Keywords: intellectual property, intellectual property rights, innovation activities,innovation activity companies (entities), open innovations concept, open innovationplatforms The article determinates that, on the background of a digitaleconomics actively development, the open innovations become a key source of digitalbreakthrough. The author states that within such a concept, the entities carryinginnovation activity, keep focus on monetizing both the internal research results aswell as the external ideas. Such approach, enhanced with external partners involvementinto the innovations process, helps the innovative technologies to move remarkablyfaster through the lifecycle. It is also emphasized that the approach enabling externalaccess to the companies’ innovations, need a concept to be set up, with focus onintellectual property rights protection. The author draws attention that the key roleof legal instruments for intellectual property protection, is to minimize the risk forthose companies which contribute to the innovations market development. It is clarifiedthat within such a concept, the innovation activity companies provide their partnersthe right to use the intellectual assets, which may be either already in use bysuch companies or idle to use. Thus, the companies providing legal protection of theintellectual property, have more favourite conditions to come into a strategic partnership.The author highlights that the innovations-industry companies make profitfrom getting access to science-research and related production outputs which areowned by their partners, as well as from further development of their own productsresulting from the intellectual property under the strategic agreement. The articlealso proposes creation of digital platforms which will facilitate the effective partnershipof the business, state organizations and innovation teams within the developmentprocess of innovation products.
{"title":"Role of intellectual property as key element of innovation activities: legal grounds","authors":"A. Yarmoliuk","doi":"10.33731/62021.249114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/62021.249114","url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: intellectual property, intellectual property rights, innovation activities,innovation activity companies (entities), open innovations concept, open innovationplatforms \u0000The article determinates that, on the background of a digitaleconomics actively development, the open innovations become a key source of digitalbreakthrough. The author states that within such a concept, the entities carryinginnovation activity, keep focus on monetizing both the internal research results aswell as the external ideas. Such approach, enhanced with external partners involvementinto the innovations process, helps the innovative technologies to move remarkablyfaster through the lifecycle. It is also emphasized that the approach enabling externalaccess to the companies’ innovations, need a concept to be set up, with focus onintellectual property rights protection. The author draws attention that the key roleof legal instruments for intellectual property protection, is to minimize the risk forthose companies which contribute to the innovations market development. It is clarifiedthat within such a concept, the innovation activity companies provide their partnersthe right to use the intellectual assets, which may be either already in use bysuch companies or idle to use. Thus, the companies providing legal protection of theintellectual property, have more favourite conditions to come into a strategic partnership.The author highlights that the innovations-industry companies make profitfrom getting access to science-research and related production outputs which areowned by their partners, as well as from further development of their own productsresulting from the intellectual property under the strategic agreement. The articlealso proposes creation of digital platforms which will facilitate the effective partnershipof the business, state organizations and innovation teams within the developmentprocess of innovation products.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115535705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Key words: intellectual property law, legislation, material norms, proceduralnorms, codification The article is devoted to the study oflegislative problems that determine the appropriateness of the codification of Ukrainianlegislation on intellectual property. The current state of legislation in this area,the results of the reforms of procedural legislation of 20218 and special legislation of2020 are analysed. It is concluded that the special legislation of Ukraine on intellectualproperty requires further systemic improvement, unification, taking into accountthe development of the enforcement of European legislation in this area. The currentstructure of special laws is complex, dubbed norms and legal and technical shortcomings.Considering the number of tasks, the solution of which is advisable when improvinglegislation, it is obvious that the introduction of individual point changes isineffective. Another significant factor requiring recourse to the legislative procedureis the creation in Ukraine of the High Court for Intellectual Property Issues, and ascientific discussion regarding the procedural rules by which this court should administerjustice. The current legislative field contains certain rules governing the activitiesof this court, however, the presence of special procedural provisions in the legislationof the European Union, along with non-compliance with certain provisions of theAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the AssociationAgreement between Ukraine, on the one hand, and the European Union, thecommunity on nuclear energy and their member states, on the other hand, makes itnecessary to supplement national procedural legislation with appropriate norms.Based on the characteristics of the structure of the legislative landscape, it is proposedto consider the possibility of incorporating material, procedural and proceduralnorms in a single legislative act. Approaches to defining the goals and principles ofsystematization of legislation are proposed.
