Journal of World Intellectual Property最新文献

A domain name is a nonphysical asset like a trademark, trade name, business name, or unique sign. Registering a domain name, composed of words, letters, or numbers, grants the registrant a contractual right to its exclusive use. However, simply registering a domain name does not provide ownership rights. To acquire ownership of a domain name, the registrant must demonstrate justified use or legitimate interest in the domain name. Even without an initial justifiable or legitimate interest, utilizing the domain name to achieve distinctive authority can lead to ownership rights. A domain name comprises both absolute and contractual rights. Thus, domain names, comprising both absolute and contractual rights, can be considered a form of property right. The legal nature of domain name rights has been addressed in rulings by both the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The rapid growth of e-commerce marketplaces has posed significant challenges to the enforcement of trademark rights. With the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, new opportunities and strategies have emerged for effective trademark enforcement on these platforms. This article examines the transformative role of AI technologies in the protection of trademark rights on e-commerce platforms. It discusses how AI can enhance monitoring, detection, and enforcement of trademark infringements by leveraging advanced methodologies such as machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision. It discusses how AI can enhance monitoring, detection, and enforcement of trademark infringements by leveraging advanced methodologies such as machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision. The article identifies the various capabilities of AI technologies in effectively combating counterfeiting, highlights the substantial benefits these tools provide to brand owners, and addresses the ethical and legal considerations accompanying their implementation. Furthermore, it provides insights into limitations faced by stakeholders when integrating AI into trademark enforcement strategies. Ultimately, this article aims to furnish comprehensive recommendations for improving the efficiency of AI-driven enforcement mechanisms, ensuring a reliable and trustworthy environment for consumers and brand owners alike.

Concerns about the fairness and equity of ‘biodiscovery’ research endure despite the creation of legal frameworks designed to regulate access and benefit sharing involving genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. While some industries that engage in biodiscovery have been the subject of sustained scrutiny, others have received scant scholarly attention. We evaluate the potential misappropriation of plant biodiversity and traditional knowledge in the cosmetics industry. To do so, we conducted a patent landscape analysis focusing on intellectual property claims that cosmetics firms have made concerning 12 plant species for which there exists extensive traditional knowledge of uses to improve the condition of skin and hair, or for other aesthetic purposes. The results demonstrate that cosmetics companies regularly claim intellectual property for uses of all 12 species, in multiple territories. There is little evidence to suggest that major firms seek prior informed consent for the use of genetic resources or traditional knowledge, or that they share benefits with local providers. The potential that the misappropriation of Indigenous knowledge is occurring in the cosmetics industry has important social and environmental justice implications, and this sector should be subjected to increased scrutiny.

This paper critically analyzes the crime of counterfeiting or imitating trademarks under Article 37/1/a of the Jordanian Trademarks Law No. 33 of 1952 and its amendments. Recognizing a significant gap in the alignment of Jordanian trademark laws with international standards, the study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of current legislation in protecting trademark owners' rights and consumer interests. The importance of this research lies in the escalating instances of trademark infringement, which undermine consumer trust, hinder economic growth, and affect Jordan's compliance with international treaties. Employing descriptive, analytical, and comparative methodologies, the paper examines the material, moral, and subjective elements of the crime, explores jurisprudential and judicial debates on criminal intent, and compares Jordanian legal provisions with those of other jurisdictions. The study shows that, while Jordanian law prohibits the counterfeit of marks, it does not specifically protect well-known marks, and it is inconsistent in the presumption of intention to commit a crime. Moreover, the sentence for attempted trademark infringement does not align with the general principles of Jordanian criminal law. The study recommends that the Jordanian system should consider legislative improvements to ensure stronger protection for trademarks in Jordan. It will also advise to amend Article 37 to set provision for well-known trademarks and more delimitative provisions on criminal intent to conform to the dowry of presumption of innocence, enhance deterrent in penalties, and to be in line with penalty slow down to the international law practice. This paper seeks to address these gaps, contribute to the debate about the purpose of intellectual property rights, and provide suggestions for policymakers who are looking towards enhancing legislative protection from trademark infringement to promote increased economic stability and consumer safety.

With increasing interest in intellectual property relating to plants, it is timely to assess the use of Plant Breeder's Rights (PBRs) in Australia for native plants, with tens of thousands of native plants nearly all of which are endemic and many with known uses. A database of all applications received, accepted, granted and grants expired or withdrawn, refused and rejected for PBRs under the Australian Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth) from 10 November 1994 to 14 December 2022 was assessed including plants native to Australia. The analysis revealed: There are over 9500 applications and over 5180 granted, of which ~10 percent are for native plants; many PBR owners are Australian residents (~50%), but even more so for native plant PBRs (96%); few PBRs last the full term (average duration 6.6 years); and overwhelmingly PBRs of native plants are ornamentals (~92%). There is potential for breeding more native ornamentals, but particularly food crops and medicinal plants. This includes expanding commercial development by Australia's First Nations communities including enterprises based on their ‘Indigenous Knowledge’. Further research can help identify why PBRs are not used for breeding more varieties including native food and medicinal plants with potential taxa and uses assessed.

