知识产权法（影印本）第二版

麦克米伦法学精要丛书是英国麦克米伦出版公司重点推出的一套法学教材，风格明晰简约，内容深浅适中，既适用于专业课程的初学，也有助于职业技能的改进，受到学生与教师的广泛欢迎。对我们非英语国家的学生和研究者来说，这样一套教材恰好是学习英语国家法学和提高法律英语水平的极好读物。
本书为《知识产权法》。和同类英国的教材或者专著比较，本书显得简单明得多，短小得多，易懂得多，也精确得多。内容涉及专利法、商标法、版权法和竞争法。

Preface
Table of Cases
Table of Statutory International Legislation
1 Introduction
Part1 PATENTS AND CONFIDENTLAL INFORMATION
2 Patents
3 Patentability(1)
4 Patentability(2)
5 Ownership
6 Protecting the Patent
7 Breach of Confidence
PartII TRADE MARKS AND PASSING OFF
8 Trade Marks
9 Registration of Trade Marks
10 Protection of Trade Marks
11 Passing Off
12 Character Merchandising
13 Trade Marks-International Provisions
Part III COPYPIGHY AND DESIGNS
14 Copyright
15 Subsistence(1)
16 Subsistence(2)
17 Infringement
18 Defences
19 Ownership and Duration of Copyright and Moral Rights
20 Database Rights
21 Peformance Rights
22 Registered Designs
23 Unregistered Designs
PartIV COMPETITON
24 Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Part V INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE INTERNET
25 The Internet
Part VI FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
26 The Future of Intellectual Property

书 摘
Cavity Traiys Ltd v. RMC Panel Products Ltd [1996] RPC 361 consid-ered the meaning of s.70(4), which is the provision that removes theright to bring a threats action where the threat of proceedings was inrespect of making or importing a product for disposal or in respect ofusing a process. In Cavity Trays, the threat of proceedings made againstthe plaintiffs, who were the manufacturers of the allegedly infringingproducts, was in respect of the acts of manufacture, promotion,marketing, advertisement and sale. The defendant argued that s.70(4)
was aimed at removing the right to bring a threats action from primaryinfringers (that is, manufacturers) and was intended to protectsecondary infringers further along the chain of supply. The court did notagree. Section 70(4) clearly provides an exception in respect of threatsmade about certain acts, and not in respect of threats made against typesof person. Accordingly, since the defendant had threatened proceedingsfor infringements in respect of activities other than manufacture andimportation of a product or use of a process, the plaintiff was entitled toits remedies under s.70. Interestingly, the Banks Committee, which
looked into the state of patent law and led to the 1977 Patents Act, had,in its Report, recommended that the threats action exception not beavailable to primary infringers, manufacturers for disposal or importersof products or users of a process. This wording was not followed in theBill that resulted in the 1977 Act. The consequence is that in pursuingmanufacturers, who are also advertising and selling the allegedlyinfringing products, plaintiffs can only send letters threatening proceed-ings in respect of the acts of manufacturing and importation of productsor use of a patented process. This might seem illogical, but until the
courts decide to take a purposive approach to s.70(4) or until the law ischanged, that is the position under the Patents Act 1977.
Potential plaintiffs in infringement ……