{"title":"Codification of the legislation of Ukraine on intellectual property: material and procedural aspects","authors":"Mykola Pototskyy","doi":"10.33731/62021.248969","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/62021.248969","url":null,"abstract":"Key words: intellectual property law, legislation, material norms, proceduralnorms, codification \u0000The article is devoted to the study oflegislative problems that determine the appropriateness of the codification of Ukrainianlegislation on intellectual property. The current state of legislation in this area,the results of the reforms of procedural legislation of 20218 and special legislation of2020 are analysed. It is concluded that the special legislation of Ukraine on intellectualproperty requires further systemic improvement, unification, taking into accountthe development of the enforcement of European legislation in this area. The currentstructure of special laws is complex, dubbed norms and legal and technical shortcomings.Considering the number of tasks, the solution of which is advisable when improvinglegislation, it is obvious that the introduction of individual point changes isineffective. Another significant factor requiring recourse to the legislative procedureis the creation in Ukraine of the High Court for Intellectual Property Issues, and ascientific discussion regarding the procedural rules by which this court should administerjustice. The current legislative field contains certain rules governing the activitiesof this court, however, the presence of special procedural provisions in the legislationof the European Union, along with non-compliance with certain provisions of theAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the AssociationAgreement between Ukraine, on the one hand, and the European Union, thecommunity on nuclear energy and their member states, on the other hand, makes itnecessary to supplement national procedural legislation with appropriate norms.Based on the characteristics of the structure of the legislative landscape, it is proposedto consider the possibility of incorporating material, procedural and proceduralnorms in a single legislative act. Approaches to defining the goals and principles ofsystematization of legislation are proposed.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115282703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Keywords: intellectual property rights, biotechnologies, patenting, legal protection,legislation Current trends of globalization and the process of European integrationof Ukraine necessitate the creation of an effective mechanism of legal regulationof intellectual property rights in the field of biotechnology, due to the constitutionalprovisions according to which human life and health are the highest value inthe state. The purpose of the study was to determine the legal regulation of protection of intellectual property rights in the field of biotechnology. Empirical and theoreticalmethods of scientific cognition are used for comprehensive consideration of the topicof the article. It has been found that modern biotechnological advances require inventorsnot only to secure monopoly rights to use them, but also to comply with the moraland ethical criteria for the perception of inventions created by genetic engineeringand living matter. It is determined that the legal system of intellectual property protectionin the field of biotechnology is based on the provisions of the Constitution ofUkraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, regulations in the field of health and agriculture,international treaties and special legislation in the field of intellectual property. It isestablished that the system of legal protection of biotechnological inventions consistsof the acquisition of intellectual property rights to these inventions (establishment ofthe object of patenting and compliance with patentability, state registration of inventions)and the use and disposal of intellectual property rights to such inventions. Alegislative support of legal protection of biotechnological inventions is seen in furtherempirical research and theoretical and methodological substantiation in order to determinethe legal mechanisms of their practical implementation.
{"title":"Protection of intellectual property rights in the field of biotechnology","authors":"H. Fedotova, S. Fyl","doi":"10.33731/62021.249001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/62021.249001","url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: intellectual property rights, biotechnologies, patenting, legal protection,legislation \u0000Current trends of globalization and the process of European integrationof Ukraine necessitate the creation of an effective mechanism of legal regulationof intellectual property rights in the field of biotechnology, due to the constitutionalprovisions according to which human life and health are the highest value inthe state. The purpose of the study was to determine the legal regulation of protection \u0000of intellectual property rights in the field of biotechnology. Empirical and theoreticalmethods of scientific cognition are used for comprehensive consideration of the topicof the article. It has been found that modern biotechnological advances require inventorsnot only to secure monopoly rights to use them, but also to comply with the moraland ethical criteria for the perception of inventions created by genetic engineeringand living matter. It is determined that the legal system of intellectual property protectionin the field of biotechnology is based on the provisions of the Constitution ofUkraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, regulations in the field of health and agriculture,international treaties and special legislation in the field of intellectual property. It isestablished that the system of legal protection of biotechnological inventions consistsof the acquisition of intellectual property rights to these inventions (establishment ofthe object of patenting and compliance with patentability, state registration of inventions)and the use and disposal of intellectual property rights to such inventions. Alegislative support of legal protection of biotechnological inventions is seen in furtherempirical research and theoretical and methodological substantiation in order to determinethe legal mechanisms of their practical implementation.