- Financial institutions
- Second Amendment Agreement to that certain Partnership Interest Pledge Agreement
- About authors
- ONLY TODAY!
In cases of acquisition of significant holdings i. The insufficiency of the Spanish social security system, and the threat of a potential crisis in the system, prompted the sentiment that social security benefits, especially retirement benefits, would have to be supplemented. Thus saving and funded pension plans emerged to ensure an adequate pension upon retirement.
In the Pension Plan and Fund Law introduced in Spain a savings arrangement that has given rise to a solid long-term instrument through which investors can provide for the future. This Law resulted in the institutionalization of pension plans sponsored by employers, certain associations and financial institutions. The savings are invested in a pension fund and are returned, capitalized, upon retirement, death, death of a spouse, orphanhood, permanent and absolute inability to work in the regular occupation or permanent and absolute inability to work, and complete disability or severe or complete dependency of the participant.
This system is of great social import, since it ensures future income for the participant or beneficiary. Moreover, pension funds have high investment potential as they have to invest the funds they receive, which gives them great financial power. A pension plan is a contract that regulates the obligations and rights of the parties to it participants, sponsors and beneficiaries with the aim of determining the benefits that the participant or the beneficiary is entitled to, the conditions of that entitlement and the manner in which the plan is financed.
These plans are based on contributions of savings which, duly capitalized, ensure future pensions. The various characteristics of pension plans include, most notably, their favorable tax treatment and the restrictions on being able to draw out any of the accumulated savings prior to the occurrence of the contingency covered, except in cases of long-term unemployment or serious illness.
Pension plans, regardless of their type, must necessarily be included in a pension fund, which are asset pools without separate legal personality created for the sole purpose of complying with pension plans, and are the investment instrument for the savings. All financial contributions from the sponsors and from the plan participants must be immediately and necessarily included in the position account of the plan in the pension fund, out of which any benefits arising under the plan will be paid.
A pension fund has no legal personality and must be administered, necessarily, by a management company, which keeps its accounting records, selects its investments and orders the depositary to purchase and sell assets. The following may be management companies:. In order to set up a pension fund, prior authorization from the Ministry of Economy and Business and registration of the corresponding public deed at the appropriate Commercial Registry are required. With regard to the investments made by pension funds, the regulations currently in force have aimed to lend greater legal certainty to the investment process, with measures to encourage transparency in investment and the supply of information to participants.
In this respect, the applicable legislation has established a specific authorization procedure for entities wishing to engage in these activities. At the end of , the number of pension plans appearing in the DGS Register totaled 2,, compared with 2, the year before 18 , which represents a decrease of 0.
Regarding the number of pension plans, only increase the individual pension plans 0. On the other hand, the number of participants has slightly decreased in compared to the previous year by 4. Of the total of participants, The evolution of the contributions in has depended on the mode of plan, noting an increase of 2. Thus, the employment plans decreased in contributions following the existing downward trend from and that it seemed to have changed with the increase of contributions in Of the contributions made in to the employment plans, The contributions to the Individual pension plans have increased 3.
Contributions to the associated pension plans have remained stable according to the previous year. The assets managed by Pension Funds increased 2.
The table below shows the changes in pension funds in Spain by number of registered pension funds and managed assets Table 8. The number of management companies entered at December 31, in the DGS Administrative Register totaled 82 whereas the number of management companies registered at December 31, was In general, securitization consists of the conversion of collection rights into standardized fixed-income securities for possible subsequent trading on regulated securities markets, where they can be purchased by investors.
Management Companies can also set up, manage and represent funds and special purpose vehicles equivalent to securitization funds which are set up abroad in accordance with whatever legislation may be applicable.
Spain: an attractive country for investment Introduction The country, its people and quality of life Spain and the European Union Infraestructure Economic structure Domestic market Foreign trade and investment Legislation on foreign investment and exchange control Obligations in relation to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing Establishing a business in Spain Introduction Different ways of doing business in Spain Tax identification number N. Formation of a company Limited liability entrepreneur Opening of a branch Other alternatives for operating in Spain Other alternatives for investing in Spain Dispute resolution Appendix I.
