Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles
Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has step...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Kur, Annette [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2014 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: IIC - Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1970, 45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:45 ; year:2014 ; number:4 ; day:23 ; month:04 ; pages:434-454 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2059419859 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2059419859 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230331181626.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2059419859 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s40319-014-0200-4-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 340 |a 360 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 340 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 2 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a INTRECHT |q DE-1a |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kur, Annette |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2014 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Trade mark functions | |
| 650 | 4 | |a European trade mark law reform | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Exhaustion | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Unfair competition | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t IIC |d Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1970 |g 45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454 |w (DE-627)129853747 |w (DE-600)280974-6 |w (DE-576)015155234 |x 0018-9855 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:45 |g year:2014 |g number:4 |g day:23 |g month:04 |g pages:434-454 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-INTRECHT | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-JUR | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-BUB | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-WIW | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-BBI | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_26 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_267 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2018 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2033 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2062 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2508 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4029 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 45 |j 2014 |e 4 |b 23 |c 04 |h 434-454 | ||
| author_variant |
a k ak |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:00189855:2014----::rdmrsucinothyjuuipuecadnaro |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2014 |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2059419859 (DE-He213)s40319-014-0200-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 360 VZ 340 VZ 2 ssgn INTRECHT DE-1a fid Kur, Annette verfasserin aut Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz. Trade mark functions European trade mark law reform Exhaustion Unfair competition Enthalten in IIC Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1970 45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454 (DE-627)129853747 (DE-600)280974-6 (DE-576)015155234 0018-9855 nnns volume:45 year:2014 number:4 day:23 month:04 pages:434-454 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2033 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_2508 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 45 2014 4 23 04 434-454 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2059419859 (DE-He213)s40319-014-0200-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 360 VZ 340 VZ 2 ssgn INTRECHT DE-1a fid Kur, Annette verfasserin aut Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz. Trade mark functions European trade mark law reform Exhaustion Unfair competition Enthalten in IIC Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1970 45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454 (DE-627)129853747 (DE-600)280974-6 (DE-576)015155234 0018-9855 nnns volume:45 year:2014 number:4 day:23 month:04 pages:434-454 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2033 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_2508 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 45 2014 4 23 04 434-454 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2059419859 (DE-He213)s40319-014-0200-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 360 VZ 340 VZ 2 ssgn INTRECHT DE-1a fid Kur, Annette verfasserin aut Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz. Trade mark functions European trade mark law reform Exhaustion Unfair competition Enthalten in IIC Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1970 45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454 (DE-627)129853747 (DE-600)280974-6 (DE-576)015155234 0018-9855 nnns volume:45 year:2014 number:4 day:23 month:04 pages:434-454 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2033 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_2508 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 45 2014 4 23 04 434-454 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2059419859 (DE-He213)s40319-014-0200-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 360 VZ 340 VZ 2 ssgn INTRECHT DE-1a fid Kur, Annette verfasserin aut Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz. Trade mark functions European trade mark law reform Exhaustion Unfair competition Enthalten in IIC Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1970 45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454 (DE-627)129853747 (DE-600)280974-6 (DE-576)015155234 0018-9855 nnns volume:45 year:2014 number:4 day:23 month:04 pages:434-454 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2033 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_2508 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 45 2014 4 23 04 434-454 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 doi (DE-627)OLC2059419859 (DE-He213)s40319-014-0200-4-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 360 VZ 340 VZ 2 ssgn INTRECHT DE-1a fid Kur, Annette verfasserin aut Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles 2014 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz. Trade mark functions European trade mark law reform Exhaustion Unfair competition Enthalten in IIC Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1970 45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454 (DE-627)129853747 (DE-600)280974-6 (DE-576)015155234 0018-9855 nnns volume:45 year:2014 number:4 day:23 month:04 pages:434-454 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2033 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_2508 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 45 2014 4 23 04 434-454 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in IIC 45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454 volume:45 year:2014 number:4 day:23 month:04 pages:434-454 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in IIC 45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454 volume:45 year:2014 number:4 day:23 month:04 pages:434-454 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Trade mark functions European trade mark law reform Exhaustion Unfair competition |
| dewey-raw |
340 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
IIC |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Kur, Annette @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2014-04-23T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
129853747 |
| dewey-sort |
3340 |
| id |