The paper shows that protecting traditional cultural expressions through the scope of copyright law is an erroneous approach and that recognition of folklore should be a separate issue outside of the copyright scope. It examines the key incompatibilities between the individualistic nature of copyright and the collective, culturally embedded nature of TCEs. This research aims to contribute to the debate on how to develop an approach that, firstly, respects and effectively protects the unique nature of TCEs, and secondly, has a greater chance of gaining international acceptance. By drawing on the familiar concepts of attribution and integrity, we can create a new legal framework that addresses the needs of various groups of stakeholders and ensures that TCEs are properly protected both now and in the future. While the concepts of attribution and integrity, as developed in copyright law, cannot be applied directly to TCEs due to their individualistic nature, the paper argues that these concepts offer valuable insights for lawmaking purposes. By drawing from the extensive research in copyright studies, this paper suggests that these insights can guide the development of a sui generis protection system tailored to TCEs.

The Hindu Kush Himalayas (HKH) are of global significance, characterised by immense ecological, cultural, and biological importance spanning over eight South Asian countries. The region is home to a vast repository of genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge (TK) that transcend geopolitical boundaries, rendering them prone to uncompensated bioprospecting. The transboundary nature of these resources presents challenges for ensuring fair and equitable sharing of benefits and preventing biopiracy. To safeguard biodiversity and protect the interests of local communities, effective access and benefit sharing (ABS) measures need to be put in place. Therefore collaborative efforts of the countries in the region are crucial. This paper tries to elucidate the complexities inherent to the region and analyse the existing international and national legal framework to address ABS and collaboration between the countries when it comes to transboundary GR and associated TK. An attempt is also made to identify a possible solution within the current legal regime under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) framework.

The article examines the normative content and justification of intellectual property rights (IPR), focusing on the question of whether the incentive theory provides a sufficient and appropriate basis for the regulation of intangible goods within the framework of the concept of inherently limited rights. The research method is based on theoretical analysis conducted within the framework of Civil Law Policy. The first part of the article compares two approaches to limiting rights, including exceptions and limitations related to intellectual property. The first approach assumes that rights are restricted only in cases of conflict with other rights. In contrast, the second approach, Marmora's concept of inherently limited rights, posits that rights are subject to both external and internal limitations through prior analysis of costs and benefits (ex ante). Adopting the second approach leads to the conclusion that intellectual property rights should be treated as inherently limited by a system of exceptions and limitations. This perspective supports the principle of the public domain, which holds that exclusive rights are exceptions to the general rule of the widespread availability of intangible goods and must be designed and applied in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The second part of the article critically evaluates the incentive theory as a tool for justification and conducting ex-ante analysis. This theory is inadequate as a foundation for regulating intangible goods. Firstly, it erroneously assumes that exclusive rights are a causally necessary condition for the creation of works and technological progress. Furthermore, it overlooks the importance of non-market transactions and the role of the state in the creation of intangible goods, relying instead on the premise that the market is the primary or sole mechanism for social organization. The incentive theory also disregards alternative means of appropriating benefits from intangible goods within market transactions and fails to consider the micro- and macroeconomic inefficiencies resulting from granting exclusive rights. From this perspective, the article serves as a critique of the current system of regulating intangible goods through exclusive rights justified by the incentive theory. At the same time, it advocates for the development of a more comprehensive and balanced regulatory model that considers both the interests of creators and societal needs. Particularly promising are regulatory models based on non-exclusive rights, which, while ensuring remuneration for creators, simultaneously provide broad access to intangible goods for society.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act) in India was touted as a unique law when it was enacted as it included farmers' rights provisions as well. The legislation contains some tall promises, which, if implemented in their truest sense, would assist the farmers in getting recognition and rewards for the conservation efforts that they have put in. This paper examines the implementation of the Act from the viewpoint of the delegated/subordinate/secondary legislation, which constitute the practical framework for implementing the primary legislation in practice. Although the PPVFR Act includes a separate chapter on farmers' rights, it is not certain whether the legislation's stated objective of protecting the rights of farmers has been realised or not. The uncertainty is mainly because of the inconsistencies between the PPVFR Act and the delegated/subordinate legislation, which will be the focus area of this paper. The present paper contends that the ineffective implementation of the PPVFR Act can be attributed to the arbitrary actions undertaken by the central government and PPVFR Authority in contravention of the statute via public notices, rules, and regulations. This, in turn, has contributed to the deplorable plight of the farmers in multiple ways.