The Proprium of Property Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Jan Felix Hoffmann

Abstract Classical property law is not only losing economic relevance with the progressing dephysicalization of economic processes but is also increasingly perceived as a static field of private law, pursued by specialized lawyers working with rather inaccessible national concepts and dogmas that seem to have no significant relevance for the development of a digital economy. The mostly codification-driven comparative research on property law continues in the tradition of national property law codifications primarily addressing tangible objects. The research on property law should not restrict itself to this rather pragmatic approach, because in the end this arbitrarily delimits the concept of property law and reinforces the impression of classical property law only dealing with tangibles. Comparative property law should look beyond issues of codification and address the question of what is the essence of property law. Property law deals with the erga omnes effects of rights. It therefore not only addresses full-fledged property rights over movables or immovables but also covers partially absolute rights over these assets on the threshold to contract law. Property law also addresses absolute rights with regard to intangibles. This awareness should on one hand demand from any discussion on creating new (partially) absolute property rights to take notice of the state of the art of current (comparative) property law. It should on the other hand incite classical property lawyers to take part in these debates and to question the traditional concepts and principles in light of the new developments. Classical institutions of property law should be reconsidered from this point of view.

Author(s):  
Krystyna Szczepanowska-Kozłowska

AbstractOne form of industrial property right infringement is stocking for the purpose of offering or marketing. This form of infringement appears both in EU legal acts on trademarks or designs, as well as in national regulations, including those concerning patents. What is specific to stocking when compared to other activities comprising the stipulated exclusivity of the holder of industrial property rights is the fact that the literal meaning of “stocking” does not explain whether the infringing party or the warehouse keeper is the entity that places the goods in storage. The structure of industrial property rights as absolute rights would theoretically permit the view that the law is violated by both the entity that accepts the goods for storage and the entity that places such goods in storage. To determine if there is an infringement, it must be established what the goods being stocked are further intended for. It is not without significance that the finding of an infringement of industrial property rights does not depend on fault or awareness. From the point of view of the industrial property law regime, it is difficult to find arguments against this understanding of infringement by stocking. Since the offeror of goods infringing industrial property rights may be held liable even if the goods have not yet been manufactured, it is conceivable that the entity accepting such goods for stocking is also liable. This interpretation of the concept of stocking would certainly correspond to the absolute nature of liability for infringement.In a recent judgment the CJEU confirmed that the warehouse keeper who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trademark rights only creates the technical conditions for trademark use by this third party provided that the warehouse keeper is not aware of that infringement. The CJEU also confirmed that only the person who decides about the purpose of storing the goods can be treated as an infringer. However, the CJEU did not respond to the question regarding whether the warehouse keeper could be treated as an infringer if it pursues the aims of storing the goods at the request of the entity that put the goods into storage.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inggrit Fernandes

Batik artwork is one of the treasures of the nation's cultural heritage. Batik artwork is currently experiencing rapid growth. The amount of interest and market demand for this art resulted batik artwork became one of the commodities in the country and abroad. Thus, if the batik artwork is not protected then the future can be assured of a new conflict arises in the realm of intellectual property law. Act No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright has accommodated artwork batik as one of the creations that are protected by law. So that this work of art than as a cultural heritage also have economic value for its creator. Then how the legal protection of the batik artwork yaang not registered? Does this also can be protected? While in the registration of intellectual property rights is a necessity so that it has the force of law to the work produced


Author(s):  
J. E. Penner

This chapter discusses property law. It considers the idea that property had a “nominalist” ontology, and it was in danger of “disintegration” as a working legal category for that very reason. Nominalism about property has had a significant impact in U.S. case law. The concern here, however, is whether it is a helpful stance to take as a theorist of property. The chapter argues that it is not. There are indeed “high” level abstractions about property which one cannot plausibly do without if one is to understand property rights and property law doctrine. Moreover, the “bundle of rights” (BOR) challenge does not assist one in making sense of these abstractions. The chapter then looks at the conceptual failure of BOR and the New Private Law as it relates to property. BOR is generally regarded as being underpinned by what might be called the Hohfeld-Honoré synthesis. The synthesis rests upon a fairly serious mistake, which is that while the Hohfeldian examination of jural norms is analytic if it is anything, Honor’s elaboration of the incidents making up ownership is anything but—it is functional. This means that Honoré describes the situation of the owner not principally in terms of his Hohfeldian powers, duties, and rights vis-à-vis others, but in terms of the social or economic advantages that an owner has by virtue of his position, and the terms and limitations of those advantages.


Polar Record ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Knecht ◽  
Paula Laubenstein

Abstract The governance of the Arctic as a frontier for international environmental and climate cooperation, resource politics and security governance holds the promise to provide important insights into some of the 21st century’s most enduring and pressing global challenges. This article reviews the state of the art of Arctic governance research (AGR) to assess the potential and limitations of a regional studies community for making sense of Northern politics and contributing to the broader discipline of international relations (IR) research. A bibliometric analysis of 398 articles published in 10 outlets between 2008 and 2019 reveals that AGR faces at least four limitations that undermine understanding and explaining the processes and outcomes of regional politics and inhibit generalisable observations applicable to questions of global governance: academic immaturity, methodological monoculturalism, state-centrism and analytical parochialism. The lack particularly of theoretically driven and comparative research is indicative of a deeper crisis in AGR which, if unaddressed, could further solidify the community’s unjustified reputation as quixotic in orientation and negligible in its contributions to IR research.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-191
Author(s):  
Sabrina Praduroux

Abstract In the late 1950 s René Savatier foretold that the qualification of economic value itself as property (bien) would have been the ultimate evolution of the theory of property rights. This prediction has come true with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This paper investigates the implications of the understanding of property developed by the two European Courts on the concept of expropriation itself as well as for the principles governing expropriation law. Hence, the paper illustrates the role played by both the ECtHR and the CJEU in laying down the parameters of legitimacy for national law, including property law. Within this context, the focus falls on cases in which the Courts characterize the facts as deprivation of property requiring for compensation, even though the relevant property could not be the object of expropriation under the domestic law of the defendant State. My contribution brings new insights into the current transformation of the traditional property categories and suggests the reinterpretation of some key concepts of expropriation law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 2472
Author(s):  
Teodora Stillitano ◽  
Emanuele Spada ◽  
Nathalie Iofrida ◽  
Giacomo Falcone ◽  
Anna Irene De Luca

This study aims at providing a systematic and critical review on the state of the art of life cycle applications from the circular economy point of view. In particular, the main objective is to understand how researchers adopt life cycle approaches for the measurement of the empirical circular pathways of agri-food systems along with the overall lifespan. To perform the literature review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was considered to conduct a review by qualitative synthesis. Specifically, an evaluation matrix has been set up to gather and synthesize research evidence, by classifying papers according to several integrated criteria. The literature search was carried out employing scientific databases. The findings highlight that 52 case studies out of 84 (62% of the total) use stand-alone life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the benefits/impacts of circular economy (CE) strategies. In contrast, only eight studies (9.5%) deal with the life cycle costing (LCC) approach combined with other analyses while no paper deals with the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodology. Global warming potential, eutrophication (for marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems), human toxicity, and ecotoxicity results are the most common LCA indicators applied. Only a few articles deal with the CE assessment through specific indicators. We argue that experts in life cycle methodologies must strive to adopt some key elements to ensure that the results obtained fit perfectly with the measurements of circularity and that these can even be largely based on a common basis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document