Table summarizing the tax treatment given to the various ways of investing in Spain Tax system Introduction Central government taxes Local taxes Appendix I. Corporate income tax incentives for investment Appendix II. Treaty tax rates 38 Appendix III. Calculation of corporate income tax Appendix IV. Nonresident case study: income obtained without a permanent establishment Appendix VI. Reference to official fees for Appendix II. Intellectual property conventions Legal framework and tax implications of e-commerce in Spain Introduction Defining regulatory principles Tax implications of e-commerce in Spain Annex I.
Company and commercial law Applicable legislation Forms of business enterprise The treatment of liability at the types of business enterprises Main characteristics of corporations and limited liability companies European public limited-liability company S. New limited liability company Professional services firm S.
Accounting and audit issues Legal framework Accounting records Financial statements Conceptual accounting framework and recognition and measurement bases Distributable profit Consolidation Requirements concerning disclosures in the notes to the financial statements Auditing requirements Financial statement publication requirements Appendix I. Model balance sheets Appendix II. Model income statements Appendix III. Promoting the sound working of the euro zone payment system. Issuing legal tender banknotes.
Functions established in the Law on the Autonomy of the Bank of Spain Supervising the solvency and behavior of credit institutions and the financial markets. Preparing and publishing statistics on its functions. Providing treasury services and acting as a financial agent for government debt. Advising the Government and preparing the appropriate reports and studies. Holding and managing currency and precious metal reserves not transferred to the ECB.
Placing coins in circulation and performing, on behalf of the State, all other functions entrusted to it in this connection. Regulation EU no.
Corporate purpose Restricted to the pursuit of typical banking activities and of the reserved activity for credit institutions, consisting of the attracting of repayable funds from the public— whatever the use to which they are to be put—in the form of deposits, loans, temporary assignments of financial assets or similar. Managing body The Board of Directors must have no fewer than five members. The members of the Board of Directors, individuals representing directors who are legal entities, and general managers or persons in similar positions, those in charge of the internal control functions, and those holding other positions which play a key part in the day-to-day pursuit of the activities of the credit institution or its parent Company, must be persons of good repute in business and professional terms, have the knowledge and experience required for the performance of their functions and be committed to the good governance of the entity.
The meeting of these requirements is to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the pertinent legislation. Registration of the managers, directors and similar executives on the Register of Senior Officers. Shares Shares must be registered. Formation of banks It is up to the Bank of Spain to submit to the European Central Bank an authorization proposal for the formation of a bank. Must be registered on the Register of credit institutions of the Bank of Spain. Corporate purpose They may perform all types of lending and deposit-taking operations and provide all the services permitted to banks and savings banks, provided they give priority to the financial needs of their members.
However, if the bylaws so provide, the vote of the members may be in proportion to their contribution to the capital, to the activity pursued, or to the number of members of associated cooperatives; in this case, the bylaws must clearly indicate the criteria for such proportional voting. Governing Board comprising at least five members, two of whom may be non-members. General Manager, without governing functions, subordinated to the Governing Board.
All members of the Governing Board must be persons of good repute in business and professional terms, have the knowledge and experience required to perform their functions, and be committed to the good governance of the entity. Registration of managers, directors or similar executives on the Register of Senior Officers. Contributions They are for an indefinite term.
Their remuneration is conditional on the existence of net income or sufficient unrestricted reserves to cover the remuneration. Their redemption is subject to compliance with the solvency ratio. Contact News Publications. Skip to main content. Presentation Madrid Barcelona Valencia Seville. Wealth Management. Asset Management. Gold Medal Travel Group plc v. Legacy Health System v. Mpire Corporation v. Intel Corporation v. Compart AG v. Donald J.