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131609484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Keywords: artificial intelligence, copyright, related rights, sui generis The publication provides a descriptive review of existingtheoretical approaches regarding the legal protection of objects generated byartificial intelligence systems in the field of copyright and related rights, namely.1) The inexpediency of legal protection of computer-generated objects. It is concludedthat the absence of legal regulation and free circulation of generated objects isconsidered the easiest option. Still, hardly fair and justified, as the creation of artificialintelligence systems requires large and significant investments in their development.2) The possibility of protecting computer-generated objects by copyright as originalworks. It has been established that extending the concept of «originality» to computergeneratedobjects seems unjustifiable.3) The introduction of the latest iteration of the fiction theory and establishing aspecial legal status for artificial intelligence systems. It is noted that such an approachseems premature because the existing artificial intelligence systems are amanifestation of «narrow» or «weak» artificial intelligence and not artificial generalintelligence.4) Protection of specific generated objects through related rights. It is concludedthat the objects generated by AI systems may be protected in Ukraine through theprism of related rights, under the condition that the relevant object can be attributedto a phonogram, videogram, or broadcast (program) of broadcasters respectively.5) Protection of generated objects through a special legal regime under copyrightlaw. It is described that this approach cannot be considered a universal example forimitating the legal protection of objects generated by computer programs because itsapplication leaves more questions and inconsistencies than solving the problem onthe merits.6) Protection of generated objects through sui generis law. It is assumed that applyingsuch an approach to the protection of objects generated by computer programswill not lead to significant changes in copyright and will protect the interests and investmentsof developers of artificial intelligence systems.
{"title":"Review of the theoretical approaches regarding the legal protection of objects generated by artificial intelligence systems in the field of copyright and related rights","authors":"Kostiantyn Zerov","doi":"10.33731/62021.248986","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/62021.248986","url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: artificial intelligence, copyright, related rights, sui generis \u0000The publication provides a descriptive review of existingtheoretical approaches regarding the legal protection of objects generated byartificial intelligence systems in the field of copyright and related rights, namely.1) The inexpediency of legal protection of computer-generated objects. It is concludedthat the absence of legal regulation and free circulation of generated objects isconsidered the easiest option. Still, hardly fair and justified, as the creation of artificialintelligence systems requires large and significant investments in their development.2) The possibility of protecting computer-generated objects by copyright as originalworks. It has been established that extending the concept of «originality» to computergeneratedobjects seems unjustifiable.3) The introduction of the latest iteration of the fiction theory and establishing aspecial legal status for artificial intelligence systems. It is noted that such an approachseems premature because the existing artificial intelligence systems are amanifestation of «narrow» or «weak» artificial intelligence and not artificial generalintelligence.4) Protection of specific generated objects through related rights. It is concludedthat the objects generated by AI systems may be protected in Ukraine through theprism of related rights, under the condition that the relevant object can be attributedto a phonogram, videogram, or broadcast (program) of broadcasters respectively.5) Protection of generated objects through a special legal regime under copyrightlaw. It is described that this approach cannot be considered a universal example forimitating the legal protection of objects generated by computer programs because itsapplication leaves more questions and inconsistencies than solving the problem onthe merits.6) Protection of generated objects through sui generis law. It is assumed that applyingsuch an approach to the protection of objects generated by computer programswill not lead to significant changes in copyright and will protect the interests and investmentsof developers of artificial intelligence systems.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"9 36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117092707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Keywords: Open Science, EOSC, intellectual property, scientific researches, COVID-19 pandemic, UA-EU Association, Digital Europe The article provides an analysis of the EU practices inthe field of development and implementation on the Open Science Policy, elaboration ofthe European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), employment of the FAIR principles and theirenhancement with CARE-principles. The European Commission activities are reviewedin the area of the Open Science roll-out as well as its ability to withstand the emergingglobal challenges like COVID-19. The EOSC concept is overviewed on the backdrop ofsuch EU policies as unified Digital Market Strategy and European Cloud Initiative, EuropeanResearch Environment, and Industrial Digitalization, as a part of those. EOSCconcept integration is considered through the development and interaction of Europeanand national research and e-infrastructures and data arrays, services and knowledgewithin the EU and globally.Steps are analyzed taken by Ukraine towards its integration to European researchenvironment and EOSC in the legal field, taking into account the State Authorities activityand implementation of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. It is highlighted thatthe innovations’ development of Ukraine is bound, both in timelines and meaningfully,with digital economics and the society development, intellectual property area, and should align the Ukrainian science initiatives with the European Cloud initiative as wellas further steps to joint the EOSC. It is consequently proven that consistent and meaningfulimplementation of the UA-EU Association commitments via the conceptual andstrategic regulations adopted by the state authorities is essential for Ukraine integrationto the EU’s Digital Market and Digital Environment so that to enhance its science potential.It is concluded that consistent efforts on implementing the goals and objectives asfor regulatory environment with their consequent enforcement creates the vital groundsfor successful enrollment of the national policy in this area.
