International Journal of Law And Criminology
44
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
44-50
10.37547/ijlc/Volume05Issue06-10
Issues of Implementation of Article 10bis Of the Paris
Convention into National Legislation
Adashov Khojiboy Khusanovich
Independent Researcher, University of Public Security of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan
Received:
25 April 2025;
Accepted:
21 May 2025;
Published:
23 June 2025
Abstract:
This article examines the issues related to the implementation of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention
(1883) into national legal systems, with a particular focus on the legislation of the United States and the Republic
of Uzbekistan. Special attention is
given to the analysis of the principle of “effective protection against unfair
competition,” its substance, and the challenges of its implementation under contemporary conditions. A
comparative analysis is conducted of the legislative approaches currently in force in the United States (Lanham
Act, Sherman Antitrust Act, Federal Trade Commission practice), the European Union (TFEU, EU Directives), Japan
(UCPA), and Uzbekistan (the 2023 Law “On Competition”). The article identifies existing enforcement issue
s
related to digital platforms, the use of artificial intelligence, transnational cases of unfair competition, and the
regulation of commercial data. The study substantiates the need for further modernization of legislation to ensure
comprehensive legal protection in line with international standards under the Paris Convention.
Keywords:
Paris Convention, Article 10bis, unfair competition, effective protection, implementation, Lanham Act,
competition law, digital economy, Uzbekistan, international law.
Introduction:
The Paris Convention for the Protection
of Industrial Property of 1883 is one of the key
international legal instruments governing the
protection of industrial property rights, including
trademarks, at the international level. It not only
enshrines rights to intellectual property objects but
also establishes mechanisms for their legal protection
across borders. In this context, Article 10bis of the
Convention plays a particularly important role, as it
imposes obligations on member states to prevent acts
of unfair competition and to ensure effective legal
protection against such acts within their national legal
systems, taking into account their specific legal
frameworks and economic conditions.
This article, based on the principle of national
treatment (Article 2 of the Convention), obliges
member states to grant foreign individuals the same
legal guarantees as their own nationals. As a result, a
trademark protection system is established that is
aimed not only at safeguarding proprietary rights but
also at ensuring fair competition, protecting consumers
from deception, and maintaining an honest and
transparent market environment.
An important milestone in the development of the
provisions of Article 10bis was the adoption of
amendments at the Lisbon Conference of 1958, which
significantly expanded the scope of the concept of
"unfair competition," adapting it to the increasing
complexity of international economic relations.
Subsequently, the norms of Article 10bis were further
developed in the provisions of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS, 1994), which harmonized the rules of the Paris
Convention with the international trade system by
establishing more specific standards for trademark
protection, liability for infringements, and enforcement
measures.
The phrase "effective protection" contained in Article
10bis obliges states not only to adopt formal legislative
acts but also to ensure their practical enforcement
through judicial and administrative mechanisms. From
a scholarly perspective, the effectiveness of protection
is assessed based on the precision of legislation, the
efficiency of judicial procedures, and the effectiveness
of enforcement measures. This approach makes it
possible to strike a balance between international
International Journal of Law And Criminology
45
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
standards and the specific features of national
regulation, thereby ensuring legal stability and the
protection of market participants.
In particular, within the U.S. legal system, protection
against unfair competition has been developed in
accordance with the international obligations set forth
by the Paris Convention. Central to this framework is
the Lanham Act, enacted in 1946, which serves as the
primary legal source for trademark protection and the
prevention of unfair competition. A key provision is §
43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), which allows for legal action
against false advertising, the use of misleading
designations, and acts that harm business reputation.
In addition, the Act provides legal remedies such as the
recovery of damages, injunctive relief, and
compensation for harm caused.
From an institutional perspective, the central role in
ensuring this protection is played by the United States
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces
consumer rights and fosters a fair competitive
environment in the marketplace, thereby facilitating
the implementation of these norms. This systemic
approach ensures the full realization of the principle of
“effective protection” not only at the legislative level
but also through practical enforcement mechanisms. A
vivid example of this is the legal dispute between Pizza
Hut and Papa John’s . In this case, the court, referring
to the Lanham Act, prohibited the use of the slogan
“Better Ingredients, Better Pizza” by Papa John’s, as it
created a false impression in the minds of consumers
regarding the competitive superiority of the company’s
products . Such cases clearly demonstrate the
effectiveness of the legal protection mechanism
against unfair competition provided under U.S.
legislation.
