scholarly journals Subjects of the constitutional right to own, use and dispose

2021 ◽  
pp. 165-169
Author(s):  
А.О. Uvarov
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Industrial Design ◽  
Material Object ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Related Property ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Plant Variety ◽  
Constitutional Right

The article is devoted to the study of the subjects of the constitutional right to own, use and dispose of the results of their intellectual activity. It is established that the range of subjects of the constitutional right to own, use and dispose of the results of their intellectual activity are: subjects of copyright (authors of works, their heirs and persons who have acquired the rights to works in accordance with the contract or law); performers of works, their heirs and persons who have acquired related rights in accordance with the contract or the law on performances; producers of phonograms, their heirs (successors) and persons to whom related property rights in relation to phonograms have been legally transferred; videogram producers, their heirs (successors) and persons to whom related property rights in relation to videograms have been legally transferred; broadcasting organizations and their successors (subjects of related rights); author of a scientific discovery; subjects of intellectual property rights to an invention, utility model, industrial design (inventor, author of an industrial design; other persons who have acquired rights to an invention, utility model and industrial design under contract or law); subjects of intellectual property rights to the layout of the semiconductor product (author of the layout of the semiconductor product; other persons who have acquired the rights to the layout of the semiconductor product under the contract or law); subjects of intellectual property rights to the innovation proposal (the author of the innovation proposal and the legal entity to which the proposal is submitted); subjects of intellectual property rights to a plant variety, animal breed (author of a plant variety, animal breed; other persons who have acquired intellectual property rights to a plant variety, animal breed under contract or law; natural and legal persons who are subjects intellectual property rights to a trademark, individuals and legal en-tities that are subjects of intellectual property rights to a commercial name. Emphasis is placed on the independence of copyright and ownership of the material object (material carrier), which is manifested through: 1) the content of personal non-property rights and property rights of the subject of copyright; 2) ownership of a material object (possession, use and disposal).

scholarly journals Prosecution of Property Rights of Intellectual Property to the Results of Works under the Contract for Research, Development and Engineering

2021 ◽  
pp. 104-110
Author(s):  
Roman Denysenko
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Industrial Design ◽  
Creative Work ◽  
Research Development ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Research Institution ◽  
The Relationship

Keywords: results of work, subjects of property rights of intellectual property, jointproperty rights of intellectual property The article deals with an issue of allocation of rights to the results ofworks that are intellectual property subject-matter, created during research or developmentand engineering works. It is considered what can be the result of works andin what form.It analyses problematic issues of the multiplicity of subjects of intellectual propertyrights to the results of work under the contract and the relationship between themon the prosecution of the joint intellectual property rights to the results of work. It isdetermined that the subjects of contractual relations of research or development andengineering works in addition to the executor and the customer should also includethe creator (author, inventor) — a specialist working in a research institution or in acompany, whose creative work resulted in the intellectual property subject-matter.Attention is drawn to the joint rights to service subject-matters created as a consequenceof labour-related duties execution.The norms of special legislation on the relationship on the use of an invention(utility model) and an industrial design, the disposal of property rights of each of theholders (owners) of a patent (certificate) are studied.Laid out in the article gives the ground for making conclusion about the need to supplementthe regulation of relations on the prosecution of the joint intellectual propertyrights to the results of work by including general provisions on the procedure for the useof intellectual property subject-matter and disposal of property rights on conditions establishedby the contract for research or development and engineering in Article 896 ofthe Civil Code of Ukraine. The author proposes to supplement Article 896 of the CivilCode of Ukraine with Chapter 3 as follows: «3. If the results of works have features ofintellectual property subject-matter, then special details of prosecution of propertyrights of intellectual property can be provided in the contract».

scholarly journals The Practice of Review of Cases on Challenging Statutory Acts of the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property by the Intellectual Property Rights Court: Keeping Going over the Same Ground

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 16-21
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Yu. Andreeva ◽  
◽  
Moisey I. Lifson ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is devoted to the institution of challenging the normative legal acts of Rospatent in the Court on Intellectual Rights on the example of several cases examined by the Court. The authors highlight a number of problems in this area. Since the consideration of a public objection to a patent for a controversial utility model or invention and the decision on the results of the consideration of such an objection is within the competence of Rospatent, and the PIS performs only a supervisory function, it is difficult to solve this problem within a reasonable time. The authors propose: all disputes related to intellectual property after issuing a security document should be resolved not in an administrative - judicial manner, but only in a judicial one, by analogy with the violation of the patent of the Russian Federation for intellectual property objects.

