scholarly journals FEATURES OF CRIMINAL AND LEGAL PROTECTION OF ECONOMIC AND OTHER INTERESTS OF SUBJECTS OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ON UKRAINIAN LANDS UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS OF 1903

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (44) ◽  
pp. 40-50
Author(s):  
Oksana Korotiuk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Significant Difference

The article analyzes the criminal law provisions of the Criminal Code of 1903, which provided the responsibility for encroachments on objects of intellectual property rights, and defined the peculiarities of criminal legal protection of economic and other interests of subjects of intellectual property rights in Ukrainian lands according to these criminal legal norms. The Criminal Code of 1903 was marked by a significant difference from the Criminal Code of 1845, expressed as a significant reduction in the number of criminal acts, the general humanization of criminal punishment, and in a more progressive approach to the design of criminal law. For example, in Art. 1, the principle of "nullum crimen sine lege" was directly affirmed for the first time, while in criminal laws of earlier times it was laid down but only proceeded from the general content of the articles. Analysis of the criminal law of the Criminal Code of 1903 provisions allowed to conclude that the criminal legal protection of objects of intellectual property rights was carried out at the expense of: 1) criminal law, which provided for liability for attacks on objects of copyright and patent law. In this case, the legal protection of copyright objects was closely linked to the censorship and, in fact, was inseparable from it; 2) the provisions establishing criminal liability for actions related to the disclosure of secrets; 3) provisions relating to the introduction of goods into the market and their circulation there, as well as the importation of goods into the territory of the Russian Empire, which provided for liability for the following acts: a) acts related to the illegal manufacture of works and their introduction into circulation, in including the illegal circulation of equipment that may be used for the illicit manufacture of works; b) acts related to the illicit sale or other distribution of works; c) other acts related to the illegal circulation of objects of intellectual property rights.

scholarly journals On issue of criminal liability for violations of intellectual property rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 101-104
Author(s):  
M.S. Utkina
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The issues of criminal liability for violations of intellectual property rights in Ukraine as well as examples of foreign countries (Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, United States of America, Swiss Confederation) were analyzed. The author has identified major international instruments that set out basic international standards for the protection of intellectual property rights. It has been determined that Article 61, Section 5, of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or the TRIPS Agreement, lays down provisions on criminal proceedings. The author analyzed the provisions of the current criminal legislation of Ukraine, according to which the occurrence of criminal liability is possible in case of violation of property rights of owners, without taking into account personal non-property rights. The article also states that, in accordance with the provisions of the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a peculiarity of domestic criminal legislation on infringement of intellectual property rights is that this type of liability can occur only if the owner of the rights of property damage in a large, large or especially large size. With regard to the Institute of Industrial Property, the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for liability for the unlawful use of an invention, utility model, industrial design or variety of plants, if the material damage was done, as previously stated, in a significant, large or particularly large sizes. The author has determined that the urgency of the solution requires the issue of extending legal protection to new and emerging technologies. As with this, the nature of the violations and the process itself change. Against this background, there is a serious challenge to the intellectual property system. In turn, the process of protection and protection of intellectual property may be enhanced by having an adequate and effective system of state mechanism for preventing and ending offenses. It can also be achieved by simplifying the process of proving infringement in the field of intellectual property, and thus the procedure for bringing the perpetrator to justice.

scholarly journals Criminal protection of objects of individualization in Ukraine and abroad

2021 ◽  
pp. 81-87
Author(s):  
Yevheniia Nedohybchenko
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
National System ◽  
The Law

