scholarly journals PROVIDING THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF UKRAINE THE CONTROL OVER THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS THAT CONTAIN SIGNS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OBJECTS: THEORY AND PRACTICE PROBLEMS OF FORENSIC RESEARCH

2020 ◽  
pp. 606-623
Author(s):  
V. Fedorenko ◽  
T. Chabanets ◽  
O. Foia
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Model Identification ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Counterfeit Goods ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Specialized Unit

The publication is devoted to the current problems of the theory and practice of providing by the officials of the specialized unit of the customs authority, in which, according to the official instructions, the functions performed to promote the protection of intellectual property rights and officials of the customs clearance unit of the customs authority of Ukraine. It is also considered the effective control over the movement of goods containing signs objects of intellectual property rights, as well as substantiation of proposals for improvement of the relevant law enforcement practice. Investigations, using special knowledge of forensic expertise are problematic questions concerning definition of the volume of rights of a utility model protected by a patent; the essential features that can be characterized by the object (product) protected by the patent for a utility model; requirements for the formulation of signs of a utility model established today by the current legislation. This is also concerned the determination of the technical nature and specific features of the object (product) subject to customs clearance, and regarding which there are questions of violation of the intellectual property rights; interpretation of the patent formula without studying the patent description for a utility model. There are also principles that should be guided by the allocation of signs in accordance with the formula of the utility model; identification of signs of an object (product) subject to customs clearance; principles that should be guided by comparable features of a formula protected by a patent with signs of an object (product) subject to customs clearance, etc. The proposals for improving the practice of preventing the customs authorities from moving counterfeit goods the importation of which into the customs territory of Ukraine or removal from this territory is a violation of intellectual property rights is substantiated.

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.

Intellectual Property: Theory, Privilege, and Pragmatism

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam D. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Social Constructions ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Definition Of

In the most general terms, this article focuses on the tension between competing justifications of intellectual property. Section I examines the nature and definition of economic pragmatism and argues that, while economic pragmatism comes in many flavors, each is either unstable or self-defeating. Section II advances the view that Anglo-American systems of intellectual property have both theoretical and pragmatic features. In Section III a sketch of a theory is offered--a theory that may limit applications of economic pragmatism and provide the foundation for copyright, patent, and trade secret institutions. To be justified--to warrant coercion on a worldwide scale--systems of intellectual property should be grounded in theory. Intellectual property rights are, in essence, no different than our rights to life, liberty, and tangible property. Intellectual property rights are neither pure social constructions nor bargains without foundations.

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.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCE IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS THE GROUND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Andrii Khridochkin ◽  
Petro Makushev
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Social Harm ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Subjective Side ◽  
Legal Consequences

The article deals with homogeneous group of administrative offences - administrative offences in the field of intellectual property as a basis of administrative liability. It is emphasized that the objective features of this administrative offence are its social harm, wrongfulness and punishment, and subjective ones are guilt and subjectivity. It is emphasized that only in the presence of all these features can one speak of qualifying an individual’s act as an administrative offence and resolving the issue of bringing him to administrative liability. The definition of the term “administrative offence in the field of intellectual property” is proposed as envisaged by the legislation on administrative liability of socially harmful, unlawful, guilty act, committed by the subjects of such unlawful acts that encroach on the set of property and personal non-property rights to the intellectual results. It is established that all warehouses of administrative offences in the field of intellectual property (art. 51-2, 107-1, 156-3 (in the part concerning intellectual property objects), 164-3, 164-6, 164-7, 164-8, 164-9, 164-13) there are such elements as objective signs and subjective features, which in their unity form the composition of administrative offences of this group. It is noted that the only generic object of these administrative offences is the group of public relations of intellectual property, which are protected by the law on administrative liability, and the subject of this group of public relations are objects of intellectual property. It is proved that the objective side of administrative offences in the field of intellectual property is a set of ways of infringement of intellectual property rights. Attention is drawn to the fact that in practice the violation of intellectual property rights to different objects has different economic, social and legal consequences, and therefore the degree of their social harm is different, and therefore there is a need to differentiate administrative liability depending on the intellectual property. Subjective signs of the administrative offences of this group, which are represented by their subject, are established, and the subjective side is characterized by the fact that they are committed only intentionally.

scholarly journals Trade in counterfeit goods in Serbia: Methodological approach and quantification

Industrija ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Branko Radulović ◽  
Miljan Savić
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Counterfeit Goods ◽  
Product Categories ◽  
Counterfeit Products

The paper represents the first step in quantifying the categories of goods with the highest risk of being counterfeit during import into Serbia. Firstly, we present a methodology for quantifying the level of counterfeiting, its advantages, and its limitations. Secondly, we determine the product categories most likely to contain counterfeit products. Likewise, by using the OECD methodology, the GTRIC-p indicator for Serbia was formed, enabling comparison with OECD member countries. Based on the results, Serbia does not significantly differ from EU countries in terms of structure and product categories most at risk. The negative effects of imports of counterfeit products are borne mainly by the foreign intellectual property rights holders whose counterfeit products are imported into Serbia. In this context, despite the legal framework in place, incentives for its proper implementation are questionable.

scholarly journals ECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS AGAINST CONTROLLING GOODS TURNOVER