The second challenge in applying the principle of
“effective protection against unfair competition” under
U.S. law lies in the system’s prioritization of consumer
protection, often at the expense of addressing disputes
between competitors. For instance, in the Volkswagen
case, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) focused
primarily on protecting consumer rights and remedying
environmental damage. However, issues related to the
harm suffered by competitors such as Ford and Toyota
were not given sufficient consideration .
While the Paris Convention requires the protection of
both consumers and competitors and their products,
U.S. law imposes a high evidentiary threshold for
competitors to prove harm typically requiring detailed
economic analysis. This creates additional financial and
time burdens, making enforcement less accessible for
competitors. As a result, the principle of “effective
protection” is realized more robustly for consumers,
while being slower and less responsive for competitors.
This reflects the consumer-centric orientation of the
U.S. system and the secondary role that competition
law plays in such contexts. This situation indicates that
the American legal framework does not fully comply
with the requirements of the Paris Convention, which
calls for equal protection of both consumers and
market competitors.
The third key issue in implementing the principle of
“effective protection against unfair competition” under
the Lanham Act lies in the complexity of judicial
procedures. This problem is particularly acute for small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Initiating legal
proceedings related to trademark infringement or false
advertising requires significant financial resources
—
including legal fees, expert consultations, market
research, and consumer surveys
—
which may amount
to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, such
litigation can drag on for years. A vivid example of this
situation is the protracted legal battle in Qualitex Co. v.
Jacobson Products Co . In such circumstances, the
ability of SMEs to access “effective protection” is
substantially limited, and in practice, the legal
mechanisms become largely accessible only to
financially stronger entities. This contradicts the
purpose of the Paris Convention, which aims to ensure
equal legal protection for all. Thus, the procedural
complexity of cases brought under the Lanham Act
leads to unequal conditions, restricting SMEs from
obtaining effective protection and undermining the
principles of equal treatment and protection enshrined
in the Paris Convention.
The next, fourth issue in applying the principle of
“effective protection against unfair competition” as set
forth in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention is the
limited resources of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(FTC). Although the FTC is granted broad authority
under the Federal Trade Commission Act, its budgetary
and personnel resources are constrained, preventing it
from addressing all instances of unfair competition. The
FTC tends to focus on large-scale cases
—
such as the
Volkswagen case, which resulted in a $14.7 billion
penalty
—
while instances of unfair competition in
smaller market segments or at the local level often go
unaddressed.
In 2020, the FTC’s annual budget amounted to $331
million , which is insufficient in relation to the scale of
the U.S. economy. Moreover, the agency’s primary
mission centers on consumer protection, leading to
comparatively less attention being paid to disputes
between competitors. This situation reveals that the
pr
inciple of “effective protection” is not fully realized at
the national level, as administrative enforcement
International Journal of Law And Criminology
46
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
efforts are primarily directed at the actions of large
corporations, while the interests of small businesses
may be overlooked. Therefore, the limited resources of
the FTC and its consumer-focused mandate hinder the
comprehensive and equitable application of the
principle of “effective protection against unfair
competition” in the United States.
The fifth issue in implementing the principle of
“effective protection against unfair competition,” as
established in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention,
concerns the growing incidence of unfair competition
on digital platforms
—
particularly in the realms of e-
commerce and social media
—
while the Lanham Act
and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) framework
were originally designed to regulate traditional, offline
markets.
The existing legal instruments are often insufficiently
responsive or precise when addressing emerging
challenges such as the proliferation of counterfeit
trademarks or deceptive advertising on platforms like
Amazon or eBay. For example, in the 2019 case
Williams-Sonoma v. Amazon , Williams-Sonoma alleged
that Amazon had unlawfully used its brand. However,
the litigation was protracted, largely due to the
evidentiary complexities of proving harm in a digital
environment
—
such as the need for algorithmic audits
and behavioral data analysis.
