section 27(4) of the Trademark Act, as amended in 2005, provides enforcement against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party (that is usually the infringer itself) for the infringement. In the HYUNDAI case the registrars of the domain names, trusted by the resellers of cars having formerly been members of the HYUNDAI commercial chain in Hungary, were sued together with the resellers for the reason that they did not cancel the registration of the domain names after the commercial chain had been ceased. The Hungarian courts of first and second instance built their judgements on the ECJ’s BMW judgement (C-63/97). Emphasis is given also on a case relating to infringement by an operator of an Internet home page, as the latter was condemned by the Hungarian Court of first instance for not complying with the Act on Electronic Commerce. Nevertheless, the court of second instance condemned him not therefore but for the tort in respect of the provisions of the Civil Code, e.g. for injury of reputation. Finally, the article is closed by an outlook on ideas on the development of EC law relating to liability of intermediaries.
The article reports on some judgements of the Court of Justice EU concerning analogy, commenting them. Passages from the cases OMEL v ONEL, PAGO, GOOGLE, .eu Top Domain, DIOR are quoted. Then the question is raised: should it be considered as an analogy or a precedent? Definition of the notion “analogy” in French, English and German law are compared. The first conclusion is that analogy is understood in different ways by lawyers in these Member States of the EU. The second conclusion is that by a Hungarian lawyer’s understanding most of the examples quoted are rather precedents than true analogies. Moreover, it is observed that in translations identical terms ought to be used.
The article reports on some judgments of the European Court of Human Rights applying the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of trademarks. The first group of cases relates to the freedom of expression (Art 10). In the cases Tokaji, Marlboro and McDonald’s, the applicants referred to this principle to defend their actions related to the trademark. The second kind of cases relate to the protection of property (Protocol No. 1). In the case of Budweiser the European Court took the position in favor of applying this rule to a trademark application. The third group of cases relates to the right to a fair trial (Art. 6). According to reports on the Orient and McDonald’s cases, the national courts committed important procedural faults. The conclusion of the author is that trademark rights can be protected by means of human rights only in exceptional circumstances.
A szívműtéteket követő mély sternomediastinitis gyakorisága 0,5–5% közötti, melynek mortalitása akár az 50%-ot is elérheti. A szerzők egy 67 éves nőbeteg esetén keresztül számolnak be szívműtétet követően kialakult súlyos sternumdehiscentia kezelésében alkalmazott lemezes osteosynthesis első magyarországi alkalmazásáról. Az ortopéd és traumatológiai sebészetben már régóta ismert módszer alkalmazása ezen betegcsoportban lehetővé teszi az anatómiai repositiót és a csontok maximális nyugalomba helyezését. A Titanium Sternal Fixation® Synthes® rendszer akár teljes vagy részleges sternumhiányok, darabos törések esetén is gyorsan és hatékonyan eredményezheti a betegek gyógyulását.