{"title":"European’s Union Open Science Policy as a global benchmark for Ukraine: legal environment","authors":"O. Orliuk","doi":"10.33731/62021.249468","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/62021.249468","url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: Open Science, EOSC, intellectual property, scientific researches, COVID-19 pandemic, UA-EU Association, Digital Europe \u0000The article provides an analysis of the EU practices inthe field of development and implementation on the Open Science Policy, elaboration ofthe European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), employment of the FAIR principles and theirenhancement with CARE-principles. The European Commission activities are reviewedin the area of the Open Science roll-out as well as its ability to withstand the emergingglobal challenges like COVID-19. The EOSC concept is overviewed on the backdrop ofsuch EU policies as unified Digital Market Strategy and European Cloud Initiative, EuropeanResearch Environment, and Industrial Digitalization, as a part of those. EOSCconcept integration is considered through the development and interaction of Europeanand national research and e-infrastructures and data arrays, services and knowledgewithin the EU and globally.Steps are analyzed taken by Ukraine towards its integration to European researchenvironment and EOSC in the legal field, taking into account the State Authorities activityand implementation of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. It is highlighted thatthe innovations’ development of Ukraine is bound, both in timelines and meaningfully,with digital economics and the society development, intellectual property area, and should align the Ukrainian science initiatives with the European Cloud initiative as wellas further steps to joint the EOSC. It is consequently proven that consistent and meaningfulimplementation of the UA-EU Association commitments via the conceptual andstrategic regulations adopted by the state authorities is essential for Ukraine integrationto the EU’s Digital Market and Digital Environment so that to enhance its science potential.It is concluded that consistent efforts on implementing the goals and objectives asfor regulatory environment with their consequent enforcement creates the vital groundsfor successful enrollment of the national policy in this area.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128707036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Keywords: the distribution of economic rights; economic intellectual property rights; intellectualproperty rights objects, created on order; higher education institutions; intellectualproperty rights of higher education institutions; intellectual property rights objects;agreements for the creation on order and the use of intellectual property rights objects The article investigates the procedure for the distribution of economic rights to IPR objects,created in higher education institutions of Ukraine on order. In the course of researchgeneral requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine concerning possiblevariants of distribution of economic rights to IPR objects, created on order, have been defined.Based on this analysis it has been found that the legislator departed from the previouslyexisting unified approach to the distribution of economic rights to IPR objects,created on order, therefore, there are currently several legally enshrined approaches tothe distribution of economic rights to such objects. At the same time, the choice of one oranother option will depend on the type of the IPR object, created on order (work or anotherIPR objects), and in some cases from the purpose of its creation (has been createdspecifically as a piece of software or not).In addition, the author discovered the existence of a legal conflict between the provisionsof Part. 4 Art. 440 and Art. 1112 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, Part 6 of Art. 33 ofthe Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights» regarding the approach to thedistribution of economic rights, in particular, to works, created on order (except for worksof visual art). Also, it has been established that Art. 430 and Art. 1112 of the Civil Codeof Ukraine contain a different approach to determining the list of IPR objects, that can becreated on order.The article also disclosed the consequences of the existence of these inconsistencies forthe law enforcement practice, including for resolving the issue of choosing an appropriateform of agreement for the settlement of legal relations regarding the creation of IPR objects,other than a work, which are included in the concept of "an object, created on order"today. The fundamental importance of solving this issue for the educational sphere hasbeen revealed.Based on the results of the study, a general vision of possible options for the distributionof economic rights to IPR objects, created in higher education institutions of Ukraineon order, has been outlined. Also, suggestions to improve the legislation of Ukraine havebeen made.
