REALIZATION OF INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS AS COLLATERAL (PROCEDURAL ASPECTS)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 64-82
Author(s):  
L.A. NOVOSELOVA ◽  
O.S. GRIN
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Optimal Model ◽  
The Law ◽  
Imperfect System ◽  
The Right ◽  
Security Value ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Court Practice

This paper addresses the issues pertaining to the usage of intellectual property, with the main focus being the use of exclusionary rights as a collateral; economic and legal obstacles hindering the development of this institution in Russia are also identified. Imperfect system of exclusionary rights appraisal is highlighted as a prime reason for the under-utilization of intellectual property as a collateral. The procedure of foreclosing the intellectual property is investigated; legal gaps that have negative impact on its efficiency are identified and evaluated. In conclusion, the authors note that the features of levy of execution on exclusive copyright provided by the law and the conclusion of court practice based on this that copyright manuscripts cannot be levied at all, reflect the optimal model of regulation that takes into account the moral rights of authors (including the right to promulgation). The law provides an opportunity both for the author of a work, the performer in relation to performance, and for their heirs to decide whether to give the exclusive right the opportunity to be an economic asset with security value or not.

scholarly journals THE RIGHT OF AUTHORSHIP ON A WORK

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-160
Author(s):  
Ciprian Raul Romiţan
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Natural Connection ◽  
Artistic Work ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The moral rights represent the legal expression of the relationship between the workand its creator; they precede, survive and exert a permanent influence on the economic rights.Moral rights are independent of economic rights, the author of a work preserving these rightseven after the transfer of its property rights.The right to claim recognition as the author of the work, called in the doctrine as the"right of paternity of the work" is enshrined in art. 10 lit. b) of the law and it is based on theneed to respect the natural connection between the author and his work. The right toauthorship is the most important prerogative that constitutes intellectual property rights ingeneral and consists of recognizing the true author of a scientific, literary or artistic work.

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.

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

Part I The Nature of Intangible Property, 7 Intellectual Property

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Smith Marcus ◽  
Leslie Nico
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Industrial Design ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Confidential Information ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines intellectual property. The governing principles relating to intellectual property are very different from the principles that underlie other choses, like rights under contracts or debts. Like shares, intellectual property rights are characterized by specific statutory rules relating to their creation, as well as to their transfer. Intellectual property rights can be divided under six heads: patents; copyright; moral rights; industrial design rights; trademarks; and confidential information. In each case, the holder of the right is able—by virtue of ownership—to prevent others from doing what they otherwise could do. Each of these intellectual property rights has four different aspects: the intellectual property right itself; rights of action for infringement; validity challenges; and licensing.

scholarly journals Applying the rule of per se and rule of reason to assess the violation of the Competition Law by the IPRs owners

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. First
Author(s):  
Bui Thi-Hang Nga
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Market Power ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
Monopoly Position

With the nature of practically irreplaceable and the monopoly of the protection documents, the law has given the intellectual property rights (IPRs) owner a competitive advantage, as well as a market power. As a result, to extent the market power and create a monopoly position to maximize profitability, IPRs owners tend to abuse IPRs to limit competition. Although the exclusive right to IPRs is a legal monopoly comes from protection documents, it does not mean that the owner has the right to abuse this monopoly to limit competition. This is because such behavior is not considered an exception under the Competition Law and shall be prohibited in case the satisfaction of provision violating conditions of the Competition Law. However, in order to balance the interests of related subjects, in assessment of the Competition Law violations of IPRs abuses, the laws of countries fully recognized and applied the rule of reason instead of per ser as Competition Law violations in general. The article aims to analyze and explain the purpose of the application of the rule of reason when assessing the violation of the Competition Law of IPRs owner and when using the per se, in respect of the legal monopoly of the IPRs subjects. The paper then provides proposals to complete the Vietnamese Competition Law which governs the abuse of IPRs owners.

SMART CONTRACT IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

2019 ◽  
pp. 32-41
Author(s):  
Yulia Kharitonova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
License Agreements ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Protected Object ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Maximum Protection ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control ◽  
Exclusive Right

Digitalization of public relations allows right holders to achieve maximum protection of their rights and legitimate interests in the network. At the same time, platforms are being actively developed to meet the right holders and potential users who wish to use the results of intellectual property. In modern conditions, the development of technology blockchain network can provide not only the fixation of the protected object, but also the transfer of the exclusive right to it under the contract. The so-called smart contracts allow to carry out calculations and control the use of intellectual property under license agreements. At the same time, the gaps in legislation related, in particular, to the written form of contracts in the field of intellectual property have been identified.

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.

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.

What's it Got to Do with Morality? Moral Rights: An Historic and Contemporary Perspective

2005 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-70
Author(s):  
Maree Sainsbury
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Media ◽  
Contemporary Perspective ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Contemporary Context

Australia introduced moral rights legislation in December 2000, giving effect to a doctrine that originated in civil law jurisdictions in the eighteenth century. The rights given effect to in Australia are the right of integrity, which allows the author to prevent derogatory treatment of their work, and the right of attribution, which mandates attribution of the author when the work is reproduced, published or otherwise communicated to the public. There is also the right to prevent false attribution of authorship. This article looks at the historical development of moral rights and examines why such an amendment to the law in Australia was necessary in a contemporary context. It discusses the implications of this amendment for the media and other industries.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document