This case exemplifies the legal system’s limited
adaptability to the realities of the digital economy and
highlights a critical gap between the rapidly evolving
nature of unfair competition and the outdated
regulatory tools still in use. Consequently, the principle
of “effective protection” is difficult to fully realize in the
digital context, where legal norms, enforcement
mechanisms, and evidentiary standards remain in a
state of transition.
According to a number of scholars , the adaptation of
U.S. legislation to technological changes has been slow,
thereby reducing the effectiveness of implementing
the princi
ple of “effective protection” in the online
environment. This issue reflects a broader challenge in
aligning the provisions of the Paris Convention with
modern economic conditions. As a result, laws
originally designed for traditional markets prove to be
largely ineffective when combating manifestations of
unfair competition in the digital sphere.
Finally, the sixth and last problem in the
implementation of the principle of “effective
protection against unfair competition,” as enshrined in
Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, lies in the
insufficient severity of sanctions imposed on large
corporations under the Lanham Act and FTC legislation.
Although these laws provide for measures such as
fines, injunctions, and compensatory damages, such
sanctions often lack significant financial impact on
major companies. For example, in the Volkswagen
case, a $14.7 billion fine may appear substantial, but
when considered against the company’s total revenue
of over $240 billion in 2016 , the penalty had a relatively
limited deterrent effect.
From an economic perspective, when the cost of a
penalty is lower than the benefit gained from the
violation, its preventive function is weakened. This
situation fails to effectively deter large corporations
from engaging in unfair practices, which ultimately
undermines the long-term effectiveness of the
principle of “effective protection.” Thus, the
insufficient stringency of sanctions against major
corporations significantly diminishes the practical
enforcement of the principle of protection against
unfair competition.
The second paragraph of Article 10bis of the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
states that “any act of competition contrary to honest
practices in industrial or commercial matters
constitutes a
n act of unfair competition.” This legal
provision holds significant importance in the
international system for the protection of industrial
property and the maintenance of fair competition.
From a legal standpoint, this provision formulates a
general definition of unfair competition, serving as the
foundation for the development of corresponding
regulatory mechanisms within the national legislation
of member states. The term “honest practices”
embedded in this norm reflects ethical and fair
standards of business conduct; however, the specific
content and interpretation of this term are shaped by
the sociocultural, economic, and legal characteristics of
each jurisdiction. This allows for the adaptation and
differentiation of relevant legal norms depending on
the conditions of legal enforcement in different
countries.
The provision is of an imperative nature, obliging
member states to implement effective legal
mechanisms to combat unfair competition in
accordance with their international commitments. At
the same time, given its general and framework-based
character, it does not have direct effect and requires
further elaboration through national legislation. In
different legal systems, the relevant rules may be
incorporated into civil codes or into specialized
antitrust or competition laws.
The concept of “honest practices in industrial or
commercial matters,” as formulated in the second part
of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, is not defined
in detail within the text of the Convention itself, which
International Journal of Law And Criminology
47
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
highlights its universal and adaptable nature. From a
legal perspective, this term refers to ethical and fair
standards of conduct that have developed within the
context of economic and commercial practice.
At the same time, the specific content of this concept is
clarified within the framework of national legal systems
and judicial practice in individual countries. For
example, in the United States, under Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission A
ct, “unfair or deceptive
acts or practices” include false advertising, consumer
deception, and other dishonest conduct, which are
treated as violations of fair business standards.
In the European Union, Directive 2005/29/EC is based
on the criterion of “professional diligence” and requires
adherence to ethical norms in competitive conduct. In
Japan, under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
(UCPA), the use of signs similar to a competitor’s
trademark (Article 2(1)(i) UCPA) is considered unfair
based on moral standards generally accepted in trade.
Scholarly research (Bently & Sherman, 2014 )
emphasizes that this concept is dynamic and context-
dependent, relying on industry standards and evolving
ethical values, which grants courts broad discretion in
its interpretation.
Thus, the notion of “honest practices in industrial or
commercial matters” may be interpreted differently
across national legislation and judicial practice, but its
overarching aim remains the promotion of fairness and
ethical standards in competitive relations.