{"title":"The distribution of economic rights to intellectual property rights objects, created in higher education institutions of Ukraine on order","authors":"Yuliia Osypova","doi":"10.33731/62021.249093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/62021.249093","url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: the distribution of economic rights; economic intellectual property rights; intellectualproperty rights objects, created on order; higher education institutions; intellectualproperty rights of higher education institutions; intellectual property rights objects;agreements for the creation on order and the use of intellectual property rights objects \u0000The article investigates the procedure for the distribution of economic rights to IPR objects,created in higher education institutions of Ukraine on order. In the course of researchgeneral requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine concerning possiblevariants of distribution of economic rights to IPR objects, created on order, have been defined.Based on this analysis it has been found that the legislator departed from the previouslyexisting unified approach to the distribution of economic rights to IPR objects,created on order, therefore, there are currently several legally enshrined approaches tothe distribution of economic rights to such objects. At the same time, the choice of one oranother option will depend on the type of the IPR object, created on order (work or anotherIPR objects), and in some cases from the purpose of its creation (has been createdspecifically as a piece of software or not).In addition, the author discovered the existence of a legal conflict between the provisionsof Part. 4 Art. 440 and Art. 1112 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, Part 6 of Art. 33 ofthe Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights» regarding the approach to thedistribution of economic rights, in particular, to works, created on order (except for worksof visual art). Also, it has been established that Art. 430 and Art. 1112 of the Civil Codeof Ukraine contain a different approach to determining the list of IPR objects, that can becreated on order.The article also disclosed the consequences of the existence of these inconsistencies forthe law enforcement practice, including for resolving the issue of choosing an appropriateform of agreement for the settlement of legal relations regarding the creation of IPR objects,other than a work, which are included in the concept of \"an object, created on order\"today. The fundamental importance of solving this issue for the educational sphere hasbeen revealed.Based on the results of the study, a general vision of possible options for the distributionof economic rights to IPR objects, created in higher education institutions of Ukraineon order, has been outlined. Also, suggestions to improve the legislation of Ukraine havebeen made.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"181 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121684685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Keywords: Property rights to the trademark, infractions of property rights, judicialpractice, protection of trademark rights, invalidation of the trademark certificate,early termination of the certificate The relevance of this article is that the largest number of legaldisputes in the sphere of intellectual property is disputes concerning violation of propertyrights for trademarks. The article examined the theoretical provisions of propertyrights for trademarks, as well as practical issues of violations of these rights. Specialattention is paid to the analysis of judicial practice concerning protection of rightsto trademarks. The categories of the mentioned cases have been highlighted and discussedin detail, statistical data and decisions have been made. It has been found thatthe overwhelming number of cases investigated concerns recognition of the Ukrainiantrademark certificate as invalid.The court cases on protection of rights to trademarks can be divided into severalcategories according to the claim requirements:1) On the recognition of the Ukrainian trademark certificate as invalid in whole orin part (for all or part of goods and/or services);2) On termination of infringement of intellectual property rights on the trademarkand obligation to take certain actions;3) On early termination of the Ukrainian trademark certificate in whole or in part(for all or part of goods and/or services);4) Other court cases. For example, the recognition of the non-legal patent ofUkraine for industrial design due to violation of rights for the registered trademark.The article contains detailed consideration of the mentioned categories of casesand statistical data about them.The analysis of judicial practice made it possible to establish the following statisticaldata: cases of invalidation of a trademark certificate are 47 %; cases on termination of infringementof rights to the trademark are 25 %; cases on early termination of the trademarkcertificate are 25 %; other cases on protection of rights to trademarks make 3 %.In addition, the analysis of court practice allowed to establish that 75 % of courtcases concerning protection of rights to trademarks are decided to satisfy the claim infull or in part.
