A reply to: Chorzów Factory – intellectual property and the continuity of international law in investor-state dispute settlement

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 505-510
Author(s):  
Alexander Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Upper Silesia ◽  
The Subject

The case involving the nitrate factory at Chorzów, Upper Silesia has been the subject of much academic commentary. Last year the intellectual property aspects of the case were explored in this journal. In this reply, I express doubts about whether the case involved the expropriation of intellectual property rights (IPRs) for two reasons. First, there are grounds to question the existence of IPRs. Second, even if there were IPRs, the Permanent Court of International Justice does not appear to have found that IPRs were taken. Instead, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of identifying the legal status of an IPR in the relevant territory when seeking to protect it under international law. * My thanks to Martyna Mielniczuk-Skibicka and Kacper Górniak. All errors are my own.

Ch.3 International Exhaustion of Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Correa Carlos Maria
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Foreign Market ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Parallel Imports ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter focuses on the issue of exhaustion of rights. Article 6 disclaims any intent in the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement to limit the Members’ freedom to regulate the issue of exhaustion of rights with regard to all types of intellectual property rights (IPRs). It declares the admissibility of the international exhaustion of rights, that is, the possibility of legally importing into a country a product protected by intellectual property rights, after the product has been legitimately put on the market in a foreign market. These imports—made by a party without the authorization of the title-holder but equally legal—are generally known as ‘parallel imports’. Moreover, Article 6 of the TRIPS Agreement has left Member countries freedom to incorporate the principle of exhaustion of rights into their domestic law with a national, regional, or international reach. The issue as such cannot be the subject matter of a dispute settlement under the Agreement.

scholarly journals Chorzów Factory – intellectual property and the continuity of international law in investor-state dispute settlement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Sean Morris
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
Investment Law

One of the most important cases in the jurisprudence of international law – Chorzów Factory – has a hidden secret, so much so that, even when in plain sight, legal post-mortems of the case fail to mention this well-kept secret. Chorzów Factory was about intellectual property rights, specifically patents and trade secrets, and this narrative has never been fully addressed. When the developments in international investment law and arbitration are fully considered it is worth looking back at Chorzów Factory to associate it with new streams of contemporary investor-state disputes that include issues such as intellectual property rights. Because Chorzów Factory has established the full reparation standard for unlawful expropriation, the standard has enabled a continuity of international law and underscores its importance for contemporary investment arbitration. However, the intellectual property narrative of Chorzów Factory has been neglected, and, in this article, I want to develop the intellectual property narrative of Chorzów Factory and to demonstrate the nexus between fair compensation, intellectual property rights and the continuity of international law.

scholarly journals Chorzów Factory – intellectual property and the continuity of international law in investor-state dispute settlement

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-199
Author(s):  
P Sean Morris
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
Investment Law

One of the most important cases in the jurisprudence of international law – Chorzów Factory – has a hidden secret, so much so that, even when in plain sight, legal post-mortems of the case fail to mention this well-kept secret. Chorzów Factory was about intellectual property rights, specifically patents and trade secrets, and this narrative has never been fully addressed. When the developments in international investment law and arbitration are fully considered it is worth looking back at Chorzów Factory to associate it with new streams of contemporary investor-state disputes that include issues such as intellectual property rights. Because Chorzów Factory has established the full reparation standard for unlawful expropriation, the standard has enabled a continuity of international law and underscores its importance for contemporary investment arbitration. However, the intellectual property narrative of Chorzów Factory has been neglected, and, in this article, I want to develop the intellectual property narrative of Chorzów Factory and to demonstrate the nexus between fair compensation, intellectual property rights and the continuity of international law.

scholarly journals The specialist’s report as a prerequisite for proving infringement of intellectual property rights in criminal cases

2020 ◽  
pp. 318-323
Author(s):  
Yevhenii Kompanets
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Use Of Knowledge

