STOCKHOLM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW REVIEW
Volume 8, Issue 1
Branka Marušić
Editorial
In today’s knowledge-driven economy, intellectual property (IP) is central to progress, shaping societies and industries by protecting creativity and innovation. IP is not just an asset; it structures how markets function and rewards creators. For lawyers, regardless of specialisation, IP literacy is now an essential skill. Copyrights, designs, patents, and trademarks safeguard distinct elements of human ingenuity. Mastering these fundamentals enables lawyers to guide clients through an increasingly complex legal landscape. For this reason, the Stockholm LL.M. programme in European Intellectual Property Law has thrived for over 20 years, equipping legal professionals to meet the demands of modern IP.
Throughout the years that the programme has been running, both the students and the teachers faced several pressing challenges. These challenges stem from rapid technological change, globalisation, the need for practical skills, and the evolving role of IP in addressing broader social and ethical concerns. One of the biggest challenges that lawyers face, on both sides of the classroom, is the rapid pace of technological innovation. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, and digital platforms constantly generate new legal problems (and questions). Courts, policymakers, and lawmakers often struggle to keep up, and law schools face the same difficulty in updating their curricula. The rise of AI tools presents a further obstacle. AI challenges fundamental concepts of authorship, inventorship, and ownership in IP law. Moreover, the proliferation in the use of AI tools by students decreases critical thinking, dulls the research outputs (and often produces hallucinations and AI slop), and poses a serious ethical problem in academic honesty. There is also the underlying issue of specialisation. IP is a vast field encompassing patents, copyrights, designs, trademarks, trade secrets, geographical indications of origin, and more. The conundrum that educators face revolves on whether to provide broad exposure to all types of IP rights or deep specialisation in selected few. Too much breadth can leave students with a superficial understanding, while too much specialisation risks narrowing their opportunities. The challenge here lies in striking the right balance that reflects the diverse career paths one can take with a degree in IP law.
A second challenge (in teaching and studying IP law) arises from globalisation and a push to harmonise laws within the IP field. IPRs are territorial in nature, yet commerce, innovation, and cultural exchange are increasingly global. This creates the need for students to understand international frameworks such as the World Trade Organization and the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization, the differences and levels of regulation within a regional system in Europe, as well as the differences between regional systems and the ways in which IP protection can differ in the US, EU, China, and beyond. Furthermore, legal education in IP must also confront ethical and policy dimensions. IP rights influence access to medicines, the regulation of digital culture, the protection of indigenous knowledge, and the preservation of the public domain. Therefore, there is a growing need to train future IP lawyers to appreciate how IP laws intersect with questions of social justice, cultural diversity, and human rights.
This is why the LL.M. programme in European Intellectual Property Law at Stockholm has undergone several changes throughout the years in order to prepare students for the real-world complexities of modern IP practice. As an alumna myself (academic year 2013/2014), the programme I attended was quite different than the one I started teaching in 2016, when I joined Stockholm as a doctoral student. A decade ago, problems facing IP law were linked to ethical bio patents, the legality of sharing songs and movies online, unfair commercial practices by competitors in creating similar trademarks, and falsified goods – to name a few. In 2016 onwards, the list of problems was enlarged by (for example) the rise of blockchain technologies, non-fungible tokens, the move from physical markets to digital markets, the Covid-19 pandemic and access to medicine, AI, shifting of consumer attitudes to sustainable products and the certified origin of food. This elongation of the list of problematic areas proliferated the impact of IPRs in the world around us – and more importantly, enlarged the need (and interest) in studying IP law. Today, IP law is no longer confined to niche legal practice; it permeates virtually every area of law. Employment contracts must address ownership of employee-created works; commercial transactions often involve transfers of IP rights; litigation in many fields increasingly has an IP dimension; and even the use (and abuse) of import tariffs is linked with products that have IPRs embedded in them. Moreover, globalisation and the rise of digital technologies have made IP protection more complex and more critical than ever. Lawyers without IP literacy risk leaving clients vulnerable, overlooking key assets, or failing to recognise legal risks.
For this reason, legal education in IP is of immense importance in the modern world. It not only protects the rights of creators but also fuels economic growth, prevents disputes, and supports research and cultural preservation. By equipping individuals with the necessary knowledge, IP education ensures a balanced system that rewards innovation while safeguarding the public interest. As societies continue to evolve through creativity and technology, the need for strong legal literacy in IP becomes more pressing than ever.
This issue reflects the challenges that are faced in IP law, and I am happy to join Professor Frantzeska Papadopoulou Skarp as a content editor for SIPLR – a journal that allows me to read fresh perspectives on these challenges – and write this editorial. The authors in this issue are master students at Stockholm. In this issue, Alma Johansson explores trademarks in the EU with her The principle of unitary character of the EUTM: A legal chimera?, while Emmanouela Papadaki sparks our interest with Intertextuality and pastiche: the perfect recipe, or bland mediocrity?. Klara Schinzler invites us to consider From Reproduction to Licensing: Applying Article 15 CDSMD to the Process of Generative AI Training, and Asko Metsola proposes how to balance innovation and competition through SEPs in his contribution Standard essential patents (SEPs) in the EU – a way forward from the withdrawn SEP Regulation proposal. Lastly, Ragi Vyas takes us on a journey through Slow Fashion, Fast Fashion and Intellectual Property Rights. We hope you will enjoy the r(ide)ead.
