Having A Leather Jacket Resized

Right, vector Strategic Management of Innovation

L a desire to optimize certain innovations that have a technology is now well developed with numerous companies. The legislature has also been privileged over this development and it is now recognized several tools specifically dedicated to this phenomenon. Whether through the law on innovation and research, development of competitive clusters, developing a tax system via the dedicated status of innovative start of the research tax credit or the encouragement of investment in such structures, the concept of innovative company is now devoted even encouraged to provide a means of developing fruit Search public or private. In this context, the first legal apprehension is often done through the law of intellectual property relegating (at least temporarily) the other disciplines. While some recovery methods can overcome if we recognize these as such technology transfers by sale or license granted to third parties. In this case, it is only from the recipient of innovation to address the "vehicle" legal, appropriate to its economic exploitation. Nevertheless, in other cases, where the author of Innovation intends to participate actively in its development by the bais of a corporate structure, corporate law and its own raw devices to business law as a whole (contract engineering, taxation, distribution, employment law, etc..) must be a base thinking and management in the selection and preparation mode of operation. This global vision and setting itself up to the rank of approach will play a strategic role in the phase of appropriation of innovation (I) and will be missed at the time of optimization (II).

I - THE LAW AS A TOOL ORGANIZATION AND OWNERSHIP OF INNOVATION

In schematic, there are two distinct scenarios. In the first, the business associate is intended to hold the rights over the innovation that is developed on its behalf (A) in the second, the company is automatically partner of the owner of such rights (B).

A) The incumbent rights on innovation

Since the emergence of a business plan based on an innovation in technology- it should integrate the protection process in a broader debate taking into account its future within its operating structure. Indeed, this innovation is by nature doomed to changes in its research and development phase, it will aim to circulate through which several heritages some may eventually be competitors requiring special attention accordingly. At this level, it is appropriate to use as part of the contractual tools unique to law firms dedicated to managing the training period to centralize at the same time and in one document all the problems inherent in the law business.

Through this, it is useful to think upstream the "contours" of the future structure while matching the latter's rights with those of its founders. Under agreements generally referred "Promises of society, the future partners will, in addition to determining the political and capitalistic society, integrate their thinking in innovation and the rights attached while considering how serene the consequences of failure project for technical reasons or human (a promise logically include legal ways of sharing rights in the presence or abandonment of one or more of the founders having rights on innovation). It will also be discussed to establish any co-ownership and the conditions of founding acts of some occasions by the company (domain name registration, trademark registration, patent applications, software development, industrial partnerships, etc. ..) to avoid further blockage. This approach should help ensure the integrity of the rights held by the future structure between the founders but also to third parties acting on behalf of the latter in establishing a contractual joint and concerted strategy. This agreement will thus provide the ideal site for establishing a policy of collective management of intellectual property rights vis-à-vis the founders themselves but also all external stakeholders (sub-contractors, co-developers, distributors, interns, etc..) subjecting each founder to appropriate discipline when they will enter into a deed with them. Once this reflection is done, the project organization will be facilitated and will continue with the rapid establishment of definitive statutes which will provide for warrants authorizing one or more founders to act for certain acts on behalf of other members and a shareholder pact.

This action will thus main interest for to hold early between the future partners orderly functioning of the project including the central issue as innovation itself and forcing it to address upstream potential conflicts between the founders. This will ensure for example the rise of contractual rights in the social heritage and to facilitate the overall conclusion of confidentiality agreements and non-competition which are known to be difficult to obtain independently.

B) companies contracting with holds the rights to innovation

In other cases, either by the will of the founders who prefer to isolate the copyright holder heritage of innovation or because of the nature of the project that provides a public research institution's original ownership of those rights, the future company will aim to hold an indirect operating on the innovation intensity, particularly in terms exclusivity will affect legal, accounting and tax on the valuation of the latter.

is particularly the case for all projects initiated by some public officials to develop the results of their "own" research. It should in this case to start thinking about the future structure of the early drafts of the project, namely upon confirmation of the record of recovery submitted to the Authority to be generally decided by the Commission Ethics of Public .

Thus the company being formed who will speak effectively in negotiating licenses with or without any option on the purchase or innovations (the assumptions of pure transfers are rare in practice). An option on license may be considered to strengthen the legal project and allow no risk of exposing the project with regard to future shareholders, partners or third parties in connection with seeking private funding (business angels, VCI, etc.. ) or public (National Competition entrepreneurship, local authorities, clusters, etc..). This type of legal instrument has the added benefit of fixing the legal aspects of future license so that the future development of the project can no longer affect the financial or legal provisions. In addition, final license is necessarily made between the public institution and a corporation existing reflection will accelerate the registration process as soon as it becomes necessary.

