| 1. |
-
Animal Law and Animal Rights
- 2021
-
Editorial collection (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Animal law – legal scholarship focusing on animals in their own right – is on the rise. Traditionally, animals have been hidden within more established fields of law. In property law, for instance, animals have simply been treated as pieces of property. However, an increasing number of scholars now understand the legal status of animals as a distinct legal issue.This volume presents 13 articles on animal law and animal rights. The contributions address these topics from a wide variety of angles, from the doctrinal analysis of current animal law to the philosophical examination of the idea of animal rights. The volume is organized into three parts: “Animal Law: A Field of Law in the Making”, “Animals in Nordic Legal Systems” and “Philosophical and Empirical Approaches”.The scientific coordinators for this volume have been Professor Mauro Zamboni, Stockholm University and Academy of Finland Postdoctoral Fellow Visa A.J. Kurki, University of Helsinki.
|
|
| 2. |
-
Constitutional Law in the Scandinavian Countries : A tribute to the Instrument of Government 1974-2024
- 2024
-
Editorial collection (other academic/artistic)abstract
- When the Swedish Instrument of Government was adopted in 1974, popular sovereignty and a strong Parliament (Riksdag) prevailed. The courts played a subordinate role, individual rights were less prominent, and constitutional cases were rarely adjudicated. Fifty years later, Sweden has moved from a separation of functions to a de facto separation of powers. Popular sovereignty remains firmly entrenched, but it has taken on a different meaning as a result of Sweden’s membership in the European Union (EU). In 2010, therefore, the Instrument of Government was reformed which strengthened the position of the Swedish courts. The significance of individual rights has also increased as a result of Sweden’s membership in the EU, the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into Swedish law, and the expansion of Chapter 2 on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in the Instrument of Government. This volume is a collaboration between Swedish and other Nordic researchers to celebrate the anniversary of the Swedish Instrument of Government. The events of our recent past, characterised by pandemics, terrorist threats and repressive legislation to deal with serious crime, demonstrate that Constitutional issues are even more relevant today than ever.
|
|
| 3. |
-
Investigation and Prosecution in Scandinavia of International Crimes
- 2020
-
Editorial collection (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Although none of the Scandinavian countries have had armed conflicts on their soil since the Second World War, there are in Scandinavia at present war criminals, and witnesses and victims of atrocity crimes. The crimes have been committed in different situations outside Scandinavia and it is only lately that the investigation and prosecution of these crimes have gained adequate attention.This volume presents 21 articles on the investigation and prosecution in Scandinavia of international crimes. The articles present decisions and cases tried at domestic level in a thematic manner, by examining some overarching questions. For instance, to what extent and how international law sources are considered and/or implemented in the Scandinavian countries and how the objectives of international criminal law are brought into action. The volume is organized into five parts: Introduction, General Principles and Matters of Criminal Law, International Crimes, Procedural Matters, and Comparative Outlook.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia
(author)
-
AMS Neve and Others (C-172/18) : Looking for a Greater ‘Degree of Consistency’ Between the Special Jurisdiction Rule for EU Trade Marks and National Trade Marks
- 2020
-
In: GRUR international. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2632-8623 .- 2632-8550. ; 69:4, s. 355-364
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in AMS Neve and others (C-172/18) clarifies how to interpret the concept ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened’ in the rule on special jurisdiction in the European Union Trade Mark Regulation. The CJEU held that Art. 125(5) should be interpreted to mean that the right holder may bring an action before an EU trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom advertising and offers for sale are directed are located, even if the defendant took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display.With this judgment the CJEU introduces a targeting approach, which is something it has declined to do for the corresponding rule in Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast that applies to infringements of national trade marks. While the targeting approach is encouraging, the CJEU will need to clarify it to fulfil the objective of legal certainty. In addition, the CJEU appears to have interpreted Art. 125(5) EUTMR to exclude the Member State of activation. This is in contrast to Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast, which gives a right holder a choice between the Member State of activation and the Member State where the trade mark is registered. The article concludes that there is no justification for these differences in the special rules on jurisdiction applicable to EU trade marks and national trades.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia
(author)
-
Concurrent Claims against Licensee: Which Courts have International Jurisdiction?
