NEWS Broadcasters look to copyright protection after European decoder ruling
Broadcasters of live sport, like BSkyB and ESPN, may look to copyright law to protect the value of their television offerings aſter the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that consumers can use foreign TV decoders to watch sports in the UK.
Te case began aſter a pub landlady in Portsmouth bought a Greek decoder card to transmit Premier League soccer. Tis meant she was paying less than she would have using a UK card, because Sky (who purchased the bulk of
the TV rights from Te Premier League) charges more in the UK than in Greece.
Te court ruled that the Premier League and broadcasters could not get special treatment, that free competition and movement of goods and services in the EU meant that there is no way to prevent UK customers buying foreign decoder cards, and that absolute territorial exclusivity for sports rights is not permissible.
However, the court did offer some hope to the league and the broadcasters, saying that those
India publishes new guidelines for examiners
India’s Controller General for patents, designs and trademarks has issued instructions aimed at clarifying the division of work between patent examiners and the controller, in an effort to reduce unnecessary duplication.
Te key points include directing examiners to substantiate their objections with clear reasons, including identifying the relevant paragraph in the prior art where appropriate. Indian law firm Remfry & Sagar commented: “Tese directions
are laudable and their strict implementation may put an end to the practice of raising objections without sufficient justification being followed by a large section of examiners.”
Te Controller in turn is obliged to provide sufficient reasons if he wishes to overrule or add to the examiner’s objections.
Further, the examiner must conduct an inter- office search to ensure that there are no multiple
filings for the same invention, while he must also allow applicants time to respond to any further objections raised aſter the applicant’s initial response, communicating a notice of hearing at the same time as the objections.
Perhaps most significantly, the onus is put on applicants to file a petition for delay, providing satisfactory reasons, rather than the patent office having to call for such petitions.
wanting to transmit a broadcast may need permission from Te Premier League for any copyrighted material surrounding the broadcasts (music, highlights etc).
Tis opens the possibility of increasing the amount of copyrighted material featured in a given broadcast to ensure that those using foreign decoder cards might be in breach of copyright law if they don’t have Te Premier League’s permission. n
8 World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100