scholarly journals Public procurement and innovation

ERA Forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Caranta ◽  
Pedro Cerqueira Gomes
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Member States ◽  
State Aids

AbstractInnovation has come to the forefront of EU public procurement. Directive 2014/24/EU has given contracting authorities in the Member States a new award procedure to pursue innovation, namely the innovation partnership. Still a number of issues remain open, notably concerning the allocation of intellectual property rights that may call for the application of State aids rules. Further guidance is thus expected from the Commission.

While the Treaty does not affect the existence of intellectual property rights, there are nonetheless circumstances in which the exercise of such rights may be restricted by the prohibitions laid down in the treaty. 2. Article 36 permits exceptions to the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the rights that constitute the specific subject-matter of the type of intellectual property in question. Perhaps the main advantage of this formula, apart from the fact that it narrows the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 36, is that it allows subtle distinctions to be made depending on the type of intellectual property in issue. 3. The exclusive right conferred on the owner of intellectual property is exhausted in relation to the products in question when he puts them into circulation anywhere within the Common Market. Spelt out more fully, ‘the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the legislation of a Member State may not rely on that legislation in order to oppose the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another Member State by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right himself or person legally or economically dependent on him’. The expression ‘industrial and commercial property’ clearly embraces patents and trademarks. It also extends to such specialised areas as plant breeders’ rights. The court has held that copyright can also be a form of industrial or commercial property because it ‘includes the protection conferred by copyright, especially when exploited commercially in the form of licences capable of affecting distribution in the various Member States of goods incorporating the protected literary or artistic work’. The principle that the Treaty does not affect the existence of industrial and commercial property rights is derived from Article 222 of the treaty. This provides that ‘the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Consequently intellectual property rights are unaffected by the provisions of the treaty unless they hinder free movement or offend the rules of competition. In Keurkoop v Nancy Kean (see below) the design of a handbag which was manufactured in Taiwan was registered in the Benelux countries but without the authority of the actual author. In Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro-SB Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487, [1971] CMLR 631, the European Court stated:

1997 ◽  
pp. 110-114
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

Article 262 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Procedure

Article 229a EC Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to confer jurisdiction, to the extent that it shall determine, on the Court of Justice of the European Union in disputes relating to the application of acts adopted on the basis of the Treaties which create European intellectual property rights. These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

An Overview of Intellectual Property Rights and Systems

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Pila
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Social Values ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
15Th Century ◽  
International Commitments ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the nature, aims, and values of intellectual property (IP) rights and systems. It traces the emergence of statutory IP laws in Europe from the 15th century as means of facilitating and rewarding the introduction to the public of certain intangible expressive and informational objects of social value, and the different IP philosophies that they reflect. It then considers the IP rights and systems of European and UK law today, and their vesting of temporary exclusive rights in respect of different categories of ‘intellectual creation’, broadly conceived. The EU is presented as seeking, through its recognition and protection of IP rights, to build on the traditions of its Member States in a manner that is consistent with both its international commitments and its particular economic and social values and aims. The result of this objective is considered, along with certain distinctions of importance to IP rights and systems.

OAPI

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marius Schneider ◽  
Vanessa Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Central African Republic ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Heads Of State

On 13 September 1962 in Libreville, Gabon, twelve Heads of State and Government adhered to the Agreement on the creation of the African and Malagasy Office of Industrial Property (OMAPI). The departure of Madagascar, the attribution of new competences in the area of copyright, and the need to interlink intellectual property with development soon created a need for a revised agreement. This led to the revision of the agreement in Bangui, Central African Republic on 2 March 1977 and to the creation of the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI, an acronym of Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle). A new revision of the agreement took place on 24 February 1999 to ensure the conformity of the agreement to the dispositions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), to which all the Member States are party. This new agreement entered into force on 28 February 2002. Today the OAPI has seventeen Member States and represents more than 100 million inhabitants.

scholarly journals PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION IN AFRICA: TOWARDS COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRIPS AGREEMENT

2001 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Cullet
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Plant Variety Protection ◽  
Plant Variety ◽  
Variety Protection

Plant variety protection has come to the fore in the wake of the adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). TRIPS generally imposes the patentability of inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology and specifically mandates the introduction of a form of legal protection on plant varieties. Article 27.3(b) thus states that member states “shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.”

scholarly journals Making a Large Universe Visually Perceptible

2018 ◽  
pp. 13-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Croze
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Standing Committee ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Regimes ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Scope Of Protection

As it is the case for most intellectual property rights, trademarks have been experiencing an extension of their scope of protection in new domains and today more and more IP offices are registering non-traditional trademarks (NTTMs). However, because of the lack of internationally accepted definition of NTTMs, the absence of international instrument harmonizing their registration and protection at the multilateral level—which leads to a diversity of national legal regimes and practices—their trademark owners often experience uncertainty in their protection. Although WIPO treaties have not specifically regulated NTTMs, their development has been extensively discussed at WIPO meetings and diplomatic conferences. This chapter details the discussions and documents produced by the WIPO at the request of the Standing Committee of Trademarks (SCT) which provide a thorough analysis of the challenges, practices, methods of representation, and description of NTTMs, as well as possible areas of convergence which have been agreed upon by WIPO Member States.

scholarly journals Classical Liberalism and Self-Reference Approach In Dealing With Harmonisation ASEAN IPR Regulations

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 208
Author(s):  
Rizki Rahmadini Nurika ◽  
Septian Nur Yekti
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Classical Liberalism ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Asean Member ◽  
Self Reference

ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) regulates the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in its relation with their economic activities. It was stipulated in the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Intellectual Property Cooperation in 1995. As the ASEAN member states are also the member of World Trade Organization (WTO), the principles of AEC have to be in harmony with the WTO principles. This paper analyzes the compliance of ASEAN IPR laws with the principles of Trade Related to Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) of WTO. Second, this paper analyzes the enforcement of those regulations in the member states, finding out whether there is implementation in the region that is different with the international principles or not. It is a part of qualitative research that used secondary data to complete the explanative analysis. Classical liberalism and self-reference criterion becomes theoretical framework of analysis. Classical liberalism promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production. Meanwhile, self-reference criterion refers to an unconscious reference to one’s own culture, values, knowledge, and experience as a basis for decisions. The result reveals that the ASEAN IPR regulations have different specific and special nature with the TRIPs, affected by the characteristics of the nations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document