II - THE LAW AS A TOOL FOR OPTIMIZATION INNOVATION

In its quest for growth, innovative company began a race against time as regards access to its market. To do this, it will often resort to private investment mistake for her to have sufficient access to bank loan to fund its research and development. To anticipate this action (B), it will be as soon as possible to maximize the value of innovation (A).

A) The right of recovery as a means of innovation

Even before the integration phase of potential investors, innovative projects are often collide with the problem of capital endowment of their future society. Although it seems possible to choose a type of structure prior SARL , corporatization stock quickly appear inevitable and will certainly constitute a cost and legal risk especially important if it is concomitant to the input of others in the capital. In view of the thresholds in such companies and because of reduced benefits eased rules on payment of contribution, an initial value of innovation may well be an interesting alternative.

Under the condition that some or co-founders hold hold Individual rights of intellectual property on innovation (patent, trademark, software, domain names, etc..), it will be conceivable to have recourse to the traditional in-kind contributions to be charged to review a book value that will be established by an auditor. The other founders may then make use of contributions in cash to give the company the cash to boot.

Calculated using methods recognized by financial practice, this initial value will influence the share capital for the benefit of the holders rights on innovation who are most often the original inventors. They will develop a political majority and more easily than the only recourse to contributions in cash (some instruments such as BSPCE will allow appropriate and in the opposite direction to rebalance the relationship between capital-related). Furthermore, this value will, in addition to an allocation of equity interest as a basis for negotiation vis-à-vis third parties interested in the project with the stipulation that they require of course that all rights are genuinely made by inmates society where the importance of proper conduct phase of appropriation of the latter (see above).

B) law as a strategic financial partner integration

In any event, once it is made to integrating investor capital of a future society, the issue of valuation of the company subordinate cost, the share capital sold in return created and certainly the amount of premium which will be imposed.

At this crucial moment in its development, drafting the constitution and shareholders taking into account the early stages of development of the innovative firm will be an effective ally to consider the consequences heritage and political change in the capital of the company. Similarly, consideration should include the possible use of bond issues such as convertible redeemable in shares or to reduce the immediate dilution of the founders in the capital. It is obvious in this stage of design the practical difficulties of a constitutional amendment precipitated prior to the entry of investors. On the contrary, from their original version, it has been important to submit the partners / founding shareholders at a certain "discipline" through certain clauses allowing them to retain some balance in particular concerning the rules on transfer of shares to third. This will result in the possibility of establishing a statutory real strategy for recovery.

order to optimize the value of innovation, and the approach must be comprehensive and encompass all aspects of the business plan: legal, fiscal, social, financial and intellectual heritage.

© Nicolas IVALDI

Should I Take Glucosamine If I Have Gout?

Christmas in July on Friday, 13 DAILYMOTION or sharing videos

L Friday, July 13 th year, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris was arrested for counterfeiting Film Christian Carion's Joyeux Noël produced by Northwest Productions, released in episodes on the sharing site DailyMotion, marked the end of recess. The TGI has retained responsibility for denying him DAILYMOTION intermediate technical quality and the benefit of limited liability under the Act on Confidence in the Digital Economy whereby " Individuals or entities that provide, even gratuitously, for provision of public services to the public online communication, storage of signals, writing, images, sounds or messages of any kind provided by recipients these services can not see their liability incurred as a result of activities or information stored at the request of a recipient of these services if they did not have actual knowledge of unlawful or facts and circumstances revealing this character or if, from the moment they had this knowledge, they acted promptly to remove such data or make access impossible. "and forcing him to control a priori video content available to the public and represented via its platform sharing.

The Court finds that accepting the posting by a user of their service in the restaurant saw this movie by two million people, DAILYMOTION " has committed a fault by providing civil liability" for this user "how to make a counterfeit" . The judges have considered that Dailymotion was aware of illegal content and that " it must therefore take responsibility without being able to blame the users alone, since it provided them deliberate means of committing "all that" success necessarily implied dissemination of works known to the public, only likely to increase the audience and provide correspondingly advertising revenue. "

Christophe Rossignon, producer Merry Christmas was obviously pleased with this decision "constitutes a very important victory." "We are attacking the platforms for these sites to enrich our contents, distributed illegally, creating traffic and generating advertising revenues" . (Le Figaro )

Dailymotion was forced to withdraw the relevant videos from its site within eight days, under penalty of 1,500 euros per infringement, notwithstanding any appeal of the decision.

also recall that on 22 June, MySpace had been ordered to pay 61,000 euros to the comedian Lafesse for having allowed the broadcast his sketches for free and without permission (AFP).