Trump v. Paris Hilton v. Lardi Ltd v. Havanna S. Bally Gaming, Inc. Fontem Holdings 4, B. J- B-, Limestar Inc. Candi Controls, Inc. Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc. Domain Administrator, Name Administration Inc. Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. When used in a non-dictionary distinctive sense i. In order to find rights or legitimate interests in a domain name based on its dictionary meaning, the domain name should be genuinely used, or at least demonstrably intended for such use, in connection with the relied-upon dictionary meaning and not to trade off third-party trademark rights.
The same respondent would not however have a legitimate interest in the domain name if the corresponding website is aimed at goods or services that target a third-party trademark in this example: Orange , well-known inter alia for telecommunications and Internet services which uses the same term as a trademark in a non-dictionary sense. Panels have assessed cases involving common phrases whether spelled out or numerical corresponding in whole or in part to numbers e. Panels also tend to look at factors such as the status and fame of the relevant mark and whether the respondent has registered and legitimately used other domain names containing dictionary words or phrases in connection with the respective dictionary meaning.
Allocation Network GmbH v. Asphalt Research Technology, Inc. Porto Chico Stores, Inc. Classmates Online, Inc. Gorstew Limited v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Technology, Inc v. Mobile Communication Service Inc. Media General Communications, Inc. D , Denied. Terroni Inc. RareNames, Inc. St Andrews Links Ltd v. Gibson, LLC v. Dollar Bank, Federal Savings Bank v. Domain Admin, Mrs. Audi AG v. Viacom International Inc. American Franchise Marketing Limited v.
Host Master, Qualcomm Inc. Statoil ASA Statoil v. Welcomemat Services, Inc. Michael Plummer Jr. Panels tend to assess claimed respondent rights or legitimate interests in the present, i. Panels will often also consider any evidence of previous legitimate use under the third UDRP element. Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.
Fuji Jukogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. Moomin Characters Oy Ltd v. Fanuc Corporation v. Bruyerre S. California Milk Processor Board v. Domain Admin, RegistrarAds, Inc. Absent evidence of such circumstances indicating pretext however, panels have been reluctant to reject a respondent trademark registration out of hand. British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Chongqing Acme Tech. Canon U. Client Domain Administrator and www.
- 1. First UDRP Element!
- Bird Flu: Everything You Need to Know About the Next Pandemic.
- Posts navigation.
Emedia Development Ltd. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter Plc v. Covex Farma S. Aukro Ukraine LLC v. Evidence that the goods are offered disproportionately below market value, that the goods are only sold under license or through a prescription especially with pharmaceutical products , that the images of the goods prima facie suggest e.
Prada S. Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique v. Karen Millen Fashions Limited v. Philipp Plein v. Euroview Enterprises LLC v. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Chopard International S. Moncler S. Hermes International, SCA v. Belstaff S. Oakley, Inc. Jazz Basketball Investors, Inc. Societe du Figaro S. Cognac Inc. Le Cordon Bleu International B. Lloyds Bank Plc v. Bialetti Industrie S. Tractor Supply Co. Apart from the circumstances surrounding their registration, to support a claim to rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP, the use of a disputed domain name must in any event not be abusive of third-party trademark rights.
In some cases therefore, panels assess the second and third UDRP elements together, for example where clear indicia of bad faith suggest there cannot be any respondent rights or legitimate interests. In such cases, panels have found that the facts and circumstances of the case would benefit from a joint discussion of the policy elements.
Roche Products Limited v. Total Temperature Instrumentation, Inc. General evidentiary framework: complaints alleging the types of conduct described in UDRP paragraph 4 b should be supported by arguments and available evidence such as dated screenshots of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves or correspondence between the parties.
Noting that the UDRP normally provides for a single round of pleadings without opportunity for discovery, panels have expressed an expectation that a complainant should anticipate and address likely plausible respondent defenses with supporting arguments and evidence in its complaint. To the extent a response raises defenses that could not reasonably have been anticipated, a complainant may request that the panel provide an opportunity to address such unanticipated defenses in a supplemental filing, which may also include a rebuttal opportunity for the respondent.