At the same time, the concept of “honest practices in
industrial or commercial matters” is not without
certain drawbacks. Due to the lack of a clear definition
in the Paris Convention, there is a risk of subjective
interpretation of this category. As a result, its
application varies across jurisdictions. For instance, in
the European Union, the criterion of “professional
diligence” is applied rigorously, whereas in other
countries greater emphasis is placed on customary
trade practices. This variability hinders legal
predictability for economic operators and complicates
business planning.
Moreover, the interpretation of “honest practices”
depends on national legislation and judicial practice,
leading to a lack of uniform standards in international
trade. For example, in the United States, the focus is
primarily on consumer protection, while in Japan,
greater priority is given to safeguarding the commercial
interests of competitors . This discrepancy creates
additional legal uncertainty and operational challenges
for transnational companies.
Furthermore, the abstract nature of this concept
complicates the collection and presentation of
evidence in legal proceedings . Demonstrating that a
specific competitive behavior violates “honest
practi
ces” often requires expert opinions or a detailed
analysis of historical commercial conduct, which entails
additional time and financial costs. As a result, the
effectiveness of the provision is diminished, and the
resolution of commercial disputes is frequently delayed
by lengthy litigation, hindering the timely restoration of
fairness for the injured party.
The provision in the second paragraph of Article 10bis
of the Paris Convention, which states that “any act of
competition contrary to honest practices in industrial
or commercial matters” shall be considered an act of
unfair competition, significantly broadens the legal
scope of its application. This norm encompasses a wide
range of commercial practices aimed at gaining
competitive advantages through unacceptable or
unlawful methods.
In particular, under the U.S. legal system, such
actions
—
including false advertising, consumer
deception, and unauthorized use of trademarks
—
are
treated as forms of unfair competition under Section
43(a) of the Lanham Act. These actions give rise to civil
liability and may result in remedies such as injunctions,
damages, and corrective measures .
Under European Union law, pursuant to Regulation
(EU) No. 2019/1150 and Directive 2006/114/EC, the
dissemination of false or misleading information to
consumers, as well as actions that damage the business
reputation of competitors, are classified as
manifestations of unfair competition. In Japanese
legislation, Article 2 of the Unfair Competition
Prevention Act (UCPA) provides a comprehensive list of
15 specific types of unlawful conduct, including the
misappropriation of trade secrets and the deception of
customers, thereby enabling the flexible application of
legal norms in a variety of situations.
The concept of an “act of unfair
competition,” as set
forth in the second part of Article 10bis of the Paris
Convention, encompasses conduct that is contrary to
“honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.”
From a scholarly perspective, such an act constitutes a
violation of a set of moral, legal, and economic norms
aimed at upholding fair and honest competition. The
essence of this violation lies in the use of methods to
gain competitive advantage that breach established
legal and ethical standards.
In practice, acts of unfair competition often lead to
significant consequences such as financial losses,
damage to business reputation, loss of market share,
and consumer deception.
In the United States, laws such as the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Lanham Act impose strict
limitations on instances of unfair competition and
International Journal of Law And Criminology
48
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
provide for corresponding legal remedies. In particular,
they allow for compensation for damages resulting
from the dissemination of false information intended
to harm a competitor’s business reputation.
In the European Union, Articles 101 and 102 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(TFEU) govern the prohibition of monopolies and the
abuse of dominant market positions. Additionally, the
Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices establishes
measures to protect consumers from misleading and
harmful conduct, thereby reinforcing fair competition
principles within the internal market.
Thus, an act of unfair competition constitutes a legal
consequence arising from conduct that violates the
principle
of “honest practices,” with the primary aim of
protecting the rights of the injured party and holding
the infringer legally accountable. Despite the existence
of unified international legal foundations, the
interpretation of this concept varies across legal
systems. Nevertheless, it is generally aimed at ensuring
fair and transparent conditions for the functioning of a
market economy.
At the same time, the concept of an “act of unfair
competition” is associated with a number of theoretical
and practical challenges, particularly due to the
absence
of
harmonized
criteria
for
clearly
distinguishing unlawful forms of conduct. Since the
definition is based on an assessment of conformity with
“honest practices,” it leaves room for divergent
interpretations and creates the risk of legal
uncertainty.
