scholarly journals Policy in the IP Field in Academic Institutions and Higher Education Institutions

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-83
Author(s):  
N.M. Parkhomenko ◽  
I.Ye. Yakubivskyi ◽  
Yurii Yurkevych
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Scholarly Research ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Intellectual Property Policy ◽  
Methods Analytical ◽  
Authorized Capital

Introduction. Along with the creation of intangible objects, their effective introduction into production and other spheres of public relations to satisfy both the private interest of creators, the persons who have invested the funds in their creation, and the public interest acquire the particular importance.Problem Statement. The study of intellectual property policy in the activities of universities and research organizations now receives serious attention, in particular by institutions such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the European Union.Purpose. The purpose of this research is to identify regulatory requirements and scientific approaches to the formulation of intellectual property policy of higher education establishments and R&D institutions of Ukraine, as well as proposing measures to improve the effectiveness of this policy.Materials and Methods. Analytical analysis of current regulations and scholarly research works in order to develop proposals for improving the effectiveness of intellectual property policy in the activities of higher education establishments and R&D institutions of Ukraine.Results. It is disputable that in the case of the conveyance of intellectual property rights as a contribution to the authorized capital of legal entities, such property rights “shall be held by a state-owned R&D institution or university, academies, institutes”. After all, if any assets are conveyed as a contribution to the authorized capital of a corporation, the titles to these assets are transferred to the corporation.Conclusions. The positive legislative trends in the educational field provide for strengthening the positions of education establishments and R&D institutions in terms of the commercialization of scholarly research and R&D results.

scholarly journals Intellectual property law in the field of sports: specifics of manifestations and features of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (69) ◽  
pp. 530-546
Author(s):  
Evgen Kharytonov ◽  
Olena Kharytonova ◽  
Maxym Tkalych ◽  
Inna Bolokan ◽  
Hanna Samilo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Sports Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Wide Range

The article aims to explore the relationships that arise with respect to intellectual property rights in sports. The objectives of the article are to establish points of contact between intellectual property law and sports, as well as a detailed analysis of relevant public relations in terms of intellectual property law and sports law. To achieve the objectives of the article, the authors used a number of scientific methods, among which the main methods are analysis, synthesis and comparative-legal method. The authors of the study concluded that modern sport is developing in close intertwining with intellectual property rights, because only in this way can a sports spectacle be conveyed to a wide range of spectators and consumers in a broad sense. In addition, the range of points of contact between intellectual property and sports law is constantly growing and such can now be called not only patents and trademarks in sports, but also copyright, "image" rights, know-how in sports and the like.

Regulating Access and Protecting Traditional Health Knowledge through Intellectual Property Rights? Issues from a Holistic Health Systems Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 504-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ritu Priya ◽  
Chris M. Kurian
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Health Knowledge ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Holistic Health ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Traditional Health

Traditional Health Knowledge (THK) has been a resource for modern pharmacology and the pharma-ceutical industry since its inception. Until the 2000s, there was little obligation to acknowledge the use of THK by the pharmaceutical industry. Now, with the intellectual property regime becoming a prominent mode of regulating use of pharmaceutical inventions and innovations, and attempts by the pharmaceutical industry to patent products based on THK, rights of THK holders are being fore-grounded. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is seeking to protect the rights of THK holders through international legal instruments under the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) framework. This article discusses dilemmas arising from this attempt at bringing together two diverse knowledge frameworks. It draws upon existing literature on the nature of THK and upon the debates of the WIPO’s Inter-Governmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expression (WIPO-IGC), and analyses them from the standpoint of a holistic health systems approach (HHSA) in an era of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The approach leads to the conclusion that deliberations and promulgations of the WIPO-IGC will have long-lasting implications for the survival of diversity and context-specificity in healthcare. Therein lies the significance of thinking through the policy and legal measures to be adopted nationally and internationally.

