On Certain Questions of Circulation of Exclusive Rights and Material Carrier of Objects of Intellectual Property

10.12737/5495 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
Марина Рожкова ◽  
Marina Rozhkova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Named Objects ◽  
Exclusive Property ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

The article draws attention to the main sign of intellectual property, which set them apart from other objects of civil rights, their intangible nature. Given this characteristic, it is emphasized that in civil circulation are introduced themselves the objects of intellectual property and exclusive rights to them and physical media that embodies these objects. In addition, the rules of entering into civil turnover for the named objects of civil rights — exclusive rights and material carriers is different. Physical media are differentiated depending on what is the purpose for their creation. If the purpose of fastening of the object of intellectual activity on the material carrier is to obtain the legal protection of this object, it is a primary material embodiment; if the goal is the introduction of a quantity of material carriers — talking about secondary material embodiment. Exclusive (property) rights can be the object of civil transactions in situations where the right holder provides the legal authority: either alienates belonging to him of the exclusive right to fully or allows another person to one of the rights that make up the exclusive right, the right use of the object of intellectual property rights on conditions of the license.

GENESIS OF THE CONCEPT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-12
Author(s):  
N. A. Vitchkovskiy ◽  
◽  
V. A. Osipov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Dialectical Opposition

The growing importance of intellectual property as an economic asset raises the issue of the content of intellectual property in the scientific discussions and the identification of scientific prerequisites for the formation and development of the intellectual property theory. The paper aims at the improvement of the conceptual and theoretical views on the economic category of intellectual property through establishing the dialectical interrelation with the concept of property. The authors propose considering intellectual property as a materially expressed result of the mental (intellectual) activity of a person, which invests its creator (author) or legal entities with the exclusive right for it, and it is confirmed by the relevant officially issued protection documents (patents or certificates) or statutory prescribed copyright norms. The research revealed the dichotomous nature of intellectual property. The study of property and intellectual property categories allowed establishing their dialectical opposition in terms of materiality and possibility of copying a legal object, the urgency and territorial limitation of property rights, and, most important, the dynamics of value in the process of consumption. However, the property and intellectual property categories also have a dialectical unity, which is not noted in the scientific literature. It is expressed in the mechanism of origin of property rights (in both cases, they are related to the problem of limited resources resulting in the necessity to choose the variant of an asset use), and in the mechanism of application of these rights, associated with the presence of both the right and the restrictions of this right, as well as liabilities of a copyright holder.

scholarly journals Exclusive Right of Co-owners

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 24-30
Author(s):  
S. V. Baganova ◽  
◽  
E. G. Belkova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
A Share

The article gives a historical analysis of appearance and reinforcement of such a notion as “exclusive right” in special legal literature, as well as in legislation. The sufficiently detailed description of the category under consideration is given as a result of the conducted research. It is established that in modern understanding the term “exclusive right” comprises the set of property rights, the realization of which allows putting into practice the intellectual property usage; there fore this right represents a property law which takes part in civil circulation. It is indicated that the right under consideration is an exclusive right as it, by means of direct law prohibition, eliminates other entities (that are not exclusive owners) from the possibility of using the result of an intellectual activity or a means of individualization. Thus, the exclusive right is a monopoly scheme giving its holder the advantage of being the only one that has the possibility of its realization at his discretion in any way unless prohibited by law. It is established that Russian civil legislation is based on the legal scheme of exclusive right as an indivisible (integral) right. On the basis of the characteristics listed above, having highlighted the available opinions of specialists concerning the possibility of allocating an ownership interest in an exclusive right, the conclusion about the impossibility of allocating a share in an exclusive right is drawn. Issues of joint use and disposition of the exclusive right are brought to light, which initially must be discussed by the co-owners together, and if it is impossible to reach such an agreement between the right holders, it becomes necessary to resolve them by legal means. The mode of co-owning of the exclusive right over the result of intellectual activity and the means of individualization are determined.

PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN UKRAINE: MODERN REALITIES AND PROSPECTS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliia Tovstohan ◽  
◽  
Serhii Ivanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Current System ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
General Concept ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Definition Of

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.

scholarly journals KEEPING THE NATION'S ASSETS THROUGH THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF COPYRIGHT WORKS OF CULTURE

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-71
Author(s):  
Zulkifli Makkawaru
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Literature And Science ◽  
Community Rights ◽  
Art And Culture ◽  
The Right

Indonesia positioned copyright art and culture based on its strength as a nation or community rights over an Alliance grouping of the society which can give the effect of distortions in its protection. Which institution can be megurus and oversee the interests between countriesCultivate ideas/ideas in the fields of art, literature and science in the context of intellectual property rights (HKI) categorized into areas of HKI named Copyright (Copyright). The scope of the rights provided for the protection of copyright in the context of this very broad following elements known in several countries. There is a different understanding about the copyright status of culture from both the substance of the right nor of the appreciation of the case which threatens foreign claims copyright over the culture of Indonesia

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

scholarly journals THE USE OF A PATENT BY CO-AUTH ORS AND HEIRS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND SOME ISSUES OF PUBLICITY IN PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO DISPUTES OVER INTELLECTUAL RIGHT PROTECTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 24-27
Author(s):  
Tatyana V. Ivanova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Special Method ◽  
Procedural Information ◽  
Protecting Intellectual Property ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

The article considers certain situations that arise while using a patent for an invention by co-authors and successors and some issues of publicity in legal disputes over the protection of intellectual property rights. The invention created by a team of authors serves as the basis for the association of co-authors in an organization aimed at the commercial use of a patent. The exclusive right to a patent shall transfer to the successors, but the right to membership in the organization where the patent was supposed to be used may not be transferred, in which case the successors shall have limited access to information on the use of the patent. Various secrets, confidentiality of information, unavailability of information, complexity of protecting intellectual property rights, complex relationship between members of the organization and successors represent only some of the problems that create obstacles to the normal exercise of the right to use a patent for an invention and to get profit from its use. There is no special method to protect intellectual property right, such as the request to provide access to the information on shared use of a patent. The publicity principle, being one of the principles of legal proceedings, provides the condition for defining the truth in the process of proving, the court provides the conditions for the timely receipt by the participants of the required and sufficient procedural information on a particular case. The publicity of information in a legal case is most likely to provide the opportunity to satisfy a claim for the protection of intellectual property right. The right to membership in the organization, in which the patent was supposed to be used when it had been developed by the co-authors of the organization, can be considered as a guarantee for the right to use the patent. The exclusion of at least one element from this system shall create unequal rights and shall make it impossible to achieve a result — receive profit from the use of a patent.

scholarly journals Legally Binding Relationships with Regard to Digital Objects of Civil Rights

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 21-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. S. Grin
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Digital Currency ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Digital Objects ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

The paper, based on the analysis of the legal nature of new digital objects of civil rights (digital rights, digital currency), makes conclusions concerning possible models of contractual relations arising from object’s data.The author relies on the fact that in relation to the category “a digital right” an independent object can be recognized only in connection with the peculiarities of the form of the object (the form in which the property rights are fixed) rather than its content. Token is seen as a technical concept. i.e. a digital way of fixing property rights. The paper substantiates that the retributive disposal of the digital right (both as a utilitarian digital right and a digital financial asset), according to which the digital right acquirer in order to transfer the right in question undertakes to pay a certain amount of money, under the general rule, should be qualified as a contract for the sale of a digital right. At the same time, in each case this also refers to the transfers the subject matter of which covers the transfer of a separate property right as an object of civil rights (cashless money, a book-entry security, a law of obligation (claims)) classified by law as a digital right.From the author’s point of view, digital currency in the system of objects of civil rights can be qualified only as “other property” in compliance with the the sui generis principle. It is concluded that transactions with digital currency should be classified as non-defined contracts. Contractual legal relations aimed at exchanging various objects for digital currency, in cases not contrary to the law, by analogy of the law, can be regulated under the rules applied to the contract of sale, the exclusive right alienation agreement or license agreement. Based on the special provisions of the law, a legally binding relationship regulating the digital currency, provided the tax authorities are not informed about such possession and transactions with such an object, has features of a natural obligation.

scholarly journals LEGAL PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS IN INDONESIA

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
ega yuliani
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Privately Owned