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 PENYULUHAN HUKUM TENTANG PENTINGNYA HAK KEKAYAAN INTELEKTUAL PADA KELOMPOK TENUN TRADISIONAL “BIA BEREK” DI DESA KUNERU – ATAMBUA (NTT)

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Selvie Sinaga
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Small Businesses ◽  
Industrial Design ◽  
Woven Fabrics ◽  
Human Thought ◽  
Urban Village ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Group Members

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is a set of rights granted to exploit an object that is the result of human thought. IPR consists of various rights including copyright, trademark, patent, industrial design, and trade secrets. These rights are needed in developing a business, both large and small businesses. Legal counselling on the importance of IPR was given to the "Bia Berek" group consisting of mothers of traditional weaving craftsmen from the Kemak tribe in Kuneru village, Manumutin Urban Village, Atambua District, Belu Regency (East Nusa Tenggara (NTT)) in August 2018. As small businesses in traditional industries, an introduction to the importance of IPR for this group is given so that they can protect the object of intellectual property rights owned and utilize the IPR to advance their small businesses. After legal counselling is carried out, group members understand that their creativity in making woven fabrics is one of the assets protected by copyright and plagiarism of fabric motifs from other regions or groups is not permitted in the copyright regime. In addition, group members understand that a brand is needed to be able to market their woven fabrics more broadly. However, they are still unable to register their weaving work to obtain brand protection, industrial design, and IG, due to their limited funds, knowledge and access. There needs to be further assistance from the Regency Government regarding this IPR issueABSTRAK:Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HKI) adalah serangkaian hak yang diberikan untuk mengeksploitasi suatu obyek yang merupakan hasil dari pemikiran manusia. HKI terdiri dari berbagai hak di antaranya hak cipta, merek, paten, desain industri, dan rahasia dagang.  Hak-hak ini sangat dibutuhkan dalam mengembangkan suatu usaha, baik usaha besar atau pun kecil. Penyuluhan hukum akan pentingnya HKI ini diberikan kepada kelompok “Bia Berek” yang beranggotakan ibu-ibu pengrajin tenun tradisional dari  suku Kemak di desa Kuneru, Kelurahan Manumutin, Kecamatan Kota Atambua, Kabupaten Belu (Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT)) pada bulan Agustus 2018. Sebagai pelaku usaha kecil di industri tradisional, pengenalan akan arti pentingnya HKI bagi kelompok ini diberikan agar mereka dapat melindungi obyek hak kekayaan intelektual yang dimiliki dan memanfaatkan HKI tersebut untuk memajukan usaha kecil mereka. Setelah penyuluhan hukum dilakukan, anggota kelompok memahami bahwa kreatifitas mereka dalam membuat kain tenunan merupakan salah satu asset yang dilindungi oleh hak cipta dan penjiplakan motif kain tenun dari daerah atau kelompok lain merupakan hal yang tidak diperkenankan dalam rezim hak cipta. Selain itu, anggota kelompok memahami bahwa diperlukan merek untuk dapat memasarkan lebih luas lagi kain hasil tenunan mereka. Namun, mereka masih belum mampu mendaftarkan karya tenun mereka untuk mendapatkan perlindungan merek, desain industri, dan IG, karena keterbatasan dana, pengetahuan dan akses mereka. Perlu ada pendampingan lebih lanjut dari pihak Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten terkait masalah HKI ini

scholarly journals The comparative analysis of design right and copyright

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-142
Author(s):  
Nikola Milosavljević
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Industrial Design ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Profit Distribution ◽  
Hybrid Nature ◽  
Market Relations

A large variety of market relations are regulated by intellectual property rights, which represent legitimate monopolies correcting certain inefficiencies of a profit distribution on the market. In the following paper, the author examines the relations between design right and copyright using the comparative method. Firstly the author will analyze both resemblances and differences between these two intellectual property rights. The resemblance in protection object in particular makes available the cumulation of protected rights, in other words, the possibility of protecting industrial design by copyright, which will also be analyzed in the paper. Such work aims to comprehend the hybrid nature of design right as a right usually bypassed in a legal theory, and which is, in the author's opinion, especially interesting.

scholarly journals Privately public seeds: competing visions of property, personhood, and democracy in Costa Rica's entry into CAFTA and the Union for Plant Variety Protection (UPOV)

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guntra A. Aistara
Keyword(s):  
Costa Rica ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Plant Variety Protection ◽  
Plant Variety ◽  
Variety Protection

Costa Rica's entry into the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was hotly contested and the subject of a national referendum. For activists opposing the treaty, questions of 'privatizing seeds' through imposing intellectual property rights were among the main concerns raised by the treaty, as one requirement of CAFTA was signing the international Convention on Plant Variety Protection known as UPOV. The threat to farmers' seeds in Costa Rica and many other parts of the world is more complicated than being a clear-cut issue of privatization. Struggles for control over seeds are a crucial part of the political economy of agriculture that are grounded in debates over the significance of the physical and social properties of seeds as a natural resource. This article explores how debates over intellectual property rights to seeds confound simple distinctions between public domain and private property, and the implications for agricultural genetic diversity. Moreover, through the story of Costa Rica's engagement with CAFTA and UPOV, I contemplate the broader effects of the free trade paradigm on reconfiguring ideas not only of property but also of personhood and democracy. I will argue that through reconfiguring the boundary between the public domain and private property in the realm of seeds, recent intellectual property trends also reinscribe the definition of farmers along pre-defined class lines. Through their actions, groups involved offer competing visions of how a local resource should be defined and internationally connected; these visions can be understood as competing visions of political ecology in practice.Keywords: Costa Rica, CAFTA, UPOV, intellectual property, seeds

scholarly journals PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION IN AFRICA: TOWARDS COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRIPS AGREEMENT

2001 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Cullet
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Plant Variety Protection ◽  
Plant Variety ◽  
Variety Protection

Plant variety protection has come to the fore in the wake of the adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). TRIPS generally imposes the patentability of inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology and specifically mandates the introduction of a form of legal protection on plant varieties. Article 27.3(b) thus states that member states “shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document