For example, in the United States, proving the
dissemination of false information for commercial
purposes is comparatively more straightforward. In
contrast, in Japan, establishing the unlawful disclosure
of trade secrets under the Unfair Competition
Prevention Act (UCPA) is often accompanied by
substantial evidentiary difficulties. Moreover, differing
regulatory approaches can also be observed at the
supranational level: in the European Union, emphasis is
placed on the application of strict antitrust rules
(Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union
—
TFEU), while in the United
States, the regulatory framework is built upon a
comprehensive protection of the interests of both
consumers and market competitors.
These divergences highlight the complexity of applying
the concept of unfair competition in a globally
integrated economy and underscore the need for
continued dialogue and potential harmonization to
reduce legal fragmentation and promote consistent
enforcement standards.
At the same time, the concept of an “act of unfair
competition” is accompanied by a range of theoretical
and practical challenges, primarily due to the absence
of
unified
criteria
for
clearly
distinguishing
impermissible forms of conduct. Based on an
assessment of compliance with “honest practices,” this
definition allows for significant variation in
interpretation and creates a risk of legal uncertainty.
For instance, in the United States, proving the
dissemination of false information for commercial
purposes is comparatively straightforward. By contrast,
in Japan, establishing the unlawful disclosure of trade
secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act
(UCPA) often involves substantial evidentiary
difficulties and procedural complexity.
Furthermore, divergent approaches to legal regulation
are also evident at the supranational level. In the
European Union, the focus lies on the strict
enforcement of antitrust norms
—
namely, Articles 101
and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU). In the United States, however,
the regulatory system is based on a more
comprehensive model that seeks to protect the
interests of both consumers and market competitors.
These differences reflect the contextual and
jurisdictional variability in the understanding and
application of unfair competition laws and underscore
the need for greater international coordination to
enhance legal predictability and ensure more uniform
enforcement in cross-border commercial relations.
The Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On
Competition” dated July 3, 2023 (No. ZRU
-850)
establishes a modern legal framework for regulating
and safeguarding fair competition within the national
economy. The provisions of Articles 4 and 21 of this law
largely align with the international legal standards set
forth in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, reflecting
Uzbekistan’s commitment to fulfilling its international
obligations in the field of industrial property protection
and the fight against unfair competition.
Specifically, paragraph 3 of part 1 of Article 4 of the Law
defines unfair competition as “any competitive action
contrary to fair practice in industrial or commercial
activity,” which essentially reproduces the core
definition enshrined in Article 10bis of the Paris
Convention
—namely, “acts contrary to honest
practices.” At the same time, Uzbek legislation goes
further by elaborating on this definition with a concrete
list of forms of unfair competition, including the
discrediting of competitors, misleading consumers,
unlawful acquisition of trade secrets, misleading
comparative advertising, and other forms of
misconduct.
This adaptation of international provisions to the
International Journal of Law And Criminology
49
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
specific features of the national legal system
demonstrates a successful implementation of the Paris
Convention into Uzbekistan’s domestic legislation.
Harmonization is particularly evident in Article 21 of
the Law, which systematically enumerates specific
prohibited forms of unfair competition, reflecting the
most common violations encountered in practice. For
instance, discrediting a competitor by disseminating
false or distorted information directly corresponds to
the concept of “acts contrary to honest practices”
under the Paris Convention. Similarly, misleading
consumers, using deceptive comparisons, and the
unlawful disclosure of trade secrets are recognized
under international law as established forms of unfair
competition.
The establishment of legal mechanisms in Uzbekistan’s
legislation to combat unfair competition also
contributes to the country’s integration into the
international trade and investment system. The
harmonization of the provisions of the Law of the
Republic of Uzbekistan “On Competition” dated July 3,
2023 (No. ZRU-850) with the standards of Article 10bis
of the Paris Convention reflects the Republic's
commitment to fulfilling its international obligations in
the fields of competition law and consumer protection.
