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 Protection of civil property rights in case of recognition of the contract as not concluded

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (20) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
O. A. Surzhenko
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Consequences

The article examines the problems of protecting civil property rights, one of the ways of which is to recognize the transaction as invalid. When analyzing this method of protection, violations by a transaction of the conditions of its action, the legal nature of invalid transactions, individual grounds and legal consequences of their invalidity are considered. Transactions that have certain drawbacks, and therefore do not meet the conditions that make the person’s actions legitimate, closely intersect with other actions that also do not lead to the purpose for which they were committed. These are not concluded contracts. The plane of intersection of these actions is quite significant, and the criteria for their delimitation are not regulated in the law, but in judicial practice are sometimes worked out contradictory. This applies to non-compliance with the requirements for the form of the transaction (in particular, the signature of the person), essential conditions, and other provisions of the law.Protection of civil rights is one of the most important categories of the theory of civil and civil procedural law, without clarification of which it is very difficult to understand the nature and characteristics of civil sanctions, the mechanism of their implementation and other issues arising in connection with the violation of civil rights. It is noted that the originality of regulatory civil law is that it arises from legitimate legal actions and is aimed at satisfying any property need. The force of coercion gives it the ability to be provided with legal measures. The right (entitlement) to protection in regulatory legal relations is one of the transactions of any subjective civil law, according to which the rightholder can, in the event of violation of the right, make a demand for the protection of the violated civil law

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.

scholarly journals Urgensi Perubahan Delik Biasa Menjadi Delik Aduan dan Relevansinya terhadap Perlindungan dan Penegakan Hak Cipta

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanafi Amrani
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

This article discusses two main issues: first, what is the urgency of the change in nature of offences from ordinary offence to be complaint offence in the copyright law; second, how is the relevance of the change in the nature of the offense to protect and enforce copyright. The urgency of changes in offenses is usually an offense against complaints because copyright is an exclusive right that is personal and civil rights. This personal and civil right indicate the absolute right of the creator or the copyright holder to the results of their work, including the right to report or not to infringe their copyright. Therefore conceptually this personal and civilian nature emphasizes the alignment of mindset that the complaint offence is more appropriately applied to copyright infringement. Whereas the relevance of complaint offence for protection and enforcement of copyright can be seen from the significant role of the creator or copyright holder in the law enforcement process. The creator or copyright holder can play an active role in providing information and evidence of copyright infringement so that the law enforcement process becomes more effective and efficient. Abstrak Artikel ini membahas dua permasalahan pokok: pertama, apa urgensi perubahan delik biasa menjadi delik aduan dalam Undang-undang Hak Cipta; kedua, bagaimana relevansi perubahan sifat delik tersebut terhadap perlindungan dan penegakan hukum hak cipta. Urgensi perubahan delik biasa menjadi delik aduan adalah karena hak cipta merupakan hak eksklusif yang bersifat personal dan keperdataan. Sifat personal dan keperdataan ini mengindikasikan adanya hak mutlak dari pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta atas hasil karya ciptanya, termasuk hak untuk melaporkan atau tidak atas pelanggaran hak ciptanya. Oleh karena itu secara konseptual sifat personal dan keperdataan ini lebih mengedepankan keselarasan pola pikir bahwa delik aduan lebih tepat diterapkan terhadap pelanggaran hak cipta. Sedangkan relevansi delik aduan terhadap perlindungan dan penegakan hak cipta dapat dilihat dari peran yang signifikan dari pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta dalam proses penegakan hukum. Pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta dapat berperan aktif dalam memberikan keterangan dan bukti-bukti dari pelanggaran hak cipta tersebut sehingga proses penegakan hukum dapat berjalan lebih efektif dan efisien.

scholarly journals Legal nature of state registration as a legal fact in the mechanism of dynamics of property rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 45-51
Author(s):  
M. Hudyma
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
State Registration ◽  
Legal Fact ◽  
The Right