- 2022
-
In: Magna Mater Marianne Levin 2022. - Stockholm : Jure förlag AB. - 9789172238879 ; , s. 131-141
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- A breach of certain clauses in a license agreement may give rise to ‘concurrent liability' in contract and in intellectual property (IP) law. For instance, if a licensor discovers that its licensee uses the registered design or trademark for a range of products not covered by the license, these uses of the design or the trademark may constitute both a breach of contract and an infringement of the right holder’s exclusive right protected by the applicable design or trademark law. Under the law of many legal systems, the licensor (who is also the right holder) may be permitted to frame its action as one in contract or one in IP law, or both, in order to increase its chances of success on the merits and to obtain the most effective remedy. If the dispute between the licensor and the licensee has cross-border elements questions arise concerning which courts have international jurisdiction. Pursuant to Article 7(1) BIa, ‘a matter relating to a contract’ may be brought ‘in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question´ (forum solutionis) and pursuant to Article 7(2) BIa, ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ may be brought ‘in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ (forum delicti). As these rules have different connecting factors, they might be located in different Member States. The CJEU has held that a matter might fall under Article 7(1) or Article 7(2) but it cannot fall under both. In addition, the CJEU has declined to interpret Article 7 so as to confer accessory jurisdiction (Annex Kompetenz) so that a court having jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(2) over the IP claim will not have jurisdiction over related contract claim (and vice versa). The purpose of this article is to analyse whether the licensor can choose its preferred Member State by the way it frames its cause of action (i.e. in contract or in IP law).
|
|
| 8. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia, 1965-
(author)
-
Cross-border Trade Secret Disputes in the European Union : Jurisdiction and Applicable Law
- 2023
-
Book (other academic/artistic)abstract
- In today’s data-driven economy, it is essential for companies to protect their trade secrets against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure; with the ease of digital communications, employee migration and international trade, trade secret violations now often occur across national borders. This book examines how trade secret protection can differ across jurisdictions, where trade secret holders can bring proceedings, and which country’s law is applicable.The book provides a European perspective, analysing how the EU’s rules on jurisdiction and applicable law relate to the EU’s wider objectives of encouraging cross-border innovation activities. Using common trade secret scenarios as a springboard for analysis, this book questions whether EU private international law rules can be interpreted to facilitate the objectives of the EU Trade Secret Directive and in doing so it sets out a detailed examination of both regimes.
|
|
| 9. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia, et al.
(author)
-
Enhancing critical thinking in private international law
- 2020
-
In: The Law Teacher. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0306-9400 .- 1943-0353. ; 54:3, s. 400-413
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article describes and evaluates the reforms that the authors (as course managers) introduced to enhance critical thinking in the compulsory course on private international law in the Master of Laws programme at Stockholm University. The reforms were made in response to a decision by the Stockholm University Law Faculty Board to develop the “Stockholm Model” in an effort to strengthen students’ critical and scientific approach to law. The Stockholm Model aims to place law in a broader context so students can understand its relation to and impact on society. It also shifts the focus from an orthodox teaching of the doctrinal subject areas to facilitating the students’ ability to apply legal and other social science methods to analyse and develop the law. The article evaluates the success of the measures and reflects on what more can be done to improve critical thinking.
|
|
| 10. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia
(author)
-
Exclusive Right
- 2024
-
In: Elgar Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property Law. - Surry : Edward Elgar Publishing. - 9781800886926 - 9781800886933
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 11. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia
(author)
-
Exhaustion
- 2025
-
In: Elgar Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property Law. - Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Publishing. - 9781800886926 - 9781800886933
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This entry describes the theoretical and historical underpinnings of the principle of exhaustion in intellectual property law as well as its internationel legal framework.
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia, 1965-
(author)
-
Gtflix Tv v DR : ‘Same Ole Same Ole’ or Has the CJEU Broken New Ground?