The article is devoted to the study of use of the specialist’s knowledge and the results of his participation in criminal proceedings(providing a report) as a means of proving the crimes towards intellectual property rights. The purpose of involvement of the specialistand tasks handled by the specialist during pre-trial investigation and trial have been considered. The legal status of the specialist hasbeen analyzed, vagueness and incompleteness of the specialist’s rights have been emphasized, absence of the mechanism of involvement of the specialist and the procedure of formalizing the results of his/her participation in criminal proceedings has been stated. Ithas been proved why in the majority of cases the specialist of the right holder/official manufacturer serves as the subject of applyingspecial knowledge in the crimes related to infringement of intellectual property rights.The practice of use of the specialist’s knowledge (providing a report) in the course of pre-trial investigation, trial and evaluationof the specialist’s report by the courts, including ECtHR has been provided. Decision of ECtHR stresses the importance of recognitionand evaluation of the specialist’s report as evidence, it is of universal significance for all parties to the criminal proceedings and it willstrengthen their positions. The possibility of use of knowledge of the specialist (right holder/official manufacturer) not only in thecourse of investigative actions has been substantiated.Amendments to the CPC of Ukraine are proposed, which are aimed at simplifying proving and increasing the efficiency of pretrialinvestigation body in crimes of this category, namely to elaborate and expand the rights/the list of actions of the specialist (examinationof items/documents), to determine the mechanism of involving the specialist, to include the specialist’s report in the list of documents,which serve as written evidence.

Part III Jurisdiction, Foreign Judgments and Awards, 14 Limitations on Jurisdiction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torremans Paul
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The Subject

This chapter discusses the limitations of the English courts' jurisdiction under the traditional rules. It first considers three types of limitations: limitations that affect the subject matter of the issue, limitations that affect the kind of relief sought, and limitations relating to persons between whom the issue is joined. It also explains limitations on jurisdiction imposed by certain statutes before addressing jurisdiction in respect of foreign property such as foreign immovables and intellectual property rights. Furthermore, it describes jurisdiction over the parties, focusing on persons who cannot invoke the jurisdiction and those who may claim exemption from the jurisdiction. The chapter concludes with an overview of statutory limitations on jurisdiction.

Specific Notarial Protection of the Testator's Exclusive Rights: Kazakh and International Experience

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 770
Author(s):  
Karlygash Asilkhanovna JUMABAYEVA ◽  
Lola Furkatovna TATARINOVA ◽  
Gulnaz Tursunovna ALAYEVA ◽  
Saule Zhusupbekovna SULEIMENOVA ◽  
Danila Vladimirovich TATARINOV
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
International Experience ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

This study is concerned with one of the most burning issues of intellectual property rights, namely the notarial protection of the testator's exclusive rights. The article analyzes the Kazakh and international experience in solving this issue. In the course of the study, the authors obtained the following results: - In legal practice, the non-acceptance of inheritance and refusal to inherit exclusive rights have their specific features; - It is proposed to supplement the existing civil legislation on the protection of the testator's copyrights. ‘Kazakhstan Authors' Society’ conducts its activities in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Its main function is to manage the property rights of authors. This management includes the issuance of permits to use deliverables on behalf of authors, as well as the collection, distribution and payment of royalties. It has been established that a notary has the right to apply to ‘Kazakhstan Authors' Society’ to determine one's authorship. The authors have revealed that the current Kazakh legislation does not state the creation time of some deliverable and does not provide for the notarial certification of a web page (in case of copyright infringement). Thus, a notary takes measures to protect the intellectual property rights owned by the copyright holder that might become the subject of succession.

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 Certain aspects of possible codification of legislation of intellectual property law

2021 ◽  
pp. 108-118
Author(s):  
Olena Shtefan
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Independent Branch

Keywords: recodification of the Civil Code of Ukraine, codification of legislation onintellectual property law, subject and method of intellectual property law The article examines the issues related to the possibility ofcodification of legislation in the field of intellectual property rights. Currently, inUkraine there is a three-tier regulation of public relations in the field of intellectualproperty law. On the one hand, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the rules of which are characterizedby a corresponding nature, terminological inconsistency with special legislation;special legislation regulating legal relations arising from the creation and use ofcertain objects of intellectual property rights; as well as the provisions of ratified internationallegal acts in this area. Such legislation does not contribute to effectiveprotection or effective protection of intellectual property rights.The updating of the Civil Code of Ukraine will not improve the situation regardingproper legislative support in this area, and may lead to new conflicts. Based on the analysis of existing approaches in legal doctrine on the possible codificationof legislation in the field of intellectual property law, it is concluded that it ispossible if the latter is separated into an independent branch of law, characterized bythe subject and method of legal regulation. The existing approach to the definition ofthe subject of regulation in the doctrine of intellectual property law coincides with thecivilized approaches and does not reflect the specifics of legal relations that characterizethe field of intellectual property. The subject of intellectual property law is notlimited to private law relations, public law is also quite common. In this regard, it isproposed to understand the subject as a legal relationship arising in connection withthe creation, use and protection of intellectual property rights. It is proved that theright of intellectual property can be separated into an independent branch of law andto codify its legislation. This will be facilitated by the interest of the state and the correspondingpolitical will to do so.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document