This scientific publication attempts to clarify the legal nature of state registration as a legal fact in the mechanism of the dynamics of property rights. There has been made a critical analysis of the viewpoint of supporters of the recognition of the right-establishing character of the state registration and the viewpoint of scholars who consider that the state registration has the function of confirmation, legalization of already established rights. The legislative approach to the relevant issues, which reveals the inconsistency of regulations on the place and importance of state registration in the mechanism of the dynamics of property rights is analyzed. The root of all disagreements and inconsistencies is seen in the desire to take a clear position that the state registration performs only one function: either statutory or confirmatory, while the possibility of simultaneous performance of these two functions was not practically considered.It is substantiated that the legal nature of state registration is quite heterogeneous. If we talk about the property and legal significance of the act of state registration, then for the parties to the contract or other direct participants in the relative legal relationship aimed at the transfer of property rights to real estate, it will have a confirmatory value, and for third parties in absolute legal relations it will be of legal significance, providing a proof of this fact known. If we consider the state registration from the point of view of the dynamics of the process of transfer of property rights, to determine its role in this mechanism, it is the final legal fact in the legal structure, which entails the emergence of a new right holder. The publication emphasizes that giving state registration the importance of the final legal fact in the legal structure that causes the transition of property right we should not, however, shift the emphasis and consider it a priority legal fact in comparison with others. Although the registration of property rights is mandatory, it is secondary to the mechanism of transfer of ownership and other property rights to real estate, because it loses any sense and is absolutely impossible without the occurrence of other legal facts, including – the conclusion of a contract (real or consensual).

scholarly journals Team of Co-Owners as a Subject of the Right to Joint Shared Property

2019 ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
A. V. Zarubin
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Actual Situation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Shared Property ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Joint Property

The author focuses on the similarity between relations of joint shared property and corporate relations, and proposes a “collective (a team of co-ownwers)” concept of joint property rights that is designed to solve the main problems of relations in question, including the definition of the subject of the right to joint shared property. From the point of view of the “collective” concept, the right to joint property is uniform. If the ownership of individual participants was extended to the whole thing, everyone’s will would be decisive in determining the fate of the thing, but the actual situation is not like this. In addition, possession is an external manifestation of ownership. At the same time, none of co-owners has the opportunity to appropriate the whole thing or even its part. He has only the right to claim possession. The general rule applies to the thing that is the object of the right to joint property. The right to joint property belongs to the team of co-owners as a non-entity community. There is no contradiction in the fact that the right belongs to an unauthorized association (a non-entity community), since the right can be attributed to the person whose will and domination is recognized by law, even if the law denies it as the subject (participant) of civil law relations.

PROBLEMS OF EXHAUSTION OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO EXPORT UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF UKRAINE

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andriy Yevkov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Individual State ◽  
License Agreement ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

The article examines the problems of normative establishment in the legislation of Ukraine of the exclusive right to export goods containing protected intellectual property objects, as well as the conditions and grounds for applying of legal norms enshrining the principle of exclusive intellectual property rights exhaustion to the exclusive right to export. Considering the limitation of the protection of exclusive rights to the territory of each individual state, the paper examines the problems of the territorial aspect (territorial models) of the exhaustion of rights, as well as the influence of exclusive rights to import, distribution and export on the implementation of international trade. The article notes that the right to export is directly established in the current domestic legislation of Ukraine only in respect of certain protected intellectual property objects, and substantiates the view that, given the inexhaustible list of property rights (ways of usage) for many other protected objects, the exclusive right of rightholders to export must also be recognized in respect of such objects. Concerning the implementation of export operations by the licensee the paper substantiates the point of view according to which, if in the license agreement the territory of validity of licensing rights is limited to the territory of Ukraine, then the licensee receives permission for distribution within the scope of this subjective right (i.e. within Ukraine) and, accordingly, is not entitled to export if there are no compelling reasons to consider such a prohibition as a way of restricting competition, abuse of right, etc. Regarding the export of goods by their purchasers after the first legal sale of such goods in a particular country, the paper notes that, despite the lack of direct instructions in the legislation, it can be assumed that the exclusive right to export should be exhausted after the first legal sale of goods containing protected objects, unless there are other grounds to believe that the export of such goods may further harm the rights and essential interests of the rightholder in the country where such initial introduction of goods into circulation took place (in the country of origin of the goods).

scholarly journals Peculiarities of protection of private rights by non-jurisdiction methods of settlement of legal disputes (conflicts)

2021 ◽  
pp. 23-29
Author(s):  
Iryna YEFREMOVA
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Private Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

Introduction. Adoption of new laws of civil and substantive law, the novelty of legal relations governed by the rules of these laws, the complexity of civil conflicts arising from these legal relations, require a high level of legal protection, compliance with the rule of law by all members of society. Only the law allows interested parties to choose the form of protection. This form can be traditional – jurisdictional (provides for the establishment of a body and procedure for the protection of violated rights), and non-jurisdictional (but certainly allowed by law), which may resort to interested parties. obstacle to the exercise of the right. Resolution of legal conflicts is possible not only through a jurisdictional form of protection. A non-jurisdictional form of protection of civil rights is the independent protection of a person of his violated rights. That is, the person does not apply to the competent state authorities. In fact, it is the commission of actual actions aimed at protecting and securing their personal property and other non-property rights. The purpose of the paper is a thorough study of models of non-jurisdictional protection of property rights in the system of protection of civil rights by analyzing the theoretical and practical aspects of using alternative methods of protection of private rights in general and mediation. Result. It is determined that the non-jurisdictional form of protection of civil rights is the actions of citizens and organizations aimed at protecting their own civil rights, freedoms, and legally protected interests. It is noted that these actions are carried out and implemented by eligible entities independently, without seeking legal assistance from government agencies and structures, as well as officials. It is determined that the mechanism of legal protection is implemented in non-jurisdictional ways in the field of legal regulation when it is necessary to overcome and eliminate obstacles that arise in the exercise of rights and legitimate interests of the subject of law, in other words – to quickly protect (ensure) legal status. It is determined that in international practice, namely in European countries, the basis of non-jurisdictional protection of property rights is mainly in the use of negotiation and mediation procedures. Non-jurisdictional form, which is usually local in nature, is achieved as a result of actual actions, occurs not in jurisdictional or procedural forms, but within the protected substantive legal relations, which are the subjects of such legal relations (usually imply The main difference between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional forms of protection of rights is that the protection of rights in jurisdictional form is carried out by the competent state and public authorities with each of them a certain procedural order of activity, while protection in a non-jurisdictional form takes place within the framework of a substantive legal relationship and is carried out by the parties themselves in the legal relationship. Conclusion. The study proves that in Ukraine, priority should be given to the development of various forms of out-of-court dispute resolution. The basis for this should be the legislative consolidation of out-of-court settlement of civil disputes as one of the basic principles of protection of violated private rights (of course, without revoking or replacing the right to judicial protection). Non-jurisdictional methods of protection of private rights are defined in the legislation of Ukraine and can be used due to the dispositive nature of the civil law method of regulation. However, this is insufficient, as participants in civil legal relations in case of violation of their rights are primarily confronted in the law with a defined right to judicial protection of violated rights, and often consider the court as the only possible form of protection.

Proprietary aspect of exclusive rights as a law-making factor in the field of the choice-of-law regulation of intellectual property

2021 ◽  
pp. 110
Author(s):  
Svetlana I. Krupko
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Economic Function ◽  
Law Regulation

Intellectual property rights have a number of stable, regular distinctive features that prevent the determination of the law applicable to them on the basis of connecting factors being traditionally used in the field of non-intellectual property and personal non-property rights. In this regard, the point of view wins more widespread support in Private International Law that the relations of intellectual property rights are considered to be a special type of relations for the purposes of choice-of-law regulation. The proprietary aspect of exclusive rights is examined in this article as a material factor having the greatest impact on the formation of choice-of-law regulation in the field of intellectual property. In order to establish the closest connection of the relations of intellectual property rights with the state, whose law is applied, as well as when evaluating the significance and directionality of the empirically localized needs of persons affected by the law, the dualism of exclusive right expressed in the indivisibility of the economic function and the legal content of the exclusive right, as well as the priority of the economic function of the exclusive right to its legal content is essential.

ON CONSTRUCT OF THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION IN RESPECT OF PARTICIPATORY INTEREST (SHARES)

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 94-219
Author(s):  
I.S. CHUPRUNOV
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Constitutive Theory ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Public Corporation ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
Right Of First Refusal ◽  
The Right

The paper provides analysis of the legal nature and the mechanism for exercise of the right of pre-emption (right of first refusal) in respect of execution of a contract taking as an example of right of first refusal to purchase a stake in a non-public corporation, and also examines the boundaries of parties’ autonomy and freedom of contract in this area. The author comes to the conclusion that the key elements of the construction of the right of pre-emption are the transformation powers that belong to the right holder. The author also demonstrates that, notwithstanding their dominance in Russian law, the views, which suggest that exercise of the right of pre-emption leads to “transfer of rights and obligations of a purchaser” (the translative theory), should be rejected. These views must be replaced with the constitutive theory, according to which exercise of the right of pre-emption results in a new contract between the right holder and the seller (as a general rule, on the same terms that were agreed between the seller and the purchaser).

scholarly journals Creation of Technical Conditions for Use or Infringement – The Meanders of the Warehouse Keeper’s Liability in Light of CJEU Judgment C-567/18 Coty Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-282
Author(s):  
Krystyna Szczepanowska-Kozłowska
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Literal Meaning ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law ◽  
Trademark Use

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document