For discussion of specific application by panels of the policy criteria see the discussion below at sections 3. BlankPage AG v. Michael Patrick Lynch v. Generally speaking, panels have found that the practice as such of registering a domain name for subsequent resale including for a profit would not by itself support a claim that the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with the primary purpose of selling it to a trademark owner or its competitor. Circumstances indicating that a domain name was registered for the bad-faith purpose of selling it to a trademark owner can be highly fact-specific; the nature of the domain name e.
Such circumstances notably include credible pre-complaint website content corresponding to a dictionary meaning of the term comprising the domain name, as opposed to targeting the trademark owner or its competitor. Particularly where the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a highly distinctive or famous mark, panels have tended to view with a degree of skepticism a respondent defense that the domain name was merely registered for legitimate speculation based for example on any claimed dictionary meaning as opposed to targeting a specific brand owner.
Offers to sell: Taking the above scenarios into account, panels have generally found that where a registrant has an independent right to or legitimate interest in a domain name, an offer to sell that domain name would not be evidence of bad faith for purposes of the UDRP, irrespective of which party solicits the prospective sale.
Viceroy Cayman Ltd. Bottega Veneta SA v. Avid Dating Life Inc. Cocolabel AB v. Aygaz Anonim Sirketi v. Diltex, S. Revevol SARL v. Whoisguard Inc. Bharti Airtel Limited v. ZB, N. Serverscheck BVBA v. Albemarle Corporation v. Alois Muehlberger, L. Berger Co. Mou Limited v.
Pepperdine University v. BDC Partners, Inc. Cofra Holding AG v. Cash Converters Pty Ltd. OLX, B. UDRP panels have held that establishing a pattern of bad faith conduct requires more than one, but as few as two instances of abusive domain name registration. This may include a scenario where a respondent, on separate occasions, has registered trademark-abusive domain names, even where directed at the same brand owner. A pattern of abuse has also been found where the respondent registers, simultaneously or otherwise, multiple trademark-abusive domain names corresponding to the distinct marks of individual brand owners.
Panels have however been reluctant to find a pattern of abuse where a single UDRP case merely contains two domain names registered simultaneously by the same respondent directed at a single complainant mark. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Investone Retirement Specialists, Inc. AMPO, S. COOP v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Bestway Holdings Ltd v. Salvatore Ferragamo S.
Rolls-Royce PLC v. While this may include prior customers or business partners of the complainant, it would not encompass legitimate noncommercial criticism. Mission KwaSizabantu v. Twiflex Limited v. Champion Innovations, Ltd. Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v. Culligan International Company v. Bremner Capital LLP v. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.
As noted in section 2. The Polygenix Group Co. Park Place Entertainment Corporation v. Xbridge Limited v. Marchex Sales, Inc. Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Barclays Bank PLC v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc. First ScotRail Limited v. Randstad Holding nv v. Shawn Dohmen v. Haas Food Equipment GmbH v. Pixers Ltd. Whois Privacy Corp. Labrador II, Inc. Viva La Pets Inc. Walgreen Co. Ebel International Limited v. In addition to the above-described application of the specific Policy criteria, panels have applied a range of considerations in assessing bad faith.
Application of UDRP paragraph 4 b iv : in some cases, e. In addition to the above-described scenarios, sections 3. In limited circumstances — notably where the parties are both located in the United States and the complainant has obtained a federal trademark registration pre-dating the relevant domain name registration — panels have been prepared to apply the concept of constructive notice.
Panels have held that especially domainers undertaking bulk purchases or automated registrations have an affirmative obligation to avoid the registration of trademark-abusive domain names. Panelists will look to the facts of the case to determine whether such respondent has undertaken good faith efforts to screen such registrations against readily-available online databases to avoid the registration of trademark-abusive domain names.
Noting the possibility of co-existence of trademarks across jurisdictions and classes of goods and services, and the fact that trademarks which may be inherently descriptive in one context may be generic in another, the mere fact of certain domain names proving identical or confusingly similar to third-party trademarks pursuant to a search does not however mean that such registrations cannot as such be undertaken or would automatically be considered to be in bad faith.
