翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Interlanguage
・ Interlanguage (disambiguation)
・ Interlanguage fossilization
・ Interleaf
・ Interleague Minor League Postseason Series
・ Interleague play
・ Interleave lower bound
・ Interleave sequence
・ Interleaved 2 of 5
・ Interleaved deltas
・ Interleaved memory
・ Interleaved polling with adaptive cycle time
・ Interleaving
・ Interleaving (disk storage)
・ Interlegis
Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc
・ Interlenghi
・ Interleukin
・ Interleukin 1 family
・ Interleukin 1 receptor antagonist
・ Interleukin 1 receptor, type I
・ Interleukin 1 receptor, type II
・ Interleukin 10
・ Interleukin 10 receptor, alpha subunit
・ Interleukin 10 receptor, beta subunit
・ Interleukin 11
・ Interleukin 11 receptor alpha subunit
・ Interleukin 12
・ Interleukin 12 receptor, beta 1 subunit
・ Interleukin 12 receptor, beta 2 subunit


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc : ウィキペディア英語版
Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc

''Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc'' (() AC 217, also known informally as the Lego case or the Lego brick case) was a case in copyright law that originated in Hong Kong that eventually went before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom.
== Action ==
The plaintiff, Interlego AG, sued the defendant, Tyco Industries, for copyright infringement of its Lego bricks. However, it had previously registered its design. Under section 10 of the Copyright Act 1956, the right to protection as a registered design and copyright were not cumulative rights. The copyright was also a stronger right than the right to protection as a registered design. It had a longer duration.
Thus the plaintiff also moved for the court to determine that its bricks did not qualify for design protection under section 10 of the Copyright Act, so that they could qualify for copyright protection. To do so, the court had to apply a test to determine whether the bricks comprised a degree of aesthetic appeal, above the purely functional elements of their design, which would cause them to qualify to be registered designs.〔
To extend protection under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff argued that it had made revisions to its design drawings, and that as such they comprised original artistic works. The Copyright Act gave extensive protection to such drawings, including defining the making of an object from such a drawing an infringement of copyright, or that copying an object directly, without reference to its design drawings, constituted infringement of the copyright in the drawings.〔

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.