BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

MacGregor Pelikánová Radka (Metropolitan University Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)
European Myriad of Approaches to Parasitic Commercial Practices
Oeconomia Copernicana, 2017, vol. 8, nr 2, s. 167-180, aneks, bibliogr. 19 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Nieuczciwa konkurencja, Regulacje prawne, Harmonizacja
Unfair competition, Legal regulations, Harmonisation
Klasyfikacja JEL: D18, K22, M38, O34
summ., This contribution was supported by GA ČR No. 17-11867S "Comparison of the interaction between the law against unfair competition and intellectual property law, and its consequences in the central European context."
Unia Europejska (UE)
European Union (EU)
Research background: The Post-Lisbon EU aims at smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth on the single internal market, as indicated by the Europe 2020. The interplay of the competition and consumer protection on such a market is subject to harmonization. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive has been made in order to achieve a full harmonization in this respect in 2007. However, EU member states share different social, political, legal and economic traditions and their approaches to unfair competition, in particular if committed via parasitic commercial practices, are dramatically diverse. In such a context, is it feasible, effective and efficient to install a full harmonization?
Purpose of the article: The primary purpose of this article is to describe and assess approaches to unfair competition, in particular if committed via parasitic commercial practices, by the EU law and EU member states law. The secondary purpose is to study and evaluate possibilities for the feasible, effective and efficient harmonization, or their lack.
Methods: The cross-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional nature of this article, and its dual purposes, implies the use of Meta-Analysis, of the critical comparison of laws and the impact of their application, to the holistic perception of historical and national contexts, and to case studies. The primary and secondary sources are explored and the yield knowledge and data are confronted with the status quo. The dominating qualitative research and data are complemented by the quantitative research and data.
Findings & Value added: The EU opted for an ambitious challenge to install via the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive a full harmonization of the regime against unfair commercial practices, including parasitic ones. The exploration pursuant to the duo of purposes suggests that the challenge is perhaps too ambitious and that the EU underestimated the dramatic diversity of approaches to unfair commercial practices, especially parasitic ones. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
  1. Areeda Ph.E. (1996). The Socratic method. Harvard Law Review, 109(5).
  2. Balcerzak A.P. (2016). Technological potential of European Economy. Proposition of measurement with application of multiple criteria decision analysis. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 12(3). doi: 10.14254/1800-5845.2016/12-3/1.
  3. Civic Consulting (2011). Study on the application of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices in the EU. Retrieved from (3.3.2017).
  4. Chronopoulos A. (2014). Legal and economic arguments for the protection of advertising value through trade mark law. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 4(4). doi: 10.4337/qmjip.2014.04.01.
  5. Cvik E.D., & MacGregor Pelikánová R.M. (2016). Implementation of directive 2014/17/EU and its impact on EU and member states markets, from not only a Czech perspectives. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.472.
  6. Diekhof E.K., Wittmer S., Reimers L. (2014). Does competition really bring out the worst?. Plos One, 9(7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098977.
  7. Gielen C. (2007). Kort begrip van het intellectuele eigendom. Deventer: Kluwer.
  8. Henning-Bodewig F. (2006). Unfair competition law European Union and member states. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  9. Hochman G., Shahar A., & Ariely D. (2015). Fairness requires deliberation. The primacy of economic over social considerations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00747.
  10. Knapp V. (1995). Teorie práva. Praha, ČR: C. H. Beck.
  11. Margoni T. (2016). The protection of sports event in the EU: property, intellectual property, unfair competition and special forms of protection. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47(4). doi: 10.1007/s40319-016-0475-8.
  12. Matejka J. (2013). Internet jako objekt práva - Hledání rovnováhy autonomie a soukromí. Praha, ČR : CZ.NIC.
  13. Ng C.W. (2016). The law of passing off - goodwill beyond goods. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47(7). doi: 10.1007/s40319-016-0510-9.
  14. Ohly A. (2010). The freedom of imitation and its limits - a European perspective. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 41.
  15. Osuji O.K. (2011). Business-to-consumer harassment, unfair commercial practices directive and the UK - a distorted picture of uniform harmonisation?. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34. doi: 10.1007/s10603-011-9175-4.
  16. Żelazny R., & Pietrucha J. (2017). Measuring innovation and institution: the creative economy index. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 12(1). doi:10.24136/eq.v12i1.3.
  17. Silverman D. (2013). Doing qualitative research - a practical handbook. London: SAGE.
  18. Tesauro C., & Russo C. (2008). Unfair commercial practices and misleading and comparative advertising: an analysis of the harmonization of EU legislation in view of the Italian implementation of the rules. Competition Policy International, 4(1).
  19. Vivant M. (2016). Building a common culture IP? International revue of intellectual property and competition law, 47(3). doi: 10.1007/s40319-016-0472-y.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu