All
 
|
 
 


Significant choice-of-law interests and its impact on the formation of choice-of-law regulation in the field of intellectual property
 
PIIS102694520017272-0-1
DOI10.31857/S102694520017272-0
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Svetlana Krupko 
Occupation: associate Professor, senior researcher of the Comparative Law Sector
Affiliation: Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation,
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIsuue 10
Pages186-197
Abstract

This article analyzes the choice-of-law interests of specific and potential participants in the relations of intellectual property rights and the state in order to establish the closest connection of the above type of relation with the state, whose law should be applied. Taking into account the directionality of significant choice-of-law interests, advantages and disadvantages of territorial and universal approaches, a theoretically based solution is proposed for the formation of a general choice-of-law rule on the law to be applied to the relation of intellectual property rights. It was revealed in the study that the diversity of the relations of intellectual property rights (their obligatory and non-obligatory, property and personal non-property nature, other differences in legal features) does not automatically generate a multidirectionality of significant choice-of-law interests that should be taken into account when establishing a close connection of the above type of the relation with the state for determination of applicable law, does not prevent the formation of a general choice-of-law rule for the relations of intellectual property rights in general and does not unequivocally testify in favor of the specialization of its binding. However, the diversity of the relations of intellectual property rights should be examined and evaluated for the feasibility and limits of exceptions from the general choice-of-law rule and the development of special rules for resolving certain private of the relations of intellectual property rights.

Keywordschoice-of-law regulation of intellectual property rights, choice-of-law interests, private international law, lex loci protectionis, lex loci originis, intellectual property, proprietary aspect of exclusive rights
Received26.03.2021
Publication date17.11.2021
Number of characters46463
Cite  
1 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 374

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Krupko S.I. Modifications and interpretation of conflict factors based on the conflict principle lex loci protectionis: comparative legal analysis // Proceedings of the ISL of the RAS. 2020. No. 5. P. 74 - 96. DOI: 10.35427/2073-4522-2020-15-5-krupko (in Russ.).
2. Krupko S.I. Modifications and interpretation of conflict factors based on a universal approach in the field of intellectual property: comparative legal analysis // Proceedings of the ISL of the RAS. 2020. No. 6. P. 169 - 189. DOI: 10.35427/2073-4522-2020-15-6-krupkovo (in Russ.).
3. Krupko S.I. Proprietary aspect of exclusive rights as a norm-forming factor in the sphere of conflict-of-laws regulation of intellectual property rights relations // State and Law. 2021. No. 8. P. 110 - 119. DOI: 10.31857/S102694520016390-0 (in Russ.).
4. Ahrens H.-J., McGuire M.-R. Modellgesetz für Geistiges Eigentum. Normtext und Begründung. Sellier european law publishers GmbH, München, 2012. § 21–32. S. 74–112.
5. Austin G. Private International Law on Intellectual Property: A Common Law Overview. WIPO/PIL/01/5. P. 16. Ziff. 42. URL: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_pil_01/wipo_pil_01_5.pdf  (accessed: 05.02.2021).
6. Birkmann A. Die Anknüpfung der originären Inhaberschaft am Urheberrecht. – Baden-Baden: Nomos; Bern, 2009. S. 46.
7. Dicey A.V. Dicey and Morris on the conflict of laws. London, 2012. 2 - 15. ed. – p. 1116, 1117.
8. Drexl J. Teil 8 Internationales Immaterialgütterrecht in: Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch: BGB. Band 12: Internationales Privatrecht II, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Art. 50–253). 7. Auflage. C.H. Beck. 2018. Rn. 231. URL: https://beck-online.beck.de  (accessed: 30.01.2019).
9. Fawcett J.J. Intellectual property and Private International Law. Oxford, 2011. P. 698. Ziff. 13.20.
10. Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Developing a Private International Intellectual Property Law: The Demise of Territoriality? 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 711 (2009). P. 735, 766. URL: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol51/iss2/12. 
11. Intellectual Property: Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Judgments in Transnational Disputes // American Law Institute: Intellectual property. St. Paul, Minn., 2008.
12. Jeger G., Vasella D. in: 1: Internationales Privatrecht/Hrsg. Heinrich Honsell (Basler Kommentar). 3. Aufl. Basel, 2013. S. 926, 929.
13. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, European Max-Planck Group for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property: Conflict of laws in intellectual property. Oxford, 2013. P. 301, 305, 315.
14. Neuhaus P.H. Die Grundbegriffe des internationalen Privatrechts. Tübingen, 1976. S.º179.
15. Troller A. Das internationale Privat- und Zivilprozeßrecht im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Basel, 1952. S. 51 - 52, 55, 56, 61 - 63, 67, 68.
16. Ulmer E. Die Immaterialgüterrechte im internationalen Privatrecht. Köln, 1975. S. 497.
17. Wengler W. Internationales Privatrecht. Berlin, New York, 1981. S.º262.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up