Panels have conversely found that where a respondent provides evidence that it has undertaken additional measures to avoid abusive use of any registered domain names, e. Collective Media, Inc. Michael Jastremski v. Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd. Tudor Games, Inc. Limited Stores, LLC v.
Intesa Sanpaolo S. Accenture Global Services Limited v. Progeo Monitoring GmbH v. Aveva Group Plc. Coolside Limited v. Contact Privacy Inc. Arcelormittal S. IDR Solutions Ltd.elephant.hyperthese.net/110-chloroquine-phosphate-et.php
Tyson Foods, Inc. Awesome Events Limited v. SembCorp Industries Limited v. Maori Television Service v. Champion Broadcasting System, Inc. Telepathy, Inc. PC Mall, Inc v. American Funds Distributors, Inc. Transure Enterprise Ltd. The Fragrance Foundation Inc. Kellwood Company v. Research In Motion Limited v. Dansko, LLC v. Comerica Incorporated v. D , Transfer. MD On-line, Inc.
- Empowering Squatter Citizen: Local Government, Civil Society and Urban Poverty Reduction;
- Financial institutions.
- 2. Second UDRP Element!
- Financial institutions.
Yenta Marketing, Inc. Asda Stores, Ltd. Nutricia International BV v. TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. Marketing Total S. Aspen Holdings Inc. CouponCabin LLC v. Yumiko, LLC v. Intocable, Ltd. Jupiters Limited v. Ladbroke Group Plc v. Westdev Limited v. Stertil B. Bruichladdich Distillery Company Limited v. Missoni S. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such purposes include sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution. Spoke Media Holdings, Inc. DivX, LLC v.
Publix Asset Management Company v. WhoisGuard, Inc. Magna International Inc.
Second Amendment Agreement to that certain Partnership Interest Pledge Agreement
BJ's Wholesale Club v. Minerva S. Arla Foods Amba v. Michael Guthrie, M. Neither the fact that such links are generated by a third party such as a registrar or auction platform or their affiliate , nor the fact that the respondent itself may not have directly profited, would by itself prevent a finding of bad faith. NetIncome Ventures Inc.
Owens Corning v. McDonald's Corporation v. Rolex Watch U. FIL Limited v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. In terms of underlying respondent identity, panels treat privacy and proxy services as practical equivalents for purposes of the UDRP, and the fact that such services may be employed to prevent the complainant and panel from knowing the identity of the actual underlying registrant of a domain name does not prevent panel assessment of the UDRP elements.
Where it appears that a respondent employs a privacy or proxy service merely to avoid being notified of a UDRP proceeding filed against it, panels tend to find that this supports an inference of bad faith; a respondent filing a response may refute such inference. Panels additionally view the provision of false contact information or an additional privacy or proxy service underlying a privacy or proxy service as an indication of bad faith.
Gaylord Entertainment Company v. Fifth Third Bancorp v. The iFranchise Group v. MSA, Inc. TV, Inc. Matvil Corporation v. Maertens Marketing GmbH v. Ferm Living ApS v. IL Makiage Cosmetics Ltd. Solvay SA v. WhatsApp, Inc. In cases where the respondent appears to otherwise have a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name, a clear and sufficiently prominent disclaimer would lend support to circumstances suggesting its good faith.
Dublin Limited v. Besiktas Jimnastik Kulubu Dernegi v. Pliva, Inc. AARC Inc. McMullen Argus Publishing Inc. Bret S. Wink NYC, Inc. Wink New York, Inc. Beachbody, LLC v. Educational Testing Service v. Gerardo Suarez, Medicina Mexico, S. Carrefour v. Subject to scenarios described in 3. As an exception to the general proposition described above in 3. Side by Side, Inc. Forsythe Cosmetic Group, Ltd. Compositech, Inc. Wirecard AG v. Telepathy Inc.