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 165
Author(s):  
Ruslan Fyl ◽  
Galina Luk'yanova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
The State ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Counterfeit Goods ◽  
Goods Market

The purpose of this article is to describe the content of the economic and legal bases of counteraction to the circulation of counterfeit goods. Using systemic and formal-logical methods, the amount of economic losses is outlined and the magnitudes of consequences arising from the circulation of counterfeit goods for the state, patent holders, consumers and manufacturers of counterfeits are outlined. It has been stated that drugs, toys, agrochemicals, and foodstuffs are the most counterfeit at the moment and are not only supported by crime as a crime in the field of intellectual property, but also endanger the lives and healths. Considering the market of counterfeit goods described its features, which are that the operation indicated the author but due to factors such as low solvency of the population in developing countries; the inability to sell counterfeit products separately from the original products, due to the fact that the original products are used for masking in the sale of counterfeiting; lack of specialized equipment for establishing counterfeit goods and knowledge of the original; scale and narrow specialization of counterfeit goods market participants; the transnational nature of this market; splicing organized crime with law enforcement agencies; high profitability of counterfeit market. The practical importance of the research is the documentary analysis examines the international legal aspects of counterfeiting of such goods and notes that the rules of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS and the EU Customs Regulation on Intellectual Property Observance set out measures to combat trafficking in goods that infringes intellectual property rights. Consequently, successfully tackling counterfeit goods trafficking requires a constant search for innovative methods of struggle. An effective strategy for overcoming this phenomenon should combine the various measures of its counteraction, all of them should be used in a coordinated and systematic way, complementing each other. Therefore, both economic and political management methods must be taken into account to overcome the counterfeit. And only their optimal combination will have the greatest effect in the formation of concepts of counteraction to the circulation of counterfeit goods. And this is definitely worth the effort since the innovative and economic development of the state depends on solving the problem of creating an effective system of protection of intellectual property rights. Methodology. A methodological framework of the economic and legal bases of counteraction to the circulation of counterfeit goods is defined by the complex of scientific cognition methods that allow us to look at this problem as a multi-aspect, interdisciplinary phenomenon. On the basis of the system, structural, systemic-functional and other scientific approaches, the idea of counteraction to the circulation of counterfeit goods has formed a complex systemic category covering the theoretical and practical level of economic and legal activity.

When Property Does Not Mean Property: An Analysis of the Existence of International Intellectual Property†

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-345
Author(s):  
Jonathan M.W.W. Chu
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Logical Conclusion ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractThis paper endeavours to dispel the logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights and aims to show that the term “international intellectual property” may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort.To suggest that “there is no such thing as international intellectual property” may have been particularly reasonable prior to the end of the 19thcentury when there was little or no international obligations to protect intellectual property. Nowadays, however, the term “international intellectual property” is, at the very least, misunderstood, if not a clear term that has worked its way into the international legal lexicon with each international intellectual property agreement entered into since the beginning of the beginning of the international period.It is quite plain that individual intellectual property rights such as copyright, patents, registered designs, and registered and unregistered trade mark rights are not international in scope or nature. It is also quite clear that intellectual property rights are territorial in nature as they are derived from national law and are governed exclusively within jurisdictions of such law. This principle is trite and was better observed in a World Intellectual Property Organization survey:Each country determines, for its own territory and independently from any other country, what it is to be protected as intellectual property, who should benefit from such protection, for how long and how protection should be enforced.Despite an apparently logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights, the term “international intellectual property” may infer something more than this. Rather than confining the term to basic interpretation of the words which make the term, international intellectual property may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort. While the standards of recognition and rights granted in relation to such products of intellect may vary between nations, the source of such products remains the same and it is such property which various international agreements seek to govern. It is given through developments in international intellectual property agreements, that a definition of the term may be implied, if not derived.In this paper, I endeavour to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property. As such, I will first establish that there is such a thing as „intellectual property,” despite arguments against the term. I will then move on to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property, particularly in light of the developments in international intellectual property agreements.

COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS PROTECTION IN MODERN CONDITIONS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Urazova ◽  
◽  
Yulia Gudzenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of

The article presents a study of the problem of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, namely copyright and related rights. It is noted that the issue of protection and preservation of copyright and related rights in the modern world is very relevant and currently not fully resolved. The analysis of normative-legal documents in this sphere is carried out. In particular, the domestic legislation was studied, namely, the norms of the Civil and Criminal Codes of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights", the Law of Ukraine "On State Support of Cinematography in Ukraine". International normative legal acts are analyzed. Namely: the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (BOIB Agreement) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). The definition of "protection" is given, as well as the objects and subjects of copyright and related rights. The article also pays attention to the types of copyright and related rights protection: jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional. Two modern ways of copyright protection have been studied - copyright and copyleft. Civil law protection is analyzed: the grounds for a person to go to court to protect their intellectual property rights, the procedure for protection of infringed rights and ways to protect these rights are determined. It has been established that filing a claim against the infringer of copyright and related rights is not always an effective way of protection. Thus, the subjects of copyright and related rights often choose to protect their infringed rights. Problems related to the regulation, protection and proof of copyright infringement on the Internet have been identified. An analysis of case law on the protection of copyright and related rights. It has been found that courts do not always adequately protect related rights that have been violated on the Internet. The conclusions and prospects of development of protection and protection of copyright and related rights are given.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document