Plant Variety Rights Protection and Essentially Derived Varieties: A Fresh Proposal to Untie the Gordian Knot

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (8) ◽  
pp. 785-802
Author(s):  
Sven J R Bostyn

Abstract The concept of essentially derived varieties (EDVs) under the UPOV Convention 1991 has presented many challenges both to the UPOV and users of the system. The concept of EDVs is not only framed in rather difficult language in the statute, it has proven equally difficult to apply. Moreover, gaining consensus on the exact interpretation of the concept, left to be implemented later on by courts and/or guidelines, has been an equally challenging task due to a lack of clarity in the provisions of the UPOV 1991 Convention. This article constitutes a novel and original contribution to the research that has been carried out in the area of EDVs. Novel approaches are necessary to untie the EDV knot. The approaches presented here are inspired by other areas of (intellectual property) law. A careful study of the solutions presented herein demonstrate that at least some of them can effectively put an end to at least some of the deadlock and legal uncertainty surrounding the EDV concept. It is hoped that this contribution and the approaches it puts forward can be the catalyst for a new debate, which is not only necessary but also long overdue.

Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler

This chapter argues for a reinvigorated role of the market access doctrine and references a number of important antitrust and intellectual property law decisions in which courts have given priority to market access. It finds a novel function for market access to play within antitrust and intellectual property law liability: courts that grant plaintiffs access to a defendant’s production output should refer to a three-step test under which they inquire (1) whether the inventor, through first-mover advantages, has reaped a sufficient reward such that contractual or intellectual property rights protection would no longer be required to facilitate innovation, (2) whether competitors were able to challenge the proprietary platform’s position in the market without the possibility of granting access, and (3) whether competitors seeking to benefit from market access will make use of it to facilitate the introduction of new goods rather than merely to copy the initial invention.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Saman Abdulrahman Ali

Abstract: This study analyses legal position of saving seeds in internal and international levels, for example the TRIPS Agreement and the UPOV Convention of 1991. In this context the study attempts to compare and analyse the latest regulations of saving seeds in Iraq to previous amendments carried out by Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and previous Iraqi governments and to the TRIPS Agreement. The study finds out that the Law No. 15 of 2013 on Registration, Accreditation and Protection of Agricultural Varieties is an attempt to comply with the TRIPS Agreement by providing plant variety protection.Keywords: Intellectual Property Law of Iraq, Saving Seeds, Plant Variety Protection, TRIPS Agreement, UPOV Convention of 1991.Resumen: Este artículo analiza la regulación legal de la práctica de los agricultores consistente en conservar semillas de su propia producción para proceder a sembrarlas en el siguiente ciclo de cultivo. Se analiza la regulación en el ámbito nacional y en el internacional, incluyendo la contenida en el Acuerdo ADPIC y en el Convenio de la UPOV de 1991. En este contexto, el trabajo compara y analiza las últimas regulaciones al respecto en Irak (incluidas las modificaciones introducidas por la Autoridad Provisional de la Coalición Internacional y por el gobierno iraquí) con la regulación del Acuerdo ADPIC. El estudio concluye que la Ley Nº 15 de 2013 sobre Registro, Acreditación y Protección de Variedades Agrícolas es un intento de cumplir con el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC al proporcionar protección de variedades vegetales.Palabras clave: Legislación iraquí de propiedad intelectual e industrial, reserva de semillas, protección de variedades vegetales, Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC, Convenio de la UPOV de 1991.


The constitutionalisation of intellectual property law is often framed as a benign and progressive integration of intellectual property with fundamental rights. Yet this is not a full or even an adequate picture of the ongoing constitutionalisation processes affecting IP. This collection of essays, written by international experts and covering a range of different areas of intellectual property law, takes a broader approach to the process. Drawing on constitutional theory, and particularly on ideas of ‘new constitutionalism’, the chapters engage with the complex array of contemporary legal constraints on intellectual property law-making. Such constraints arising in international intellectual property law, human rights law (including human rights protection for right-holders), investment treaties, and forms of private ordering.


Author(s):  
О. І. Харитонова

Питання охорони прав інтелектуальної власності є на сьогоднішній день дуже акту­альним та, на жаль, недостатньо розробленим. Аспекти, розглянуті в даній статті, дають підстави розрізняти види цивільних правовідносин інтелектуальної власності на ав­торські правовідносини; правовідносини, суміжні з авторськими; правовідносини промис­лової власності; правовідносини, суміжні з правовідносинами промислової власності; індивідуалізаційні правовідносини інтелектуальної власності (правовідносини індивідуа­лізації). Даний розподіл дозволяє охопити всі сфери суспільного життя інституту права інтелектуальної власності.    Intellectual rights protection is an urgent, but unfortunately not well developed issue today. The aspects, which have been considered in this article, provide a basis for distinguishing between different types of intellectual legal relationships, such as author and allied legal relationships, industrial property and allied legal relationships, identifying intellectual property legal relationships (legal relationships of identification). This classification integrates all the social spheres of intellectual property law institute.


Author(s):  
Mark J. Davison ◽  
Ann L. Monotti ◽  
Leanne Wiseman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document