Dailymotion, MySpace and other sharing sites base their business model Sharing videos of individuals and their dissemination via a platform, reaping the benefits generated by advertising attendance. Obviously, they can stream video whose rights do not belong to users who download them on the platform for release to the public and this, regardless of the provisions in the General Conditions. However, nothing prevents the platform in question call in warranty the user who downloaded a film subject to copyright for publication. So beware!

© Xavier Cerf - lawyer

How To Masterbate Woth Hands

When the Sports Law meets the Fundamental Rights Case

L a specificity of sport is often invoked in international fora (WTO) and European justify derogations. These are reduced to a trickle when they try to pass the test of judicial confrontation. We remember especially Bosman and Malaya that changed, not surprisingly, the sports economy.

The law Sport is no exception application of fundamental rights, this is not new. The judicial news offers us two striking examples, that amaze the sports movement even though they are highly predictable.

1 / disciplinary vicariously is unconstitutional

It resembles, in criminal law, a truism Both the principle of exclusion of liability is purely vicarious applied. Criminal responsibility vicariously is only very rarely used, only when required by law: direct responsibility of the entrepreneur hygiene and safety of workers, direct responsibility of managing editor in for press offenses and indirect responsibility of the holder of the registration card on payment of fines related to traffic.

In other cases, one is criminally responsible for the perpetrator targeted and banned by law.

the purposes of European law, an administrative penalty if it involves a monetary consequence or loss of a right is treated as a criminal penalty taken by a judicial authority. Thus a law, such as a regulation of sports federation, when it plans a penalty by a Disciplinary Committee must apply the general principles found in criminal proceedings. A disciplinary commission will not make sport of punishment without the person concerned has been heard, has had time to prepare his defense and be able to appeal the decision.

As regards liability for sports events, the Court has recognized consistently that the organizer of a sporting event is held to a duty to ensure safety of persons attending a show, especially when it pays. The club must and, with his staff ensure peaceful conduct of the matches and check with a company for all the risks it poses to others or to his "clients", the audience. The regulations of the Sports Federations usually go much further in the constraints imposed on clubs to ensure the smooth running of meetings.

Thus Article 129.1 of the General Regulation of the FFF " Clubs that receive are responsible for policing the land and are responsible for disorders that might arise before, during or after the match because of the attitude of the public, players and officials or lack of organization.

However, clubs visitors or playing on neutral ground are liable when the disorders are caused by their players, officials or supporters . "

The final Cup de France 2004 between PSG in Chateauroux, was beset by serious incidents involving fans in Paris. These have engaged in many degradations and throwing smoke bombs PSG was sentenced initially to 20,000 € fine and one game behind closed doors suspended (sentence revoked after other incidents) on the basis of paragraph 2 of section 129.1 of the General Regulation of the FFF , stating that " visiting clubs or playing on neutral ground are liable when the disorders are caused by their players, officials or supporters .

PSG, referred to the Paris Administrative Court to challenge the merits of that decision.

On 16 March 2007 the Paris Administrative Court ruled unconstitutional section 129.1 of the General Regulation of the FFF visitor makes a club responsible for his supporters. At the root of this decision: the lack of knowledge "principle of personality sentences. The administrative judge keeps in effect, that " By stating that visiting clubs or playing on neutral ground are liable when the disorders are caused by their supporters, Article 129.1. (...), Even inspired ( ...) with the objective of ensuring a satisfactory conduct of meetings, infringes the principle of personality of sentences and is therefore unconstitutional . "

PSG has consistently pleased with the decision and National League Football represented by Frederic Thiriez said that the ruling was "a very bad signal sent to all those working to combat against violence in stadiums, "adding that" this decision was made contrary to the position of the Olympic committee and contrary to the position of commissioner of the government. " On the merits, the president of the LFP said that such a ruling, if upheld on appeal, "would have many adverse effects. Thus, the visiting club would most interest to guide its supporters because it would be more accountable for their conduct. The host club would be forced to refuse the club's supporters to avoid visitor to liability. In short, everyone would flee its responsibilities to rely on the police alone. "

The LFP has expressed his intention to appeal the Administrative Court of Appeal, hoping to see reform of the ruling March 16, 2007.

Without prejudice to the position of the Administrative Court of Appeal , this first trial recalls once more the French sports movement, he can not escape the fundamental principles recognized by our legal system. In this case the principles of personality and personal responsibility sentences are from sections 121-21 of the Penal Code by which " no one is criminally liable for his own conduct " and was elevated to constitutional by the Constitutional Council by its Decision No. 70 DC 19 and January 20, 1981.

