000049122 000__ 01781cam\a22003975i\4500
000049122 001__ 49122
000049122 003__ SzGeWIPO
000049122 005__ 20240708150417.0
000049122 006__ m    eo  d        
000049122 007__ cr bn |||m|||a
000049122 008__ 240321s2023\\\\enk\\\\\o\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000049122 0247_ $$a10.1093/grurint/ikad110$$2doi
000049122 035__ $$a(OCoLC)1427545820
000049122 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda$$cSzGeWIPO$$dCaBNVSL
000049122 041__ $$aeng
000049122 24500 $$aLiability for a Trade Mark Infringement Resulting from a Commissioned Advertisement.
000049122 264_1 $$a[Oxford, England] :$$bOxford University Press (OUP),$$c2023
000049122 300__ $$a1 online resource (pages 1152–1156)
000049122 336__ $$atext$$2rdacontent
000049122 337__ $$acomputer$$2rdamedia
000049122 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier
000049122 4901_ $$aGRUR International,$$x2632-8550 ;$$v72, 12, 2023
000049122 520__ $$aTrade Mark Act, Secs. 14(7), 51, 53 and 54 ‒ AIRBUTLER  Headnote by the Editorial Office An advertising client is liable for unlawful acts committed in connection with the design of the commissioned advertising even if it does not specify the content and form of the advertising in detail or even expressly refrains from specifying the content.  Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), decision of 22 November 2022 – 4 Ob 134/22t Ruling: The appeal is dismissed.
000049122 542__ $$fhttps://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/72/3/231/6998505
000049122 588__ $$aCrossref
000049122 590__ $$aPublished online: 01-Dec-23
000049122 650_0 $$aIntellectual property.
000049122 650_0 $$aTrademarks$$zAustria.
000049122 650_0 $$aTrademark infringement.
000049122 650_0 $$aTrademarks.
000049122 650_0 $$aPatents.
000049122 7731_ $$tGRUR International$$wGRUR
000049122 830_0 $$aGRUR International,$$x2632-8550 ;$$v72, 12, 2023.
000049122 85641 $$uhttps://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad110$$yonline version
000049122 904__ $$aJournal article
000049122 980__ $$aGRUR