OLC2059419859 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2059419859</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230331181626.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2059419859</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s40319-014-0200-4-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="a">360</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">INTRECHT</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-1a</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kur, Annette</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Trade mark functions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">European trade mark law reform</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exhaustion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Unfair competition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">IIC</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1970</subfield><subfield code="g">45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129853747</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)280974-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015155234</subfield><subfield code="x">0018-9855</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:45</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:23</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:434-454</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-INTRECHT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-BUB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-BBI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2033</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2508</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">45</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">23</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield><subfield code="h">434-454</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Kur, Annette |
| spellingShingle |
Kur, Annette ddc 340 ssgn 2 fid INTRECHT misc Trade mark functions misc European trade mark law reform misc Exhaustion misc Unfair competition Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles |
| authorStr |
Kur, Annette |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)129853747 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
340 - Law 360 - Social problems & services; associations |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0018-9855 |
| topic_title |
340 360 VZ 340 VZ 2 ssgn INTRECHT DE-1a fid Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles Trade mark functions European trade mark law reform Exhaustion Unfair competition |
| topic |
ddc 340 ssgn 2 fid INTRECHT misc Trade mark functions misc European trade mark law reform misc Exhaustion misc Unfair competition |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 340 ssgn 2 fid INTRECHT misc Trade mark functions misc European trade mark law reform misc Exhaustion misc Unfair competition |
| topic_browse |
ddc 340 ssgn 2 fid INTRECHT misc Trade mark functions misc European trade mark law reform misc Exhaustion misc Unfair competition |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
IIC |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
129853747 |
| dewey-tens |
340 - Law 360 - Social problems & social services |
| hierarchy_top_title |
IIC |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)129853747 (DE-600)280974-6 (DE-576)015155234 |
| title |
Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2059419859 (DE-He213)s40319-014-0200-4-p |
| title_full |
Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles |
| author_sort |
Kur, Annette |
| journal |
IIC |
| journalStr |
IIC |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2014 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
434 |
| author_browse |
Kur, Annette |
| container_volume |
45 |
| class |
340 360 VZ 340 VZ 2 ssgn INTRECHT DE-1a fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Kur, Annette |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 |
| dewey-full |
340 360 |
| title_sort |
trade marks function, don’t they? cjeu jurisprudence and unfair competition principles |
| title_auth |
Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles |
| abstract |
Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz. © Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz. © Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz. © Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-WIW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_26 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2033 GBV_ILN_2062 GBV_ILN_2508 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4029 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 |
| container_issue |
4 |
| title_short |
Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
129853747 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T22:08:17.607Z |
| _version_ |
1803597379126951936 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2059419859</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230331181626.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2014 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2059419859</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s40319-014-0200-4-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="a">360</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">INTRECHT</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-1a</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kur, Annette</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Trade Marks Function, Don’t They? CJEU Jurisprudence and Unfair Competition Principles</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Few issues have raised as much controversy in trade mark law and policy as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on trade mark functions. Enthusiastically greeted by some, others consider it disastrous in regard to reasoning and effect. The EU Commission has stepped in, first by filing a brief with the CJEU, then by way of proposed legislation that is supposed to push the genie back into the bottle: protection under the double identity clause shall be available only for use of a sign that affects or is likely to affect the origin function. Unsurprisingly, this proposal met with antagonistic reactions from the opposing camps; and according to the reactions so far available from the legislative bodies, it is most unlikely to succeed. This article tries to add nuance to the discussion by pinpointing the dilemma underlying the CJEU’s jurisprudence – the Court is no more to blame than the legislators who failed to articulate more clearly whether and how the protection granted in double identity cases should be limited. Furthermore it is argued that neither accepting the Commission’s proposal nor blindly continuing on the current path will yield satisfactory results. More important than arguing about the contents of various trade mark functions and their place in determining the scope of protection is to observe the manner in which trade mark law absorbs ways of reasoning typically found in unfair competition law. While that adds flexibility and may in the longer run lead to more substantive harmonization, the space for independent evaluation of unfair conduct under national law is narrowed accordingly. The effects of this process appear manageable where the scope of rights is concerned; however, the results are more hazardous on the level of enforcement, as was highlighted in the recent CJEU decision C-661/11 – Martin Y Paz.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Trade mark functions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">European trade mark law reform</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Exhaustion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Unfair competition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">IIC</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1970</subfield><subfield code="g">45(2014), 4 vom: 23. Apr., Seite 434-454</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129853747</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)280974-6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015155234</subfield><subfield code="x">0018-9855</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:45</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:23</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:434-454</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-014-0200-4</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-INTRECHT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-BUB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-BBI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2033</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2508</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4029</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">45</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">23</subfield><subfield code="c">04</subfield><subfield code="h">434-454</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.398531 |