scholarly journals Making a Large Universe Visually Perceptible

Author(s):  
Denis Croze

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.

ERA Forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Caranta ◽  
Pedro Cerqueira Gomes

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.


Author(s):  
Yuliia Tovstohan ◽  
◽  
Serhii Ivanov ◽  

The scientific article examines the modern mechanism of protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine. Attention is paid to the historically first using of the concept of intellectual property rights in international law and the shortcomings of this definition. The legal definition of this concept contained in the Civil Code of Ukraine is analyzed. It is concluded that the legislative enshrinement of intellectual property rights is evidence of its recognition by the state, and such a right applies to special objects, the list of which is enshrined at both national and international levels. The question of the relationship between the concepts of "protection" and "defense" of civil rights is covered. The main groups of approaches of scientists to the solution of this problem are indicated. An approach that defines "protection" as a general concept for "defense" is supported, where "protection" is a broader concept that covers the term "defense". Emphasis is placed on the fact that although these legal categories are related, they cannot be identified. The main features that distinguish these concepts are listed, and the features of "defense" as an independent concept are highlighted. There are given examples of definition of the concept of protection of intellectual property rights given by scientists. Based on these definitions, the main features of this term are summarized. The issue of forms of protection (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) has been studied. The general and special order within the jurisdictional form is distinguished. It is noted about the peculiarities of self-defense as a non-jurisdictional form. The focus is on the judicial (general) procedure for protection of intellectual property rights as the main one. Possible ways of protection (civil, administrative, criminal, and criminal) are analyzed. The problems and shortcomings of the current system of legal protection and protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine are analyzed. Both reports from international partners and research by Ukrainian scientists were used. The authors outline ways to solve existing problems. The conclusions of the study are formulated and the possibility of further scientific research in this area is indicated.


2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam D. Moore

In the most general terms, this article focuses on the tension between competing justifications of intellectual property. Section I examines the nature and definition of economic pragmatism and argues that, while economic pragmatism comes in many flavors, each is either unstable or self-defeating. Section II advances the view that Anglo-American systems of intellectual property have both theoretical and pragmatic features. In Section III a sketch of a theory is offered--a theory that may limit applications of economic pragmatism and provide the foundation for copyright, patent, and trade secret institutions. To be justified--to warrant coercion on a worldwide scale--systems of intellectual property should be grounded in theory. Intellectual property rights are, in essence, no different than our rights to life, liberty, and tangible property. Intellectual property rights are neither pure social constructions nor bargains without foundations.


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:


Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Andrii Khridochkin ◽  
Petro Makushev

The article deals with homogeneous group of administrative offences - administrative offences in the field of intellectual property as a basis of administrative liability. It is emphasized that the objective features of this administrative offence are its social harm, wrongfulness and punishment, and subjective ones are guilt and subjectivity. It is emphasized that only in the presence of all these features can one speak of qualifying an individual’s act as an administrative offence and resolving the issue of bringing him to administrative liability. The definition of the term “administrative offence in the field of intellectual property” is proposed as envisaged by the legislation on administrative liability of socially harmful, unlawful, guilty act, committed by the subjects of such unlawful acts that encroach on the set of property and personal non-property rights to the intellectual results. It is established that all warehouses of administrative offences in the field of intellectual property (art. 51-2, 107-1, 156-3 (in the part concerning intellectual property objects), 164-3, 164-6, 164-7, 164-8, 164-9, 164-13) there are such elements as objective signs and subjective features, which in their unity form the composition of administrative offences of this group. It is noted that the only generic object of these administrative offences is the group of public relations of intellectual property, which are protected by the law on administrative liability, and the subject of this group of public relations are objects of intellectual property. It is proved that the objective side of administrative offences in the field of intellectual property is a set of ways of infringement of intellectual property rights. Attention is drawn to the fact that in practice the violation of intellectual property rights to different objects has different economic, social and legal consequences, and therefore the degree of their social harm is different, and therefore there is a need to differentiate administrative liability depending on the intellectual property. Subjective signs of the administrative offences of this group, which are represented by their subject, are established, and the subjective side is characterized by the fact that they are committed only intentionally.


Author(s):  
Justine Pila

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.


2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-345
Author(s):  
Jonathan M.W.W. Chu

AbstractThis paper endeavours to dispel the logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights and aims to show that the term “international intellectual property” may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort.To suggest that “there is no such thing as international intellectual property” may have been particularly reasonable prior to the end of the 19thcentury when there was little or no international obligations to protect intellectual property. Nowadays, however, the term “international intellectual property” is, at the very least, misunderstood, if not a clear term that has worked its way into the international legal lexicon with each international intellectual property agreement entered into since the beginning of the beginning of the international period.It is quite plain that individual intellectual property rights such as copyright, patents, registered designs, and registered and unregistered trade mark rights are not international in scope or nature. It is also quite clear that intellectual property rights are territorial in nature as they are derived from national law and are governed exclusively within jurisdictions of such law. This principle is trite and was better observed in a World Intellectual Property Organization survey:Each country determines, for its own territory and independently from any other country, what it is to be protected as intellectual property, who should benefit from such protection, for how long and how protection should be enforced.Despite an apparently logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights, the term “international intellectual property” may infer something more than this. Rather than confining the term to basic interpretation of the words which make the term, international intellectual property may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort. While the standards of recognition and rights granted in relation to such products of intellect may vary between nations, the source of such products remains the same and it is such property which various international agreements seek to govern. It is given through developments in international intellectual property agreements, that a definition of the term may be implied, if not derived.In this paper, I endeavour to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property. As such, I will first establish that there is such a thing as „intellectual property,” despite arguments against the term. I will then move on to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property, particularly in light of the developments in international intellectual property agreements.


Author(s):  
Hanna Urazova ◽  
◽  
Yulia Gudzenko ◽  

The article presents a study of the problem of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, namely copyright and related rights. It is noted that the issue of protection and preservation of copyright and related rights in the modern world is very relevant and currently not fully resolved. The analysis of normative-legal documents in this sphere is carried out. In particular, the domestic legislation was studied, namely, the norms of the Civil and Criminal Codes of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights", the Law of Ukraine "On State Support of Cinematography in Ukraine". International normative legal acts are analyzed. Namely: the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (BOIB Agreement) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). The definition of "protection" is given, as well as the objects and subjects of copyright and related rights. The article also pays attention to the types of copyright and related rights protection: jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional. Two modern ways of copyright protection have been studied - copyright and copyleft. Civil law protection is analyzed: the grounds for a person to go to court to protect their intellectual property rights, the procedure for protection of infringed rights and ways to protect these rights are determined. It has been established that filing a claim against the infringer of copyright and related rights is not always an effective way of protection. Thus, the subjects of copyright and related rights often choose to protect their infringed rights. Problems related to the regulation, protection and proof of copyright infringement on the Internet have been identified. An analysis of case law on the protection of copyright and related rights. It has been found that courts do not always adequately protect related rights that have been violated on the Internet. The conclusions and prospects of development of protection and protection of copyright and related rights are given.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document