000049228 000__ 01226cam\a22003735i\4500
000049228 001__ 49228
000049228 003__ SzGeWIPO
000049228 005__ 20240322214827.0
000049228 006__ m    eo  d        
000049228 007__ cr bn |||m|||a
000049228 008__ 240321s2010\\\\enk\\\\\\\\\\u000\0\eng\d
000049228 022__ $$a2044-7175
000049228 035__ $$a(OCoLC)1427546192
000049228 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda$$cSzGeWIPO$$dCaBNVSL
000049228 041__ $$aeng
000049228 043__ $$ae-uk---
000049228 084__ $$aGB 139
000049228 24500 $$aIs there a hole in the Dawn Donut Rule?
000049228 264_1 $$aLondon, England:$$bInforma, U.K.$$c2010.
000049228 300__ $$aGB 139 June 2010 ;$$c[28] cm
000049228 336__ $$atext$$2rdacontent
000049228 337__ $$acomputer$$2rdamedia
000049228 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier
000049228 520__ $$aSince the late 1950s, the Dawn Donut Rule has meant companies have had to prove geographic proximity to claim trademark infringement. But has the internet now taken a large bite out of the doughnut?
000049228 650_0 $$aIntellectual property.
000049228 650_0 $$aTrademarks.
000049228 650_0 $$aTrademark infringement.
000049228 650_0 $$aInternet$$xLaw and legislation.
000049228 650_0 $$aPatents.
000049228 7001_ $$aCruz, Tim,$$eauthor.
000049228 903__ $$aIntellectual Property Magazine
000049228 942__ $$cART$$jGB 139 June 2010$$2ddc
000049228 980__ $$aBIB
000049228 999__ $$c28508$$d28508