Keywords: object of individualization, trademark, mark for goods and services,criminal liability, criminal legal protection Problems of criminal law protection and protection of meansof individualization among the participants of economic circulation has not found itscoverage and analysis in the legal literature.Legal regulation of industrial property protection at the international level takesplace within a number of agreements: the Paris Convention for the Protection of IndustrialProperty of 1883, the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registrationof Marks of 1891, the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registrationof Industrial Designs of 1925, and others.The article examines the experience of criminal law protection of trademarks ofthe following countries: USA, Great Britain, Germany, Switzerland, Ukraine.The author speaks about the need to unify approaches to criminal prosecution inUkraine. This will facilitate effective litigation. Establish liability for infringement oftrademark rights. Will contribute to the improvement of the national system of protectionof intellectual property rights. Increase safeguards to protect intellectualproperty rights. It will raise Ukraine's image in the world.The laws of the countries define in detail the scope of rights of owners to intellectualproperty. The law provides a list of actions that are considered a crime.In the United States, a criminal case is initiated by the federal government or thestate. In the Federal Republic of Germany, most infringements of intellectual property rights are governed by civil law. An offense is a criminal offense if it is committedwith intent.Ukraine also has special legislation. Criminal liability is established in the relevantarticles of the Code. These articles are in different sections of the Criminal Codeof Ukraine. Such placement of norms negatively affects the punishment of violators.There is a need to unify approaches to prosecuting offenders. This will facilitate effectivelitigation. Establish liability for violations of the law. Will contribute to the improvementof the national system of protection of intellectual property rights. Increasingguarantees of protection of intellectual property rights. It is necessary to do so byintroducing the relevant into the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

scholarly journals LEGAL PROTECTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS AS OBJECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

2019 ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Y.S. Kanarik ◽  
B.B. Sergienko
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Computer Program ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Relevant Today ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Almost All

The article examines the legal protection of computer programs as intellectual property rights. The analysis of theoretical and practical aspects of the existing system of protection of the computer program according to the rules of copyright is carried out and the possible ways of its improvement in accordance with the current conditions. As many scientists, in particular, Kirin R, S., Tarasenko L.L., Efremova T.F., emphasize the imperfection of the legal protection of this object of intellectual property rights, the possible ways of improving the legislative protection of computer programs in accordance with to the needs of today. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of the various legislative protection systems that are relevant today or those that could theoretically be applied to protecting computer programs. Particular attention has been paid to the emergence and development of the legal protection of computer programs in general since the 1960s. It has been revealed that from the very beginning, the legal protection industry has relied on various systems of protection, including copyright and patent law, and so on. In the future, with the development of intellectual property rights, in almost all states, a system for protecting computer programs as literary works has been adopted. However, in the current context, such legal protection is ineffective. And the more useful a computer program is, the more vulnerable it to copying. That is why the prevalence of unlicensed versions of computer programs is analyzed. So, about 85% of the population were found to be using, at least one, illegal copy of computer programs. The main reasons for this phenomenon are the perception of intellectual property rights as a free resource, as well as fragmented, imperfect action by the state to identify and eliminate this type of offense. Due to the urgency of the problem, the authors have proposed various options for protecting computer programs: in particular, the traditional protection of a computer program as a copyright object; protect your computer program by patent law. However, only if the program is part of a utility model or invention; protecting your computer program name as a trademark, etc. Keywords: computer program, copyright, patent, source code, object code.

scholarly journals SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND OTHER FEATURES OF CRIMINALIZATION OF ENCROACHMENTS ON OBJECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (43) ◽  
pp. 55-67
Author(s):  
Oksana Korotiuk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Intellectual Capital ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Intellectual Property Right ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Cultural Economic

The article analyzes and proves the existence of public need for criminal law protection of objects of intellectual property rights. According to the special importance of intellectual property, which is based directly on its social value (significance) and is associated with the satisfaction of the mental, cultural, economic and other needs of society, it is proved that full and effective legal protection of the rights, freedoms and interests of the subjects of intellectual property rights is possibly solely through measures of criminal law influence. The fact that the economic and social value of intellectual property forms the intellectual capital of the country and society is extremely important. It needs state support, and in the absence of it - undergoes qualitative changes that cause the fall of all spheres of the economy, an increase in unemployment, backwardness of technologies etc. Thus, it has been established that the factors that predetermined the social necessity to criminalize encroachments on objects of intellectual property rights include the following: a) the economic and social value of intellectual property that forms the intellectual capital of the country and society; b) informational nature and ethical essence of intellectual property, allowing to consider it as one of the fundamental values ​​of society; c) the public danger of these encroachments; d) the criminal law provisions concerning violation of the right of intellectual property are a guarantee of protection of constitutional rights and interests of the person; e) international legal obligations of Ukraine affect the introduction of standards for the legal protection of intellectual property rights, including criminal law protection. Thus, the author concludes that the criminalization of encroachments on objects of intellectual property right is justified and meets the interests of society and the state.