Branka Marušić
Content Editor
The principle of unitary character of the EUTM: A legal chimera?
By Alma Johansson
ABSTRACT
The article examines the relationship between the protection of reputation for the well-known European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) and the unitary character of the EUTM. The principle of unitary character plays an important role in enhancing the European union (EU) internal market. EUTM should therefore be given the same protection throughout the union. To obtain reputation protection, the earlier EUTM need to have a reputation in the EU and where use of that sign without
due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the EUTM. Legal application issues arise when the principle of unitary character is to be applied together with the aforementioned requirements.
The main research question addressed in the article is whether the EUTM maintains its unitary character when applying reputation protection.
Given the strong connection of the question to EU law, EU law is applied to the greatest extent. Since the issue has not been addressed previously, case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union serves as the primary legal source for interpreting the meaning of the conditions for protection of reputation in the absence of other guidance. Furthermore, the impact of the unitary character in the application of reputation protection is examined.
The article concludes that the unitary character of the EUTM losing its impact in the application of reputation protection.
Intertextuality and pastiche: the perfect
recipe, or bland mediocrity?
By Emmanouela Papadaki
ABSTRACT
Remixes, fan art, fan fiction, and sampling are longstanding methods of cultural expression that now flourish in online spaces. These derivative forms of creation raise pressing questions for copyright law, particularly within the European Union’s closed catalogue of exceptions and limitations. Central among them is the little-explored pastiche exception, introduced by Article 5(3) (k) of the InfoSoc Directive, alongside parody and caricature. While the meaning of parody has been clarified by the CJEU, the contours of pastiche remain uncertain. With the implementation of the DSM Directive obliging all Member States to adopt this exception, and recent cases such as Pelham II bringing the question of interpretation before the CJEU, the scope and meaning of pastiche have gained new relevance. This article argues that pastiche should be understood as an autonomous legal concept of EU law, encompassing a broad range of transformative uses where recognisable elements of pre-existing works contribute to the creation of new and noticeably different ones. Rejecting limiting requirements such as humour, stylistic imitation, or tribute, the article proposes that pastiche can function as a flexible balancing tool between rightholders’ economic interests and users’ freedom of expression. Properly interpreted, it may offer the EU a viable alternative to fair use in safeguarding contemporary creativity.
From Reproduction to Licensing: Applying Article 15 CDSMD to the Process of Generative AI Training
By Klara Schinzler
ABSTRACT
As Generative AI becomes central to the digital landscape, its reliance on vast datasets – often sourced from publicly available press publications – raises pressing legal questions concerning intellectual property (IP) rights. This article examines whether the use of such content for training AI systems may infringe Article 15 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD), a provision originally intended to regulate unlicensed uses by news aggregators and search engines.1 It explores the legal implications of using press content at scale for training purposes – typically without attribution, remuneration, or a clear legal basis – and identifies the specific stages of the training process where reproduction rights may be implicated. A central issue is the scope of the press publishers’ right (PPR), particularly the distinction between protected editorial content and unprotected “mere facts”. To support this analysis, the article develops a test for assessing whether a given use constitutes infringing reproduction under Article 15 CDSMD. It further argues that, where training uses qualify as infringing, collective licensing could offer a pragmatic solution – ensuring legal certainty for developers, fair compensation for publishers, and fostering a sustainable and pluralistic digital information ecosystem.
Standard essential patents (SEPs) in the
EU – a way forward from the withdrawn SEP Regulation proposal?
By Asko Metsola
ABSTRACT
Standard essential patents (SEPs) are squarely placed at the intersection of intellectual property, standardisation, and competition law. They are vital for the development and deployment of technologies such as 5G, 6G, and the Internet of Things. In April 2023, the European Commission proposed an SEP Regulation aimed at increasing transparency, ensuring fair licensing on FRAND terms, and reducing disputes. However, the proposal faced criticism for potential burdens, limited institutional capacity, and risks to EU competitiveness. In late 2024, the incoming Commission announced the withdrawal of the initiative, leaving open whether a new proposal or alternative approach will follow. This article explores the legal, economic, and policy implications of SEPs in the EU after the withdrawal. It reviews the existing EU competition law framework, key case law such as Huawei v. ZTE, and enforcement practice against Samsung and Motorola. It also assesses expert group recommendations and recent reports by Letta and Draghi, which highlight the importance of connectivity, digital sovereignty, and innovation. The article argues that future EU policy should favour market-based solutions – such as patent pools, voluntary dispute resolution, and greater transparency – over heavy-handed regulation. Strengthening FRAND enforcement, supporting SMEs, and investing in R&D are proposed as more balanced ways forward.
Slow Fashion, Fast Fashion and Intellectual Property Rights
By Ragi Vyas
ABSTRACT
This work explores how intellectual property protection interacts with the realities of the modern fashion industry, especially considering the fast fashion industry. It begins by outlining the sociological mechanisms that shape fashion to illustrate why the protection of fashion might be different from the protection of other works. The piracy paradox, a theory that suggests that copying and imitation within the fashion industry is beneficial for designers, is introduced as a central analytical lens. Following this, the alternative forms of Intellectual Property protection for fashion are presented to examine how well these are aligned with the realities of fashion.