{"title":"Types of infractions of trademark property rights. Аnalysis of judicial practice","authors":"Nataliia Minchenko","doi":"10.33731/62021.249016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/62021.249016","url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: Property rights to the trademark, infractions of property rights, judicialpractice, protection of trademark rights, invalidation of the trademark certificate,early termination of the certificate \u0000The relevance of this article is that the largest number of legaldisputes in the sphere of intellectual property is disputes concerning violation of propertyrights for trademarks. The article examined the theoretical provisions of propertyrights for trademarks, as well as practical issues of violations of these rights. Specialattention is paid to the analysis of judicial practice concerning protection of rightsto trademarks. The categories of the mentioned cases have been highlighted and discussedin detail, statistical data and decisions have been made. It has been found thatthe overwhelming number of cases investigated concerns recognition of the Ukrainiantrademark certificate as invalid.The court cases on protection of rights to trademarks can be divided into severalcategories according to the claim requirements:1) On the recognition of the Ukrainian trademark certificate as invalid in whole orin part (for all or part of goods and/or services);2) On termination of infringement of intellectual property rights on the trademarkand obligation to take certain actions;3) On early termination of the Ukrainian trademark certificate in whole or in part(for all or part of goods and/or services);4) Other court cases. For example, the recognition of the non-legal patent ofUkraine for industrial design due to violation of rights for the registered trademark.The article contains detailed consideration of the mentioned categories of casesand statistical data about them.The analysis of judicial practice made it possible to establish the following statisticaldata: cases of invalidation of a trademark certificate are 47 %; cases on termination of infringementof rights to the trademark are 25 %; cases on early termination of the trademarkcertificate are 25 %; other cases on protection of rights to trademarks make 3 %.In addition, the analysis of court practice allowed to establish that 75 % of courtcases concerning protection of rights to trademarks are decided to satisfy the claim infull or in part.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114465273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Keywords: results of work, subjects of property rights of intellectual property, jointproperty rights of intellectual property The article deals with an issue of allocation of rights to the results ofworks that are intellectual property subject-matter, created during research or developmentand engineering works. It is considered what can be the result of works andin what form.It analyses problematic issues of the multiplicity of subjects of intellectual propertyrights to the results of work under the contract and the relationship between themon the prosecution of the joint intellectual property rights to the results of work. It isdetermined that the subjects of contractual relations of research or development andengineering works in addition to the executor and the customer should also includethe creator (author, inventor) — a specialist working in a research institution or in acompany, whose creative work resulted in the intellectual property subject-matter.Attention is drawn to the joint rights to service subject-matters created as a consequenceof labour-related duties execution.The norms of special legislation on the relationship on the use of an invention(utility model) and an industrial design, the disposal of property rights of each of theholders (owners) of a patent (certificate) are studied.Laid out in the article gives the ground for making conclusion about the need to supplementthe regulation of relations on the prosecution of the joint intellectual propertyrights to the results of work by including general provisions on the procedure for the useof intellectual property subject-matter and disposal of property rights on conditions establishedby the contract for research or development and engineering in Article 896 ofthe Civil Code of Ukraine. The author proposes to supplement Article 896 of the CivilCode of Ukraine with Chapter 3 as follows: «3. If the results of works have features ofintellectual property subject-matter, then special details of prosecution of propertyrights of intellectual property can be provided in the contract».
