SMART CONTRACT IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Author(s):  
Yulia Kharitonova ◽  

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.

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:


Author(s):  
Bui Thi-Hang Nga

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 61 (01) ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Katerina Ancevska Netkovska ◽  
Jasmina Tonic Ribarska ◽  
Aleksandra Grozdanova ◽  
Zoran Sterjev

Intellectual property rights (IPR) have been defined as ideas, inventions, and creative expressions based on which there is a public willingness to bestow the status of property. IPR provide certain exclusive rights to the inventors or creators of that property, in order to enable them to reap commercial benefits from their creative efforts or reputation. There are several types of intellectual property protection like patent, copyright, trademark, etc. Patent is recognition for an invention, which satisfies the criteria of global novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial application. IPR is prerequisite for better identification, planning, commercialization, rendering, and thereby protection of invention or creativity. Each industry should evolve its own IPR policies, management style, strategies, and so on depending on its area of specialty. Pharmaceutical industry currently has an evolving IPR strategy requiring a better focus and approach in the coming era. The protection of inventions with patents in the pharmaceutical industry have a specific role in the development of society and represent one of the drivers of economic development. The license agreements are considered as one of the most common types of transfer of industrial property rights. The right holders often transfer their rights to patents by concluding licensing agreement. While the patent license may give the license a right to use the technology many license agreements have provisions for the transfer of know-how in addition to the patent.


Author(s):  
Iryna agutina

The purpose of the article is to investigate the role of state supervision and control over compliance with labour legislation in ensuring decent work. Methodology. The research is based on the analysis and generalization of the available practical, scientific and theoretical material and the formation of relevant conclusions. The following methods of scientific cognition were used in the research: logical-semantic, system-structural, terminological, system-functional, structural-logical, normative-dogmatic, method of generalization. Results. It is established that the effectiveness of supervision and control over compliance with labour legislation is ensured by many factors: regularity, the right choice of goal, the actual elimination of violations, the presence of clear legal regulations for control and supervision. Scientific novelty. It is established that supervision and control over observance of labour legislation is an important and necessary form of protection of labour rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of employees. With the help of this form of protection of labour rights and legitimate interests of employees, the following tasks are solved: ensuring strict implementation of regulations in the field of labour; achieving the quality of implementation of decisions; timely taking measures to eliminate identified violations; identifying positive experiences and putting them into practice. The practical significance lies in the possibility of using materials in law enforcement activities - to improve the practice of applying current legislation in the field of labor rights; educational process - in the teaching of disciplines: "Labour Law of Ukraine", "Employment Protection", "Labour Rights Protection in European Union Countries".


Author(s):  
N. A. Vitchkovskiy ◽  
◽  
V. A. Osipov ◽  

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.


10.12737/5495 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
Марина Рожкова ◽  
Marina Rozhkova

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 24-27
Author(s):  
Tatyana V. Ivanova ◽  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13(49) (1) ◽  
pp. 151-166
Author(s):  
Robert Szwed

The free circulation of information in an open and unfettered public sphere is one of the foundations of well-functioning democracies. For theirs proper functioning, access to reliable information is necessary, which — reaching citizens — allows them to make the right decisions and control power. Many factors should be taken into account when analysing the information production process in new and traditional media: publishers-media owners, advertisers-business, communication technologies, public relations institutions, and now algorithms. An important element are also consumers and prosumers of media content, who try to participate in the media flow of information in a more competent or less competent way. The emergence of communication platforms that redistribute information has revolutionized the relationship between the elite, the media, and the public. More importantly, it contributed to the crisis of the public sphere, trust, and defragmentation of societies. Confused citizens are bombarded with information whose sources they cannot assess and disinformation, fake news, and post-truth have permanently entered the popular dictionary, replacing „unfashionable” propaganda and censorship. The aim of the article will be to analyse the current state of the media sphere through the prism of the weaknesses of traditional journalism, insufficient competences of recipients and uncontrolled flow of information controlled by the attention management industry.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-87
Author(s):  
Billy Handiwiyanto ◽  
Wisnu Aryo Dewanto

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.


Author(s):  
Людмила Дешко

In the science regarding Constitutional Law, the issue for restriction of intellectual property rights provokes lively discussions. When registration of trademarks, there increasingly raises a number of theoretical and practical questions: can the state "destroy" the legitimate expectations of the subjects of intellectual property rights by adopting certain legislative acts in order to fulfill its international obligations? Is the decision to apply the provisions of a bilateral agreement to the application for trademark registration, which came into force after the subject was filed into trademark application process, considered as interference into the peaceful use of property? Does the constitutional and legal mechanism for regulating public relations in the field of intellectual property on "expectativa jurídica" issue the need to be improved? The purpose of this article is to identify the conditions under which the applicant who has applied for registration of a trademark has the right to claim in respect of which he has a "justified expectation" of its implementation, as well as to identify conditions that allow national law or there is insufficient evidence in the settled case-law practice of National Courts to state that an applicant who has applied for registration of a trademark has a “justified expectation” protected by the provisions of the Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Research methods is the general methods of scientific cognitivism as well as concerning those used in legal science: methods of analysis and synthesis, formal logic, comparative law etc. In order to benefit from the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, an applicant who has applied for registration of a trademark must be entitled to claim in respect of which he may affirm that he had at least a “justified expectation” for its implementation. The grounds for concluding that such a “justified expectation” is as follows: the availability of grounds for such a requirement within national law and the consistent practice of National Courts, which shows that the applicant does have sufficient grounds to obtain this very justified expectation. 2. The mentioned reasons allow to affirm about the lack of reasonable grounds within national law or in the settled case-law practice of National Courts that are to state that an applicant who has applied for registration of a trademark has “justified expectation” protected by provisions of the Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention: 1) the applicant company had a right that is subject to a certain condition, which was terminated retroactively due to non-compliance with this condition, namely that it did not violate rights of the third parties; 2) there is a dispute/disputes about the registration of a trademark, which being taken into the Court processing in different countries; 3) the applicable rule of national law is sufficiently accessible, accurate and predictable; 4) the criteria for trademark registration are unclear, there are doubts about their proper interpretation, as well as the difficulties associated with the need to analyze various international instruments. Violation of the Article 1 of Protocol 1 is a retrospective interference by the legislator. The current legislation of Ukraine in the field of intellectual property on “expectativa jurídica” issues when filing an application for trademark registration, as well as on state interference regarding the “justified expectation” of the applicant companies needs to be improved in the light of the case-law practice of the European Court of Human Rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document