D

by F F

Submission date: 11-Mar-2020 04:57PM (UTC+0530)

Submission ID: 1273576000
File name: 2015060_PIL_project.pdf (634.51K)
Word count: 5294
Character count: 28773
D
ORIGINALITY REPORT

76 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
69%
INTERNET SOURCES
25%
PUBLICATIONS
39%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
www.wipo.int
Internet Source 14%
2
www.mhc.ie
Internet Source 14%
3
www.finnegan.com
Internet Source 10%
4
portal.research.lu.se
Internet Source 8%
5
www.jipitec.eu
Internet Source 4%
6
Submitted to Kyushu University
Student Paper 3%
7
www.home.pon.net
Internet Source 3%
8
Submitted to Christ College of Law
Student Paper 2%
9
papers.ssrn.com
Internet Source 2%
10
web.mst.edu
Internet Source 2%
11
"General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the
International Academy of Comparative
1%
Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès
de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé",
Springer Science and Business Media LLC,
2012
Publication

12
Submitted to University of Melbourne
Student Paper 1%
13
www.idunn.no
Internet Source 1%
14
www.aplf.org
Internet Source 1%
15
Submitted to Leiden University
Student Paper 1%
16
news.findlaw.com
Internet Source 1%
17
pure.rug.nl
Internet Source 1%
18
"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
Itar-Tass Russian v. Russian Kurier, Inc.",
1%
International Legal Materials, 2017
Publication
19
dri.org
Internet Source 1%
20
openaccess.city.ac.uk
Internet Source 1%
21
Submitted to Victoria University of Wellington
Student Paper <1%
22
Submitted to University of Auckland
Student Paper <1%
23
en.wikipedia.org
Internet Source <1%
24
Submitted to University of Hull
Student Paper <1%
25
www.law.wayne.edu
Internet Source <1%
26
www.artnews.com
Internet Source <1%
27
LexisNexis
Publication <1%
28
Submitted to Queen Mary and Westfield College
Student Paper <1%
29
Submitted to The University of Law Ltd
Student Paper <1%
30
Submitted to University of Edinburgh
Student Paper
 <1%
31
Submitted to 80019
Student Paper <1%
32
Submitted to University of Lancaster
Student Paper <1%
33
digitalcommons.law.scu.edu
Internet Source <1%
34
marcebrown.com
Internet Source <1%
35
www.ipwatchdog.com
Internet Source <1%
36
Submitted to University of Iowa
Student Paper <1%
37
"Patents and Technological Progress in a
Globalized World", Springer Science and
<1%
Business Media LLC, 2009
Publication

38
Toshiyuki Kono. "Jurisdiction and Applicable
Law in Matters of Intellectual Property", General
<1%
Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the
International Academy of Comparative
Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès
de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé,
2012
 Publication

39
Submitted to King's College
Student Paper <1%
40
www.stradley.com
Internet Source <1%
41
"Security Interests in Intellectual Property",
Springer Science and Business Media LLC,
<1%
2017
Publication

42
www.ali.org
Internet Source <1%
43
scholarship.law.wm.edu
Internet Source <1%
44
www.gnlu.ac.in
Internet Source <1%
45
Submitted to Gujarat National Law University
Student Paper <1%
46
Submitted to Koc University
Student Paper <1%

Exclude quotes Off Exclude matches Off

Exclude bibliography Off
D
GRADEMARK REPORT

FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS

/0 Instructor

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

PAGE 4

PAGE 5

PAGE 6

PAGE 7

PAGE 8

PAGE 9

PAGE 10

PAGE 11

PAGE 12

PAGE 13

PAGE 14

PAGE 15
RUBRIC: SOCIAL STUDIES SHORT ANSWER

FOCUS
State a clear claim/topic sentence and stay focused on supporting it.

MEETS A precise claim/topic sentence based on the historical topic and/or source(s) is present.
EXPECTATIONS The response maintains a strong focus on developing the claim/topic sentence,
thoroughly addressing the demands of the task.

APPROACHES A claim/topic sentence based on the historical topic and/or source(s) is present, but it may
EXPECTATIONS not completely address the demands of the task, or the response does not maintain focus
on developing it.

DOESN'T MEET The claim/topic sentence is vague, unclear, or missing, and the response does not
EXPECTATIONS address the demands of the task.

EVIDENCE
Represent relevant historical information accurately.

MEETS The most appropriate evidence is presented to support the topic sentence, and all
EXPECTATIONS information is historically accurate.

APPROACHES Appropriate evidence may be presented to support the topic sentence, but it may be
EXPECTATIONS inadequate or contain some historical inaccuracies.

DOESN'T MEET Evidence is general, inappropriate, or inadequate in support of the topic sentence, or is
EXPECTATIONS largely inaccurate.

DEVELOPMENT
Explain how evidence supports the topic sentence.

MEETS The response demonstrates reasoning and understanding of the historical topic and/or
EXPECTATIONS source(s), and sufficiently explains the relationship between claims and support.

APPROACHES Some reasoning and understanding of the historical topic and/or source(s) are
EXPECTATIONS demonstrated. The response attempts to explain the relationship between claims and
support.

DOESN'T MEET The response does not demonstrate reasoning and understanding of the historical topic
EXPECTATIONS and/or source(s), and explanation of the relationship between claims and support is
minimal.

ORGANIZATION
Present ideas in a logical structure that shows the relationships between ideas.

MEETS An effective organizational structure enhances the reader's understanding of the

EXPECTATIONS information. The relationships between ideas are made clear with effective transitional
phrases.
APPROACHES An organizational structure is evident, but may not be fully developed or appropriate.
EXPECTATIONS Transitional phrases may be used but the relationships between ideas are somewhat
unclear.

DOESN'T MEET An organizational structure is largely absent and the relationships between ideas are
EXPECTATIONS unclear.

LANGUAGE
Communicate ideas clearly using vocabulary specific to the historical topic.

MEETS Ideas are presented clearly, using vocabulary specific to the historical topic. If errors in
EXPECTATIONS conventions are present, they do not interfere with meaning.

APPROACHES Ideas are mostly clear, using some vocabulary specific to the historical topic. Some errors
EXPECTATIONS in conventions are present that may interfere with meaning.

DOESN'T MEET Ideas are not clear, using little to no vocabulary specific to the historical topic. Several
EXPECTATIONS errors in conventions interfere with meaning.