2 / The requirement for a student athlete to sign an employment contract with his club trainer is contrary to the principle of free exercise of a profession.

Small palace revolution: in all major professional sports clubs trainers seek to protect themselves against the appetites of the big clubs. Federations and leagues have adopted regulations forcing the student athlete who trained in a club to sign his first contract with his club trainer for a period minimum. Depending on the sport this time is fixed by the Statute of the Intern from three to five years. He is trainer for the Club to collect the fruits of its efforts on training as an incentive to training, rather than shop at a competitor. If the young athlete refuses the contract, it generally can not exercise for a period of two to three years. Suffice to say that this perspective is very dissuasive. But we remember a few cons-examples: the case of Laurent Sciarra, playmaker Team France Basketball medalist in Sydney agent who refused to sign his first professional contract with his club trainer Hyeres-Toulon ProB then to engage with PSG, Club ProA (PBR now and then Paris-Levallois from 2007/2008). He had been rejected prosecutors' offices for a full season.

Forcing a young athlete to work for a particular employer may seem from the perspective of the latter, like a medieval layout, especially that given the constraints, the faculty bargaining financial arrangements of the young athlete is very limited. Thus, the footballer, basketball player (...) the end of training will be offered a contract by his club trainer minimum collective agreement, while its value on the market, especially internationally, can be a hundred times or much more if we take into account NBA , the Champions League and the Euroleague . Note that in the NBA, players entering the League did not choose their employer and the choice is determined by the position in the draft itself determined by the classification of the franchise. NBA franchises can trade round picks, as an exchange. Running NBA franchise contracts can trade players according to the value of contracts without the latter have their say. This is the price of an economic model that has proven ...

response to requests from competitors Clubs and headhunters, the professional sports with high potential approaching the end of his training there really a choice and can refuse to sign the contract which is practically imposed?

The Administrative Court of Appeal of Lyon gives us an initial response by a decree, February 26, 2007. In this case Olympique Lyonnais had on the basis of Article 261 of the Charter of professional football, to the liability of Olivier Bernard, trained player at the club, alleging that it had signed its first contract professional with Newcastle United. The trial decision was vindicated with Olympique Lyonnais. The Court of Appeal has reform the first decision holding that such a requirement is contrary to the fundamental principle of free exercise of a profession, invalidating the requirement to sign a such contract. The State Council has received the Supreme Court.

Without prejudging the decision of the Council of State it is certain that when the player end of training does not wish to proceed with the contract offered to him, the autonomy implies that the contract can be imposed and, as such regulations federations are contrary to the principle of freedom of exercising a professional activity. The Players' Status intern if he can not contain such a constraint could instead contain a clause that would require training forfeit the player reimburse the actual cost of training. Compensation above the actual cost of training would be against freedom of exercise as a deterrent for athletes and speculative for the club trainer.

Yet if the legal issue is quite clear, the economic model can dispense with speculation on potential youth, whose sale to big foreign clubs can pay for training generations and part of the revenues of the Clubs? The answer is not legal, it is political.

Finally, the question remains for the case where a young athlete has signed his first professional contract and seek to quash for lack of consent, since consent is limited to: work for the club trainer or be unemployed for three years and jeopardize his career.

© Xavier Cerf - lawyer

Shuffle Board Tmplates

Opel, the ECJ opens a gap in Trademark Law

D na case ADAM OPEL / AUTEC AG, issued January 25, 2007 Court of Justice Europe had to decide between the exclusive rights held by the trademark holder and exceptions limiting the right to benefit from economic actors wishing to indicate the source or characteristics of a property.

Under Article 5 § 1 b) Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks (89/104/EEC - OJ 1989 L40, p.1) as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, "A registered trademark gives its owner an exclusive right. The holder is entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade: a) a sign identical to the mark for goods or services identical to those for which the is registered; b) any sign where, because of its identity or similarity with the mark and because of the identity or similarity of goods or services covered by the mark and the sign, there in the public mind a likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the mark . "

However, this exclusive right is tempered by Article 6 § 1 provides that "the right conferred by the mark does not entitle its holder to prohibit others from using, in business life: a) indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of the product or service delivery or other characteristics thereof.