{"title":"Prosecution of Property Rights of Intellectual Property to the Results of Works under the Contract for Research, Development and Engineering","authors":"Roman Denysenko","doi":"10.33731/62021.249103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/62021.249103","url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: results of work, subjects of property rights of intellectual property, jointproperty rights of intellectual property \u0000The article deals with an issue of allocation of rights to the results ofworks that are intellectual property subject-matter, created during research or developmentand engineering works. It is considered what can be the result of works andin what form.It analyses problematic issues of the multiplicity of subjects of intellectual propertyrights to the results of work under the contract and the relationship between themon the prosecution of the joint intellectual property rights to the results of work. It isdetermined that the subjects of contractual relations of research or development andengineering works in addition to the executor and the customer should also includethe creator (author, inventor) — a specialist working in a research institution or in acompany, whose creative work resulted in the intellectual property subject-matter.Attention is drawn to the joint rights to service subject-matters created as a consequenceof labour-related duties execution.The norms of special legislation on the relationship on the use of an invention(utility model) and an industrial design, the disposal of property rights of each of theholders (owners) of a patent (certificate) are studied.Laid out in the article gives the ground for making conclusion about the need to supplementthe regulation of relations on the prosecution of the joint intellectual propertyrights to the results of work by including general provisions on the procedure for the useof intellectual property subject-matter and disposal of property rights on conditions establishedby the contract for research or development and engineering in Article 896 ofthe Civil Code of Ukraine. The author proposes to supplement Article 896 of the CivilCode of Ukraine with Chapter 3 as follows: «3. If the results of works have features ofintellectual property subject-matter, then special details of prosecution of propertyrights of intellectual property can be provided in the contract».","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129765949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"title":"Certain aspects of possible codification of legislation of intellectual property law","authors":"O. Shtefan","doi":"10.33731/52021.244528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/52021.244528","url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: recodification of the Civil Code of Ukraine, codification of legislation onintellectual property law, subject and method of intellectual property law \u0000The 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. \u0000Based 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.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123700285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Keywords: computer program, economic and legal regulation, taxation, licenseagreement, initial cost, value added tax, royalties The article deals with the economic and legal aspects of using computer programs inbusiness operations. In particular, certain problems of taxation relating to the creationand use of computer programs are considered. There have been consideredways and means of representations in the accounting of the following operations: purchaseof intellectual property rights to a computer program, supply of a computer programfrom a non-resident (resident) to a resident. The principles of the formation ofthe cost of a computer program, depending on the terms of purchase, have been outlined.The has been defined the concept of royalties from the use of a computer programin the economic activity of an enterprise. The article indicates that the supply ofservices (performance of work) related to software products and that introducechanges to the software are deemed to be any updates, changes, additions to expandtheir functionality. Such an operation is referred to as the supply of software productsusing IT benefits. The supply of services that do not introduce changes, namely: installation,configuration, testing, identification and rectification of deficiencies, information,and consulting support is referred to operations that are subject to VAT atthe general rate. The article states that VAT is charged on operations for the supplyof software products from a non-resident (resident) to a resident in the customs territory(customs territory) of Ukraine, which, in turn, is not subject to VAT. At the sametime, if as a result of the provision of technical support services for software products(including software products provided for use under the license agreement) there areno changes in software products (for example, training staff to work with the program,installing the program, configuration of office equipment, etc.), then operationsfor the provision of such services are subject to VAT in the generally established mannerin the amount of 20 percent.There has been determined the need to improve economic and legal regulation ofthe creation and use of computer programs in the economic activities of companies interms of taxation.
{"title":"Economic and legal aspects of the use of computer programs","authors":"Yu. A. Borko","doi":"10.33731/52021.244522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33731/52021.244522","url":null,"abstract":"Keywords: computer program, economic and legal regulation, taxation, licenseagreement, initial cost, value added tax, royalties \u0000The article deals with the economic and legal aspects of using computer programs inbusiness operations. In particular, certain problems of taxation relating to the creationand use of computer programs are considered. There have been consideredways and means of representations in the accounting of the following operations: purchaseof intellectual property rights to a computer program, supply of a computer programfrom a non-resident (resident) to a resident. The principles of the formation ofthe cost of a computer program, depending on the terms of purchase, have been outlined.The has been defined the concept of royalties from the use of a computer programin the economic activity of an enterprise. The article indicates that the supply ofservices (performance of work) related to software products and that introducechanges to the software are deemed to be any updates, changes, additions to expandtheir functionality. Such an operation is referred to as the supply of software productsusing IT benefits. The supply of services that do not introduce changes, namely: installation,configuration, testing, identification and rectification of deficiencies, information,and consulting support is referred to operations that are subject to VAT atthe general rate. The article states that VAT is charged on operations for the supplyof software products from a non-resident (resident) to a resident in the customs territory(customs territory) of Ukraine, which, in turn, is not subject to VAT. At the sametime, if as a result of the provision of technical support services for software products(including software products provided for use under the license agreement) there areno changes in software products (for example, training staff to work with the program,installing the program, configuration of office equipment, etc.), then operationsfor the provision of such services are subject to VAT in the generally established mannerin the amount of 20 percent.There has been determined the need to improve economic and legal regulation ofthe creation and use of computer programs in the economic activities of companies interms of taxation.","PeriodicalId":356184,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Intellectual Property","volume":"132 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124632698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：