- 2022
-
In: Europarättslig tidskrift. - Stockholm. - 1403-8722 .- 2002-3561. ; 2022:2, s. 251-261
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- In Gtflix Tv v DR, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down an important decision confirming the mosaic approach and the accessibility approach to the application of the damage head of jurisdiction to infringements of personality rights on the internet pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. Pursuant to the mosaic approach, an injured party can bring proceedings in every Member State where the damage occurs but only with respect to the damage taking place in that Member State’s territory. Pursuant to the accessibility approach, the sole criterium for the occurrence of damage in a Member State is that the content that is placed online ‘is or has been accessible’ in that Member State. Both these approaches have been criticised by commentators and resisted by the Member States courts. Nevertheless, the CJEU arguably forges new ground as the decision seems to expand the mosaic and accessibility approaches into the realm of unfair competition law. Lastly, questions remain concerning whether the courts of the Member State where the damage occurred have jurisdiction to order other territorially limited remedies such as geo-blocking measures, in additionto compensation for damage.
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia
(author)
-
International Jurisdiction over Cross-border Private Enforcement Actions under the GDPR
- 2018
-
In: Scandinavian Studies in Law. - : Elsevier BV. - 0085-5944. ; 65
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The new European Union (EU) Regulation on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (hereinafter “General Data Protection Regulation or “GDPR”) aims to strengthen individual rights for the protection of personal data by, inter alia, facilitating private enforcement actions. To this end, the GDPR clarifies the data subject’s right to a direct and independent private enforcement action directly against the controller or processer. As the infringement of personal data rights increasingly takes on cross border dimensions, the GDPR sets out rules on jurisdiction allowing the data subject to bring a private enforcement action in the Member State where the offending controller or processor has its establishment, or alternatively in the Member State where the data subject has his or her habitual residence.The aim of this article is to analyze the jurisdictional options available to a data subject to bring a private enforcement action to enforce his/her data protection rights before the GDPR, under the Member States’ general rules on jurisdiction in private international law, and after the GDPR, under the GDPR’s own rules on jurisdiction. In addition, the article analyzes whether the new rules on jurisdiction in the GDPR supplement or supplant the Member States’ general rules on jurisdiction. The article discusses and analyzes the areas where the application and interpretation of the rules are unclear, and proposes interpretations that best serve the objectives of the GDPR to strengthen the rights of data subjects by facilitating private enforcement actions without jeopardizing the principle of legal certainty deemed necessary for the free movement of data within the EU.
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia
(author)
-
Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Online Copyright Cases
- 2021
-
In: The Routledge Handbook of EU Copyright Law. - London : Routledge. - 9780367436964 - 9780367741549 - 9781003156277 ; , s. 396-412
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The online exploitation of copyright-protected content frustrates its effective enforcement. This is because the global reach of the internet stands in stark contrast to the territoriality principle of international copyright law, whereby each State determines whether and the extent to which content is protected within its own territorial borders. When protected content is exploited online, it has the potential to infringe in every State where the content is accessible. This poses a challenge for private international law because its rules are based on localizing connecting factors within a geographical territory. These rules can be difficult to apply in an online copyright case because the infringement can be ubiquitous. This chapter describes how the European Union (EU) rules on jurisdiction and applicable law apply to online copyright infringement cases and analyzes whether the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) interpretations of these rules fulfil the underlying objectives of private international law. Lastly, the chapter provides some perspectives for the future.
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia
(author)
-
Jurisdiction and the principle of territoriality in intellectual property law : has the pendulum swung too far in the other direction?
- 2001
-
In: IIC-International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law. - 0018-9855 .- 2195-0237. ; 32:2, s. 124-141
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- In a recent decision, the Swedish Supreme Court has denied jurisdiction in respect of a claim for declaration of non-infringement of a Swedish patent against a Norwegian company. The article examines the decision in the light of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, taking into account previous case law of the European Court of Justice. It arrives at the conclusion that there is no clearly fixed solution for the problems at hand, but that the relevant articles of the Conventions should be interpreted differently depending on the nature of the case.
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia
(author)
-
Putting Right Holders in the Centre: Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan (C-194/16) : What Does It Mean for International Jurisdiction over Transborder Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes?
