scholarly journals Exclusive Right of Co-owners

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 24-30
Author(s):  
S. V. Baganova ◽  
◽  
E. G. Belkova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right ◽  
A Share

The article gives a historical analysis of appearance and reinforcement of such a notion as “exclusive right” in special legal literature, as well as in legislation. The sufficiently detailed description of the category under consideration is given as a result of the conducted research. It is established that in modern understanding the term “exclusive right” comprises the set of property rights, the realization of which allows putting into practice the intellectual property usage; there fore this right represents a property law which takes part in civil circulation. It is indicated that the right under consideration is an exclusive right as it, by means of direct law prohibition, eliminates other entities (that are not exclusive owners) from the possibility of using the result of an intellectual activity or a means of individualization. Thus, the exclusive right is a monopoly scheme giving its holder the advantage of being the only one that has the possibility of its realization at his discretion in any way unless prohibited by law. It is established that Russian civil legislation is based on the legal scheme of exclusive right as an indivisible (integral) right. On the basis of the characteristics listed above, having highlighted the available opinions of specialists concerning the possibility of allocating an ownership interest in an exclusive right, the conclusion about the impossibility of allocating a share in an exclusive right is drawn. Issues of joint use and disposition of the exclusive right are brought to light, which initially must be discussed by the co-owners together, and if it is impossible to reach such an agreement between the right holders, it becomes necessary to resolve them by legal means. The mode of co-owning of the exclusive right over the result of intellectual activity and the means of individualization are determined.

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.

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

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.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP HAK PENCIPTA SOFTWARE YANG NOMOR SERIALNYA DIKOMERSIALKAN TANPA HAK DI CYBER SPACE BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 28 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG HAK CIPTA

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-87
Author(s):  
Billy Handiwiyanto ◽  
Wisnu Aryo Dewanto
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Cyber Space ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

Intellectual Property Rights consist of various types, one of which is Copyright, Copyright is one of the Intellectual Property Rights that has a broad scope of scope of objects, to the Copyright that is owned, the Author and / or the Copyright Holder get an Exclusive Right on the Work , in which this Exclusive Right consists of 2 (two) types, namely the Moral Right to the Work, and also the Economic Right to the Work. The right to exploit the Work rests with the Author and/or the Copyright Holder of the Work, but there are often violations of the Exclusive Rights in this case the Economic Right which is the Right of the Author and/or the Copyright Holder to obtain economic benefits from the utilization of the Copyright, in which a Work is commercialized without Rights by other Parties who do not have the Right to Commercialize the Work. This study aims to determine the basis of the Liability of those commercializing a Work without Rights, which violates the Exclusive Rights of the Author and/or the Copyright Holder to utilize the Work in order to obtain economic benefits from the Work. This research was conducted using the Normative Jurisdiction research method which examines a problem on the basis of applicable laws and regulations, as well as from views and doctrines in the science of law. The results of this study state that other parties who without the right to commercialize a Work must be held accountable for violating the Exclusive Rights in this case the Exclusive Rights to the Economic Rights of the Author and/or the Copyright Holder.Hak Kekayaan Intelektual terdiri dari berbagai macam jenis, salah satunya Hak Cipta, Hak Cipta merupakan salah satu Hak Kekayaan Intelektual yang memiliki ruang lingkup cakupan obyek yang luas, terhadap Hak Cipta yang dimiliki, Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta mendapatkan Hak Eksklusif atas Ciptaan tersebut, yang mana Hak Eksklusif ini terdiri dari 2 (dua) macam, yaitu Hak Moral atas Ciptaannya, dan juga Hak Ekonomi atas Ciptaan. Hak untuk mengeksploitasi Ciptaan tersebut terletak pada Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta dari Ciptaan tersebut, namun seringkali terjadi pelanggaran terhadap Hak Eksklusif yang dalam hal ini ialah Hak Ekonomi yang merupaan Hak dari si Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta untuk mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari pemanfaatan terhadap Hak Cipta tersebut, yang mana suatu Ciptaan dikomersialkan tanpa Hak oleh Pihak lain yang tidak punya Hak untuk Mengkomersialkan Ciptaan tersebut. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dasar Tanggung Gugat dari pihak yang mengkomersialkan suatu Ciptaan tanpa Hak, yang melanggar Hak Eksklusif Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta untuk memanfaatkan Ciptaan tersebut guna mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari Ciptaan tersebut. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan metode penelitian Yuridis Normatif yang mana meneliti suatu masalah dengan dasar peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, juga dari pandangan-pandangan dan doktrin-doktrin dalam ilmu hukum. Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa pihak lain yang dengan tanpa hak mengkomersialkan suatu Ciptaan harus bertanggung gugat karena melanggar Hak Eksklusif dalam hal ini Hak Eksklusif terhadap Hak Ekonomi dari Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta.

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 Desain Indutri Sebagai Karya Yang Dilindungi (HAKI)

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-33
Author(s):  
Azhari AR Azhari AR
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
General Public ◽  
Industrial Design ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Design Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

A designer has a copyright on the results of his creativity in the form of a blueprint and has the exclusive right to make the artwork into three or two dimensions. The industrial design law is directed at protecting mass-produced goods. People prefer protection with the right to industrial design, which is only protected for 10 years. This is because a design is very easy and can be imitated quickly by the general public. When it is protected by copyright, it becomes ineffective and wasteful. Copyright does not protect mass products.Keywords: Design, Industry, Work, Intellectual Property Rights

scholarly journals The concept of real losses as a component of the concept of losses in the sphere of intellectual property: category of law and economics

2021 ◽  
pp. 77-86
Author(s):  
Ihor Shulpin
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Real Losses

Keywords: real losses, intellectual property rights, object of intellectual propertyrights, subject of intellectual property rights, right to own, use and dispose of intellectualproperty rights, contractual obligations, non-contractual legal relations This article provides an analysis and formulation of the category of «real losses» in thefield of intellectual property. The categories of «real losses» in relation to the propertysphere and the sphere of intellectual property are analysed and justified.First, the author will consider the concept of «real losses» in the property sphere,which was previously studied by many well-known legal scholars and lawyers. Further,we are talking about the structure and Element-by-Element composition of reallosses. Then, the concept of incurred and future expenses is considered.The author notes that everything that concerns the property sphere will also applyto the sphere of intellectual property to a certain extent, but a significant differencewill be that real losses in these areas apply to different subjects, objects and rights. After that, the author will try to provide and analyse the definition of the concept of«real losses» for regarding the sphere of intellectual property.Further, the author focuses on the concept of intellectual property law, the subjectof intellectual property rights, intellectual property rights, objects of intellectualproperty rights under the Civil Code of Ukraine. Also, the article deals with such conceptsas the rights of the owner of rights: the right to own, the right to use and theright to dispose. Further, we are talking about real expenses in the field of intellectualproperty.Summing up the theoretical material presented above and taking into account thechanges of the author that he proposed, the definition of the concept of "real losses" inthe field of intellectual property is given.According to the author, such a legal norm could be included in the fourth book«Intellectual Property Law», Chapter 35 «general provisions on intellectual propertylaw» of the Civil Code of Ukraine, in the article on losses.

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP KARYA SENI BATIK YANG BELUM TERDAFTAR MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 28 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG HAK CIPTA

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inggrit Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Rapid Growth ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Market Demand ◽  
Work Of Art

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document