scholarly journals TRIPs dalam Kaitannya dengan Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Rahasia Dagang, Desain Industri dan Desain Tata Letak Sirkuit Terpadu Di Indonesia

SASI ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Sabri Fataruba
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Integrated Circuits ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
Minimum Requirement ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Full Compliance

Participation in the WTO has given consequences to its member countries, including Indonesia, to harmonize its laws in the field of Intellectual Property Rights for full compliance or full compliance as a minimum requirement and guidelines for WTO member countries to contain new norms and has a higher standard and contains strict law enforcement provisions as set by the TRIPs. In view of these matters, Indonesia has harmonized the existing laws in the field of Intellectual Property Rights and made legal norms in accordance with the standards set by the TRIPs for several fields of Intellectual Property Rights which had not yet been enacted at the time, where 3 ( three) including Law Number 30 of 2000 concerning Trade Secrets, Law Number 31 of 2000 concerning Industrial Design and Law Number 32 of 2000 concerning Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits, the regulations also meet the standards set by TRIPs , in order to provide adequate legal protection to guarantee the rights of Owners of Trade Secrets and Designers and to ensure that other unauthorized parties do not abuse them, so as to motivate the owners of trade secrets and designers to continue to be creative in creating and/or designing, as well also stimulates other communities to do same things.

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

International Seminar – Contributions to the Development Agenda on Intellectual Property Rights

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Celia Castro ◽  
Maria Beatriz Amorim Bohrer
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
International Seminar ◽  
Development Agenda

TRIPS as it stands is against the interests of developing countries, and needsreform. In developing their own patent law, developing countries need to recognizethat there is now near consensus among informed observers that patentlaw and practice have, in some cases, overshot, and need to be reformed. Thatis the burden of the recent NAS/NRC report on “A Patent System for the 21stCentury.

PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN UKRAINE: MODERN REALITIES AND PROSPECTS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliia Tovstohan ◽  
◽  
Serhii Ivanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Current System ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
General Concept ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Definition Of

The scientific article examines the modern mechanism of protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine. Attention is paid to the historically first using of the concept of intellectual property rights in international law and the shortcomings of this definition. The legal definition of this concept contained in the Civil Code of Ukraine is analyzed. It is concluded that the legislative enshrinement of intellectual property rights is evidence of its recognition by the state, and such a right applies to special objects, the list of which is enshrined at both national and international levels. The question of the relationship between the concepts of "protection" and "defense" of civil rights is covered. The main groups of approaches of scientists to the solution of this problem are indicated. An approach that defines "protection" as a general concept for "defense" is supported, where "protection" is a broader concept that covers the term "defense". Emphasis is placed on the fact that although these legal categories are related, they cannot be identified. The main features that distinguish these concepts are listed, and the features of "defense" as an independent concept are highlighted. There are given examples of definition of the concept of protection of intellectual property rights given by scientists. Based on these definitions, the main features of this term are summarized. The issue of forms of protection (jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) has been studied. The general and special order within the jurisdictional form is distinguished. It is noted about the peculiarities of self-defense as a non-jurisdictional form. The focus is on the judicial (general) procedure for protection of intellectual property rights as the main one. Possible ways of protection (civil, administrative, criminal, and criminal) are analyzed. The problems and shortcomings of the current system of legal protection and protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine are analyzed. Both reports from international partners and research by Ukrainian scientists were used. The authors outline ways to solve existing problems. The conclusions of the study are formulated and the possibility of further scientific research in this area is indicated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document