IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jiplap/v19y2024i2p81-89..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Article 10bis of the Paris Convention as the common denominator for protection against unfair competition in national and regional contexts

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Senftleben

Abstract

This article explains the historical development of Article 10bis 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 10bis. 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 10bis 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 10bis(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.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Senftleben, 2024. "Article 10bis of the Paris Convention as the common denominator for protection against unfair competition in national and regional contexts," Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 81-89.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:19:y:2024:i:2:p:81-89.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiplp/jpad122
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:19:y:2024:i:2:p:81-89.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.