- 2018
-
In: IIC-International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0018-9855 .- 2195-0237. ; 49:9, s. 1022-1047
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper analyses what the decision in Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan (C-194/16) means for international jurisdiction under EU Regulation No 1215/2012 with respect to transborder intellectual property infringement disputes. In this case, the Court of Justice of the European Union extended “the centre of interests” basis of jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) of EU Regulation No 1215/2012 to legal persons claiming infringements of personality rights on the internet. The Court also held that actions for rectification and removal of content infringing personality rights may not be brought before the courts of a Member State where the content is accessible. This article concludes that the centre of interests basis of jurisdiction is generally not applicable to right holders claiming infringements of intellectual property rights and/or complementary tort claims, except arguably for claims for the infringement of moral rights and unfair competition claims where the act exclusively affects the interests of a specific competitor. Many questions remain with respect to the localisation of a victim’s centre of interests. In addition, the article concludes that the judgment in Bolagsupplysningen does not affect a right holder’s ability to obtain an injunction in the Member State in which content accessible on the internet infringes a forum IP right to put an end to the infringement in that State. Still, the centre of interests basis of jurisdiction has the potential to give right holders an advantage for claims of online infringements of moral rights and acts of unfair competition that exclusively affect them and it can be expected that authors and traders will take advantage of this opportunity when considering their IP litigation strategies.
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia, 1965-
(author)
-
Sweden
- 2023
-
In: Jurisdiction Over Non-EU Defendants. - Oxford : Hart Publishing Ltd. - 9781509958917 - 9781509958931 ; , s. 237-256
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This report describes the Swedish rules on international jurisdiction over non-EU defendants and their application by the Swedish courts.
|
|
| 25. |
- Lundstedt, Lydia, 1965-
(author)
-
Territoriality in Intellectual Property Law : A comparative study of the interpretation and operation of the territoriality principle in the resolution of transborder intellectual property infringement disputes with respect to international civil jurisdiction, applicable law and the territorial scope of application of substantive intellectual property law in the European Union and United States
- 2016
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The principle of territoriality is a truism in intellectual property (IP) law. A premise underlying the principle is the right of each state to determine the extent to which IP rights exist and are protected within its own territory to fulfil its own economic, social and cultural policy goals. This is done by giving a right to prevent others from doing within the protected territory any of the acts that are exclusively reserved to the right holder under the IP statute that granted or protects the IP right. The principle of territoriality informs that IP rights granted or protected by a state are independent from those granted or protected by other states, and that the rights conferred under each state’s IP law are limited to the territory of that state. As the principle of territoriality neatly allocated jurisdiction among states on a territorial basis, it purportedly obviated the need for private international law. Each state exercised jurisdiction over the infringement of its own rights and applied its own domestic IP law, which served the interests of the states and of the parties.With the increase in the protection and exploitation of IP rights across national borders, infringements do not remain within hermetically sealed national territories. Acts taken in one state can have effects in other states and impair the policies that the rights were designed to fulfil. This raises questions concerning the territorial scope of application of the domestic IP law, that is, whether it is interpreted with respect to a domestic tangible act, effects on a domestic policy goal or both. In addition, the transborder exploitation of IP rights raises questions of private international law with respect to whether states exercise jurisdiction and apply national law to disputes concerning infringements of their domestic rights or whether states exercise jurisdiction and apply national law to disputes arising from acts committed in their territories (or both). These determinations may depend on different factors such as the different interests taken into consideration (e.g. state or party interests), the different legal traditions upon which the legal systems are based and the characteristics and functions of the IP rights themselves.This dissertation compares the interpretation and operation of the principle of territoriality of IP law in the private law resolution of transborder IP infringement disputes in the legal systems of the European Union and the United States, two distinctly different legal systems that have significant trade and investment relations with each other. The comparison shows that while the systems are functionally similar, the principle of territoriality is interpreted and operates somewhat differently in the two legal systems.
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
|
|
| 33. |
-
Rule of Law
- 2023
-
Editorial collection (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Rule of Law as a legal concept has been highly debated in the past decade, not least due to the current backslide in democratic ideals being witnessed in Europe and globally. While the Rule of Law is the backbone on which the modern state and its apparatus is built, what the concept actually entails remains rather unclear. Even non-democratic legal cultures often proclaim their adherence to the Rule of Law. In addition, it is an unsolved dilemma whether Rule of Law is the same or overlaps with the idea of Rechtsstaat. In this sixty-ninth volume in the series, Scandinavian Studies in Law, scholars from the Nordic countries reflect on whether and how the recent societal developments have affected the concept of Rule of Law within their respective fields. A recurring theme in the contributions is that the current Rule of Law debate has affected the Nordic legal orders not merely within individual legal fields, but in a more structural manner.
|
|