In particular, Articles 4 and 21 of the Law closely reflect
the language of international instruments. For
instance, paragraph 3 of part 1 of Article 4 defines
unfair competition as “any competitive action contrary
to fair practice in industrial or commercial activity,”
which is consistent with the terminology used in Article
10bis of the Convention. At the same time, Uzbek
legislation offers a detailed list of specific forms of
unfair
competition,
facilitating
their
practical
application. This regulatory approach ensures both
internal legal certainty and the strengthening of foreign
investor confidence.
However, despite the progress achieved, a number of
unresolved issues remain in practice regarding the
adaptation of Article 10bis to the realities of the
modern economic and technological landscape:
1. Regulation of digital platforms:
Although Article 4 of the Law provides a definition of
“digital platform” and Article 18 establishes specific
restrictions, effective enforcement mechanisms
against the activities of transnational digital
corporations (such as Google, Amazon, and Meta)
remain limited. The technical and jurisdictional
constraints of state authorities impede the full
realization of the principle of “effective protection”
against unfair competition in the digital environment,
as enshrined in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention.
2. Lack of regulation concerning unfair competition
involving artificial intelligence and algorithmic
systems:
Many companies use such technologies for price
manipulation, exclusion of competitors, or misleading
consumers. However, the Competition Law does not
include specific provisions addressing these forms of
unfair competition. Existing norms
—
such as those in
Article 21
—
primarily cover traditional violations (e.g.,
discrediting competitors, unlawful acquisition of trade
secrets). This regulatory gap complicates the processes
of evidence collection and legal enforcement in
emerging technological contexts.
3. Transnational aspects of unfair competition:
Although Article 7 of the Law grants the State
Committee for the Development of Competition and
Protection of Consumer Rights authority at the national
level,
effective
mechanisms
for
international
cooperation in this area have not yet been fully
developed. In particular, holding foreign companies
accountable for violations of the rights of Uzbek
consumers remains challenging due to the limited
availability of international legal tools.
These challenges underscore the need for further
legislative reform and international cooperation to
ensure that the principle of “effective protection
against unfair competition,” as articu
lated in Article
10bis of the Paris Convention, can be fully realized in
both national and cross-border contexts.
4. Insufficient regulation of data use and trade secret
protection in the digital economy
The fourth issue concerns the underregulation of data
usage and the protection of trade secrets within the
context of the digital economy. Although Article 21 of
the Law prohibits the unlawful acquisition of trade
secrets, there is currently no comprehensive regulation
governing the processing of big data, nor its use for
market manipulation or gaining unfair competitive
advantages. For the effective application of Article
10bis of the Paris Convention in the digital context,
specialized legal norms and enforcement mechanisms
tailored to modern technologies are required.
CONCLUSION
In summary, despite Uzbekistan’s significant progress
in implementing Article 10bis of the Paris Convention
into its national legal system, several pressing
challenges remain. These include the regulation of
digital platforms, artificial intelligence, transnational
competition, data circulation, pricing strategies in e-
commerce, and blockchain-related economic activities.
Addressing these issues will require further
modernization of national legislation, the development
of expert capacity in assessing unfair competition, and
International Journal of Law And Criminology
50
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
the strengthening of international cooperation.
REFERENCES
227 F.3d 489, 5th Cir. 2000. U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas - 80 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D.
Tex.
2000)
January
3,
2000.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-
courts/FSupp2/80/600/2565606/
Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489
(5th Cir. 2000
Kaplow, 2013, The Antitrust Laws and Economic
Analysis, p. 145
514 U.S. 159, 1995. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products
Co.,
514
U.S.
159
(1995).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/159
/
FTC Annual Report 2020. p.12.
WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM,
INC.,
Defendant.
Case
No.
18-cv-07548-AGT.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-n-d-
cal/2201041.html
Lemley & McKenna, 2010, Irrelevant Confusion,
Stanford Law Review, p. 413
Volkswagen Annual Report 2016, p. 34
Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual Property
Law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
–
p. 1160.
FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233 (1972).
Unfair Competition Prevention Act (Japan), Article
2(1)(i).
Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539
U.S. 23 (2003).
Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1
–
7.
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices
–
Official Journal of the EU, L 149, 11.06.2005.