Sometimes, to indicate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin (...) or other characteristics, there is no other choice but to mention the name of the trademark on the property concerned. Is it possible to reproduce?

is precisely the question that was subject to interpretation by the ECJ in a case between ADAM OPEL (car manufacturer and owner of the Opel brand, registered Germany 10 April 1990 for cars and toys) and AUTEC AG (manufacturer of radio controlled model car, under the brand CARTONIC). ADAM OPEL having found what was marketed in Germany a model at 1 / 24 R / C ° and the Opel Astra V8 coupe, which was on the calendar displayed the image of the original Opel logo appearing on the vehicle sold by ADAM OPEL. The mark appeared CARTONIC clearly visible on the front page of the instructions that come with each model, as well as on the front of the remote control transmitter.

In Case rich teaching of January 25, 2007 , Court recalls that the use of a sign identical to the trademark in question must not impair the essential function of the exclusive right granted by the mark is " guarantee to consumers the origin of the product . The exclusive right of the holder of the trademark was granted to protect its interests. The ECJ decides that the affixing by a third party without permission of the trademark owner of a sign identical to that mark on the model of the vehicle known brand in order to faithfully reproduce those vehicles to market so-called model does not constitute the use of an indication concerning a characteristic of these models to the meaning of Article 6, § 1, a) of the Directive.

It is therefore possible to consider, as in other factual circumstances in which the original brand would not apply to toys or models, and the model Marketed by one third would be for collectors, the identical reproduction of every detail the original vehicle could possibly be a key feature of this product, so that Article 6 § 1 a) allow the faithful reproduction of the mark. Then the field of copyright (or of the design in case of deposit) attached to the vehicle design itself that the manufacturer could ban the manufacturer model, which would entail removing ownership copyright and originality of design.

is remembered in this connection in French law technicality Copyright and stop Court of Appeal of Paris 1 st June 2005 reversing the ruling February 18, 2004 by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, which condemned PGO (company located in Alès) to stop producing the "Speedster 1", inspired by the legendary Porsche 356 sixties ( James Dean developed a passion for auto racing while filming Fury of Living bought his first Porsche 356 Speedster before the swap against a 550 on the steering wheel which he had lost his life). Porsche failed to demonstrate transmission rights between the company had released the model and today's society, has seen its share declared inadmissible on the basis of copyright. The Porsche 356 is no longer neither manufactured nor marketed for several decades the Court of Appeal also dismissed the action for unfair competition and parasitism, Porsche binding to repay the damages awarded by the trial court .

Hence the importance of anticipating and systematically ensure traceability copyright, especially in case of transmission ...

© Xavier Cerf - lawyer

Crew Socks What Odes It Mean

European law: the mark and parallel imports

D years stop Boehringer et al / Swingward and Dowelhurs, rendered April 26, 2007, Court of Justice of European Communities was asked about the scope of the exhaustion of rights conferred by the national mark under Article 7, paragraph 2 of Directive 89/104 [ Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of Member States on trademarks, 89/104/EEC - OJ 1989 L40, p.1, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992] whereby unless legitimate reasons, the right conferred by the mark does not entitle its owner to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under this brand by the proprietor or with his consent. Are considered particularly good reason, the modification or alteration of products once they are in commerce.

It was of whether a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products, holds a national brand, could oppose further commercialization of its products by parallel importers in another State of the European community, it appears that the different products was modified by affixing the original packaging with a label bearing the name of the importer and number of parallel importation.

is by determining the "specific purpose" of the exclusive right ECJ determine the influence of EU competition law on national intellectual property . Indeed, everything that enters the specific object is theoretically not affected by the law. However, if the owner goes beyond this specific subject, the use of its mark is unfair and undermines the free flow of goods and services. The improper exercise of the mark inmate may be punished without the existence of the trademark right is challenged.

The ECJ thus defining the specific subject of a mark as the purpose " ensure the guarantee of origin of the product bearing that mark " interprets Article 7 § 2 of Directive 89/104, by framing the right of the trademark owner to oppose further commercialization of a pharmaceutical product imported from another Member State in its internal and external packaging original, together with a additional external label affixed by the importer, and by making this right of objection subject to five cumulative conditions:

• The use of trade mark rights by the licensee shall not contribute to artificial partitioning of the market.
• It is the parallel importer to demonstrate that the new labeling does not affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging.
• The author of new product labeling and the name of the manufacturer must be clearly indicated on the packaging.
• The presentation of the product which is the subject of a new labeling should not harm the reputation of the mark and its proprietor (eg poor quality or untidy or defective condition of the label. It is appropriate, the trademark holder to prove that damage was to the reputation of its brand.
• The importer must prior to the sale of the product, notify the owner of the brand and its application to provide a specimen having been relabelled.

If these five conditions are met by the trademark holder can prevent parallel imports. Otherwise it will support the parallel importation.

© Xavier Cerf - lawyer