We (in the West of England) have been trying to keep our Bristol quiet. Now I expect a cease and desist order from the real Bristol in the USA demanding that we cease (and for that matter desist) using their name.
The fact that we have a dossier of information establishing prior use will be no defence.
I use The Science of Cooking
by Dr Peter Barham who is a physics lecturer at Bristol University. Its the only cookbook I have which is on the Springer Verlag imprint.
I think Microsoft have a separate EU Trade Mark as well as a UK Trade Mark. They are applied for separately and different tests apply - they are not reciprocal.
In the UK, Lindows would also be in trouble under the doctrine of passing off. Canada seems to have that too, but not the US.
He is also commemorated by a small stretch of the Ring Road aroung Manchester. We know how to hype our National Heros.
Hungary, Europe, the World
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
Worldwide DMCA comes from TRIPS. Accession into the EU will make enforcement against access prevention technology like DeCSS much easier both within Hungary and other EU countries. See this page for the argument that TRIPS does not require legal protection for access prevention technology.
One problem with these trade treaties is that they excite absolutely no excitement from the public. Developing countries have other problems to worry about. The content industry lobby gets its own way, no matter what a mess it leaves the law.
Another problem is that most of the world is forced to make all of the same mistakes. It will take another treaty to undo the mistake even if governments recognise it as such and by then the vested interests will be stronger. They will threaten lawsuits demanding compensation for "confiscation" of the rights they should never have been given. That is why copyright term is always rounded up.
In England and Wales, confidentiality is a branch of the law which is currently growing with the help of the European Human Rights treaty. But it is pretty well established that a former employee owes his former employer a duty of confidentiality. If he knows that the information is important, valuable and obtained in the course of employment, he should keep it quiet. The leading case on this involves a man called Fowler who worked for a company that sells chickens ( Facenda Chicken v Fowler [1985] 1 All ER 724).
Summary: No agreement needed, it's the employee's state of mind.
The EU law which might cause the conflict is the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). The policy of this law is to try to give citizens some control over what happens to personal data about them. In particular I can consent to some company controlling my personal data within limits which we agree but constrained by law. Google can collect that data, and I expect that the local spooks will want them to hang on to it even when an account is deleted.
As long as it is clear that the retention of data following deletion of an account is only for law enforcement and not for commercial purposes they might be OK.
Suppose Google is bought by a mega-corp we don't like, it's going to be a real pain for us all to change our email addresses, and what is this new owner going to be able to do with all of that personal data. Data Protection law is not such a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that we have a dossier of information establishing prior use will be no defence.
That goes for the Bristish Commonwealth, the Dutch and the Danish. Dangerous decade to be a queen mother.
"I put my hands up to the offence and the car was towed away. They said Customs would be notified."
Police target 'cooking oil cars'
It has really helped improve my cooking.
... seem to have this type of technology sorted (link includes nice photo of mountain range).
In the UK, Lindows would also be in trouble under the doctrine of passing off. Canada seems to have that too, but not the US.
He is also commemorated by a small stretch of the Ring Road aroung Manchester. We know how to hype our National Heros.
One problem with these trade treaties is that they excite absolutely no excitement from the public. Developing countries have other problems to worry about. The content industry lobby gets its own way, no matter what a mess it leaves the law.
Another problem is that most of the world is forced to make all of the same mistakes. It will take another treaty to undo the mistake even if governments recognise it as such and by then the vested interests will be stronger. They will threaten lawsuits demanding compensation for "confiscation" of the rights they should never have been given. That is why copyright term is always rounded up.
Summary: No agreement needed, it's the employee's state of mind.
Not that there is any infringing going on here.
That would be Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data
The EU law which might cause the conflict is the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). The policy of this law is to try to give citizens some control over what happens to personal data about them. In particular I can consent to some company controlling my personal data within limits which we agree but constrained by law. Google can collect that data, and I expect that the local spooks will want them to hang on to it even when an account is deleted. As long as it is clear that the retention of data following deletion of an account is only for law enforcement and not for commercial purposes they might be OK. Suppose Google is bought by a mega-corp we don't like, it's going to be a real pain for us all to change our email addresses, and what is this new owner going to be able to do with all of that personal data. Data Protection law is not such a bad idea.