Controverses : Une histoire juridique et éthique de la photographie

Published: 31 December 2008

PEOPLE

D. Girardin

C. Pirker
Expertise

Intellectual Property

29 Apr 2024

Handbuch Kollidierende Kennzeichen

in: Stämpfli, 2nd edition, Bern 2024

AUTHORS

Jürg Müller
Jürg Simon
Expertise

Intellectual Property
31 Aug 2023

Repetitorium Immaterialgüterrecht

in: Orell Füssli Verlag, 4th edition, Zurich 2023

AUTHORS
Barbara Abegg
Sandra Marmy-Brändli

Expertise

Intellectual Property

Deals & Cases — 20.09.2024

Gyrus Capital completes strategic equity investment in Neo Medical

Deals & Cases — 19.08.2024

Lenz & Staehelin advises ZENDRA AG (X STATIK AG/REECH AG) on the protection and commercialization of its software-supported photovoltaic sub-construction used in one of the first alpine solar plant projects approved under the "Solar Express"

SEE ALL

Insights – 02.10.2024

Swiss Court Rejects FIFA's Bid to Remove Offensive Google Search Results

Swiss Court Rejects FIFA's Bid to Remove Offensive Google Search…

A recent decision by the Zurich Commercial Court has clarified the conditions under which search engines can be ordered to delist certain search results that allegedly violate personality rights.

Insights – 09.09.2024

Federal Patent Court highlights the importance of protective briefs

In a recent landmark decision, the Federal Patent Court underscored the critical role of protective briefs in preventing preliminary injunctions (PIs). The court reaffirmed its practice of rejecting PI requests without notifying the alleged infringer when a compelling protective brief is on file.

SEE ALL

Controverses : Une histoire juridique et éthique de la photographie

Related publications

Deals & Cases

Insights

A recent decision by the Zurich Commercial Court has clarified the conditions under which search engines can be ordered to delist certain search results that allegedly violate personality rights.

In a recent landmark decision, the Federal Patent Court underscored the critical role of protective briefs in preventing preliminary injunctions (PIs). The court reaffirmed its practice of rejecting PI requests without notifying the alleged infringer when a compelling protective brief is on file.