- Building Returns.
- Board Effectiveness and Cost of Debt?
- Spain: Alternative Investment Funds 2018.
- Subscribe to our newsletter;
- Kooperative Umweltpolitik und nachhaltige Innovationen: Das Beispiel der chemischen Industrie (Nachhaltigkeit und Innovation) (German Edition);
- Democracy in Peril.
- 2. Are there any industry sector controls on investment?.
Edatanetworks Inc. Pinterest, Inc. Dreamlines GmbH v. Heraeus Kulzer GmbH v. TOBAM v. Alois Muehlberger , L. Kion Printing Inc. ExecuJet Holdings Ltd. Air Alpha America, Inc. Kangwon Land, Inc. Bong Woo Chun K. General Growth Properties, Inc. Geopack v. Name Administration Inc. Innovative Growing Solutions, Inc. Cosmetic Research Group v. BML Group Limited v. The Dow Chemical Company and E. Shant Moughalian, Contess, Inc. Also, irrespective of registrant representations undertaken further to UDRP paragraph 2, panels have found that the mere renewal of a domain name registration by the same registrant is insufficient to support a finding of registration in bad faith.
On the other hand, the transfer of a domain name registration from a third party to the respondent is not a renewal and the date on which the current registrant acquired the domain name is the date a panel will consider in assessing bad faith. This holds true for single domain name acquisitions as well as for portfolio acquisitions. In cases where the domain name registration is masked by a privacy or proxy service and the complainant credibly alleges that a relevant change in registration has occurred, it would be incumbent on the respondent to provide satisfactory evidence of an unbroken chain of registration; respondent failure to do so has led panels to infer an attempt to conceal the true underlying registrant following a change in the relevant registration.
Such an attempt may in certain cases form part of a broader scenario whereby application of UDRP paragraph 4 b iv , read in light of paragraph 4 a ii , can support an inference of bad faith registration for the respondent to rebut. Substance Abuse Management, Inc. Screen Actors Modesl [sic] International, Inc. Ticketmaster Corporation v. Intellogy Solutions, LLC v.
Craig Schmidt and IntelliGolf, Inc. Web Entertainment, LLC v. WhoIsguard Protected, Inc. Mirza Juddani v. Capitalmatch Pty Ltd v. Registrar Technician, BestRegistrar. Cantarella Bros Pty Limited v. Charter Communications, Inc. However, panels are mindful that negotiations between domain name registrants and trademark owners whether regarding a purchase or trademark-abusive content can serve a legitimate useful purpose, and are not necessarily indicative of bad faith. Whether settlement discussions occur before or after the filing of a UDRP proceeding is not necessarily relevant by itself to panel assessment of the case merits.
CBS Broadcasting, Inc. Magnum Piering, Inc. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr. McMullan Bros. NB Trademarks, Inc. Panino Giusto S. Cash Converters Pty Ltd v. Giorgio Armani S. Balglow Finance S. Rba Edipresse, S. Attachmate Corporation v. LRC Products Limited v. Britannia Building Society v. Susan Scheff v. Newell Operating Company v. Christian Dior Couture v. While the UDRP does not operate on a strict doctrine of binding precedent, it is considered important for the overall credibility of the UDRP system that parties can reasonably anticipate the result of their case.
Often noting the existence of similar facts and circumstances or identifying distinguishing factors, panels strive for consistency with prior decisions. In so doing, panels seek to ensure that the UDRP operates in a fair and predictable manner for all stakeholders while also retaining sufficient flexibility to address evolving Internet and domain name practices.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Fresh Intellectual Properties, Inc. Giovanni Laporta, Yoyo. Zions First National Bank v. CP Masters B. Noting that a complainant must prevail on all three elements to succeed, in appropriate cases where a panel finds that one of the elements is clearly not met, the panel may consider it unnecessary to address the other elements. Tribeca Film Center, Inc. Bootie Brewing Company v. Deanna D.
Ward and Grabebootie Inc. William S. Russell v.