [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After a fire breaks out, pedestrians simultaneously move towards the exit and quickly form a crowded area near the exit. With the intensification of pedestrians’ tendencies towards unfair competition, there is an increase in pushing and collisions within the crowd. The possibility of stampedes within the crowd also gradually increases. Analyzing the causes and psychological tendencies behind pedestrian pushing and collisions has a positive effect on reducing crowd instability and improving evacuation efficiency. This research proposes a modified social force model considering the unfair competition tendency of pedestrians. The model considers factors such as the gap between pedestrians’ actual and maximum achievable speed, effective radius, and their distance from the exit. In order to overcome the shortage of “deadlock” in the classical social force model in a high-density environment, this research introduces the feature of variable pedestrian effective radius. The effective radius of pedestrians dynamically changes according to the density of the surrounding crowd and queuing time. Through validation, the evacuation efficiency of this model aligns well with the actual situation and effectively reflects pedestrians’ pushing and squeezing behaviors in high-density environments. This research also analyzes how to strategically arrange obstacles to mitigate the exacerbating effect of unfair pedestrian competition on exit congestion. Five experiments were conducted to analyze how the relative position of obstacles and exits, the number of evacuation paths, and the size of the obstacle-free area before the exit affect evacuation efficiency in the presence of unfair pedestrian competition. The results show that evacuation efficiency can be improved when obstacles play a role in guiding or reducing the interaction of pedestrians in different queues. However, when obstacles hinder pedestrians, the evacuation efficiency is reduced to a certain extent.

In an extremely competitive situation, such as the European market and the economic crisis of recent years, organizations face an increasingly difficult situation to survive and maintain a competitive position on the reference market. This topic presents a number of basic concepts in a logical and systematic manner, focusing on understanding and analyzing competition, particularly unfair competition. The phenomenon of competition often suffers from negative distortions and related adverse manifestations, manifesting in various forms of abusive behavior of companies with exclusive rights in the framework of competition, as well as specific acts of unfair competition. In this sense, it is necessary to protect fair competition and to hold anti-competitive actors to account. Unfair competition enforcement is a means rather than an end. Rules sanctioning unfair competition protect the economic interests of all types of operators and prevent certain operators from violating laws, regulations and business ethics. Competitive conduct in itself is not illegal, but only if the means used to attract customers are illegal

When we research the competitive positions of economic entities, we must assess the level of pressure of all five forces of the competitive environment. We should not only study the balance of power of competitors in the industry. Retail chains show unfair competition in relation to suppliers of agricultural products and food products. The problem has existed for many years. At the beginning of the war, product supply chains were disrupted. Therefore, stores began to pay for the delivered goods faster. However, by the end of 2022, the problem returned. Retail chains do not fulfill the terms of the concluded contracts. They use their monopoly position and delay payments for the received goods for several months. More than 70 % of food products are sold through retail chains. That's why producers are forced to agree to cooperation with unprofitable partners. Accounts receivable of milk processing enterprises is studied in the article. Most of the products of such enterprises are perishable and sold within a few days. At the same time, the receivables are paid after 1–2 months. Milk processing enterprises try to solve the problem by diversifying buyers. This leads to an increase in doubtful and bad debts. The legislation of European countries recognizes such actions of retail chains as unfair trade practices. Ukrainian legislation does not classify the actions of retail chains as unfair competition. Currently, Ukrainian legislation is being implemented to the standards of the European Union. We hope that this will protect the rights of product manufacturers and it will create prerequisites for the development of Ukraine's economy.

This article analyses the practical issues arising in private damages claims proceedings when the competition authority's decision on which the civil claim is based has been appealed and is thus not final. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines how the subjective element of gun-jumping infringements has developed since the National Court's judgment in the Bergé case. We analyse the main aspects of the decisions of the National Markets and Competition Commission, the National Court and Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the Spanish National Markets and Competition Commission has increasingly applied article 3 of the Spanish Competition Law to investigate, initiate and even sanction allegedly anti-competitive practices by companies in Spain. Among the proceedings initiated, two of them are particularly interesting. While AUDAX Renovables is the most recent decision that sanctioned the investigated companies, Préstamos ICO Covid is the most recent decision that closed the proceedings because the court deemed that no infringement had been committed. Both cases are a clear example of the Spanish National Markets and Competition Commission's recent stance on when and how this provision applies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is dedicated to my esteemed colleague Richard S. Markovits. It deals with ownership of data and with alternative methods to regulate Internet platform providers. It rejects the view that the subjects of information should have ownership rights over their personal data, which extend beyond what is necessary for privacy protection. Also, data controllers should not have an exclusive ownership right but share anonymized data with competitors. Even though the wealth of data harvested and stored by Internet firms are only weakly protected by trade-secret law, this together with effective encryption technologies develops into an exploitative de facto property over information, if effective market opening rules do not exist. The paper shows that the rule of abuse of dominant position of traditional competition law could not sufficiently check unfair trade practices of platform providers. Its adjudication is information intensive and leads to overly lengthy and costly proceedings. The Digital Markets Act of the European Union drew a radical conclusion from these experiences and regulates the biggest Internet firms with simple per se rules, which are relatively easy to administer but less flexible. Still, the Digital Markets Act should be welcomed as an important step forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]