Rights, Indigeneity, and the Market of Rastafari

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jovan Scott Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
The World

Abstract:This article is concerned with the ways in which discourses of rights serve to destabilize indigenous logics when used for gains in the market. It does so through examining a Rastafarian tour group who uses their participation in the tourism market to challenge what they believe are infringed cultural property rights. As a means of commercially defending these rights, the group employs a discourse of indigeneity. In this process, they have gained partial recognition from the World Intellectual Property Organization and increasing acknowledgement from the Jamaican government. However, while the basis of indigeneity strongly supports the case of intellectual and cultural property rights, this recognition ultimately further identifies the group, and Rastafari in general, with Jamaica.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCE IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS THE GROUND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Andrii Khridochkin ◽  
Petro Makushev
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Social Harm ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Subjective Side ◽  
Legal Consequences

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.

scholarly journals Intellectual property policy of universities: specific regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (33) ◽  
pp. e16155
Author(s):  
Alexander Evgenievich Suglobov ◽  
Katerina Sergeevna Orlova ◽  
Alexander Konstantinovich Kalliopin ◽  
Petr Katys ◽  
Aleksey Valeryevich Novikov
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Education Institution ◽  
University Policy ◽  
Adoption And Implementation ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intellectual Property Policy ◽  
Specific Regulation ◽  
Key Aspects

This article considers the formation and implementation of a policy in relation to intellectual property in the activities of a higher education institution. Nowadays the creation, protection and commercialization of intellectual property objects are especially relevant for universities. The comprehensive solution of such issues stipulates the need for the development, adoption and implementation of university policies in relation to intellectual property objects as local regulatory acts. This study aims at analyzing intellectual property management policies in higher education institutions. The authors of the article have highlighted the key aspects of an intellectual property object as an object of management. To prove the relationship between intellectual property law and regulation that allows a university to own and freely dispose of its intangible assets, the article dwells on the best practices of European and US universities in terms of issuing local legal acts. The authors have concluded that it is inexpedient to copy the US university policy in Russia due to different approaches to intellectual property. They have developed the concept of strategic management of intellectual property based on the national legislation on the protection and disposal of intellectual property and local regulations of higher education institutions.

scholarly journals Intellectual Property, Traditional Resources Rights, and Natural Law: A Clash of Cultures

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 182-188
Author(s):  
John N Gathegi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Large Degree ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The World ◽  
African Context ◽  
Clash Of Cultures

Western nations, through international treaties and bodies such as the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and economic and political pressures on many governments, are to a large degree succeeding in strengthening protection of intellectual property rights as they are understood mainly within the western context. Framing the debate within Locke‘s theory of natural law, the paper discusses the extent to which this strengthening of intellectual property rights is appropriate for developing countries, especially within the African context.

scholarly journals Certain aspects of possible codification of legislation of intellectual property law

2021 ◽  
pp. 108-118
Author(s):  
Olena Shtefan
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Independent Branch

Keywords: recodification of the Civil Code of Ukraine, codification of legislation onintellectual property law, subject and method of intellectual property law The article examines the issues related to the possibility ofcodification of legislation in the field of intellectual property rights. Currently, inUkraine there is a three-tier regulation of public relations in the field of intellectualproperty law. On the one hand, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the rules of which are characterizedby a corresponding nature, terminological inconsistency with special legislation;special legislation regulating legal relations arising from the creation and use ofcertain objects of intellectual property rights; as well as the provisions of ratified internationallegal acts in this area. Such legislation does not contribute to effectiveprotection or effective protection of intellectual property rights.The updating of the Civil Code of Ukraine will not improve the situation regardingproper legislative support in this area, and may lead to new conflicts. Based on the analysis of existing approaches in legal doctrine on the possible codificationof legislation in the field of intellectual property law, it is concluded that it ispossible if the latter is separated into an independent branch of law, characterized bythe subject and method of legal regulation. The existing approach to the definition ofthe subject of regulation in the doctrine of intellectual property law coincides with thecivilized approaches and does not reflect the specifics of legal relations that characterizethe field of intellectual property. The subject of intellectual property law is notlimited to private law relations, public law is also quite common. In this regard, it isproposed to understand the subject as a legal relationship arising in connection withthe creation, use and protection of intellectual property rights. It is proved that theright of intellectual property can be separated into an independent branch of law andto codify its legislation. This will be facilitated by the interest of the state and the correspondingpolitical will to do so.

When Property Does Not Mean Property: An Analysis of the Existence of International Intellectual Property†

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-345
Author(s):  
Jonathan M.W.W. Chu
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Logical Conclusion ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Definition Of

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document