AbstractIntellectual Property Rights are rights derived from the work, initiative and creativity in the form of a real man. Intellectual Property rights consist of privately owned property and Industry. Patents are part of Intellectual Property Rights in Industry. Patents are granted the right of the government and is exclusive. Exclusive rights of patent holders is the production of a patented item, usage and sales of goods and deeds relating to the import and sale of such goods store. Legal protection of intellectual property rights in the patent field ketetentuan regulated in Law Number 14 of 2001. In chapter 8, paragraph (1) time protection for 20 years from the date of receipt and can not be extended. And Article 9 set period of patent protection for simple for 10 (ten) years and can not be extended. Protection of intellectual property rights is no guarantee to the public to respect the right of initiative and the reaction and to provide protection will upload their work. The higher appreciation of the intellectual property rights of a nation then the future will be better.

scholarly journals LEGAL PROTECTION OF LURIK ART CONSERVATION THROUGH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 2 IN KLATEN REGENCYLEGAL PROTECTION OF LURIK ART CONSERVATION THROUGH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 2 IN KLATEN REGENCY

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 354
Author(s):  
Riska Andi Fitriono ◽  
Sarwono .
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Art Conservation ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This article aimed to analyze legal protection of Lurik Art Conservation Through <br />Intellectual Property Rights in Klaten Regency. Klaten is the area that is most<br />concerned with the survival of lurik weaving. There is someone mentioned that the<br />Klaten Regency was the capital of lurik weaving. Because the weaving of Looms<br />are not machines or Alat Tenun Bukan Mesin (hereinafter abbreviated to ATBM) <br />is a mainstay of this city. There are countless villages that become centers of lurik <br />craftsmen. This research is empirical or non-doctrinal research, which is a study<br />that sees the law not only from the perspective of legislation, but also sees the law<br />in its implementation. The results of the study show that the first legal protection in<br />preserving the current lurik art in Klaten, namely the Klaten Regency Government,<br />then stipulates the Regent's Regulation Number 53 of 2010 Article 23 Paragraph (9)<br />on the Daily Batik and Traditional Weaving Lurik Service or ATBM Striated and<br />the Klaten Regent's Decree Number : 065/1014/06 December 30, 2010 on Wearing<br />Traditional Weaving, Motives, Colors and Free Models with Attributes. Furthermore,<br />based on the Decree of the Regent of Klaten Number 050/84 of 2016 on Klaten<br />Regency's Superior Products, batik striated is one of the superior products of Klaten<br />Regency. With the issuance of these rules as an effort to protect and preserve lurik<br />art in Klaten district and referring to Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright, it has<br />regulated the forms of protection of lurik art in Klaten through Article 40 paragraph<br />(1). The Second Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Against Lurik Art, namely<br />Protection of lurik artworks, besides being accommodated in Law Number 28 of 2014<br />on Copyright (Copyright Law) and Trademark Law and other intellectual property<br />right laws. Elucidation of Article 40 paragraph (1) letter j of the Copyright Law. The<br />work is protected because it has artistic value, both in relation to the picture, style,<br />and color composition. The Copyright Act also emphasizes that it is important to<br />protect Copyright because every creator, in this case, the creator of the lurik motif<br />has the right to moral rights and economic rights.

scholarly journals LEGAL PROTECTION OF WEALTH RIGHTS INTELLECTUAL IN PATENT

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Fadel Zulkarnain
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Privately Owned

AbstractIntellectual Property Rights are rights derived from the work, initiative and creativity in the form of a real man. Intellectual Property rights consist of privately owned property and Industry. Patents are part of Intellectual Property Rights in Industry. Patents are granted the right of the government and is exclusive. Exclusive rights of patent holders is the production of a patented item, usage and sales of goods and deeds relating to the import and sale of such goods store. Legal protection of intellectual property rights in the patent field ketetentuan regulated in Law Number 14 of 2001. In chapter 8, paragraph (1) time protection for 20 years from the date of receipt and can not be extended. And Article 9 set period of patent protection for simple for 10 (ten) years and can not be extended. Protection of intellectual property rights is no guarantee to the public to respect the right of initiative and the reaction and to provide protection will upload their work. The higher appreciation of the intellectual property rights of a nation then the future will be better. Keywords: Intellectual Property Rights, Patent Protection

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document