Infringement of exclusive rights on the Internet: A comparative analysis of regulation on the applicable law
https://doi.org/10.38044/2686-9136-2022-3-2-8-24
Abstract
The issues on applicable law in cases of infringement of the exclusive rights on the Internet are usually considered through the traditional approach, while the specifics of the Internet as a decentralized and cross-border network are not taken into account. This fact urges to critically rethink and update existing approaches on the applicable law. The subject of the study is the peculiarities of the law applicable to establishing the fact of infringement and the law applicable to the choice for remedies.
The author analyzes acts of various levels (including the Berne Convention, legislation of the European Union, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, the People’s Republic of China, soft law initiatives) and concludes that soft law initiatives contain proposals for more detailed regulation, but due to their nature they are not binding on the law enforcer. It is necessary to define the conditions which the choice of the country for which a person claims protection should correspond to. Thus, the plaintiff should choose the country where the resulting harm for that person is more significant. What is also important is to provide the parties with the opportunity to choose applicable law for remedies after the dispute occurs that will increase legal certainty of legal relations.
About the Author
A. I. Tiunova
World Intellectual Property Organization
Switzerland
Switzerland
Alla I. Tiunova — LLM, Young Expert
34, Colombettes Path, Geneva, 1211
References
1. Aman, D. M. (2014). Jurisdictional, preliminary, and procedural concerns. In D. M. Amann (Ed.), Benchbook on international law (pp. A-1–A-16). American Society of International Law. www.asil.org/benchbook/jurisdicition.pdf
2. Asoskov, A. (2016). Pravo, primenimoye k dogovornomu obyazatel’stvu: Kommentariy k st. 1211 GK RF [Law applicable to a contractual obligation: Commentary on Art. 1211 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Zakon, (4), 106–120.
3. Basedow, J. (2010). Foundations of private international law in intellectual property. In J. Basedow, T. Kono & A. Metzger (Eds.), Intellectual property in the global arena jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition of judgments in Europe, Japan and the US (pp. 3–30). Mohr Siebeck. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151296-4
4. Basedow, J. (2013). Conflict of laws in intellectual property — The CLIP principles and commentary. Oxford University Press.
5. Boschiero, N. (2009). Infringement of intellectual property rights: A commentary on article 8 of the Rome II regulation. In Volume IX 2007: Volume IX (2007) (pp. 87–114). Otto Schmidt/De Gruyter European Law Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783866537200.1.87
6. Deeyfuss, R. C., Ginsburg, J. C., & Dessemontet, F. (Ed.). (2008). Principles governing jurisdiction, choice of law, and judgments in intellectual property in transnational disputes. American Law Institute. https://www.ali.org/publications/show/intellectual-property-principles-governing-jurisdiction-choice-law-and-judgments-transnational-disputes/
7. Drexl, J. (2013). Section 3:201: Initial ownership. In Conflict of laws in intellectual property — The CLIP principles and commentary (pp. 236–253). Oxford University Press.
8. Hoffmann, B. & Kropholler, J. (2001). J. von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen [J. von Staudinger‘s commentary on the Civil Code with the introductory law and ancillary laws]. Sellier-de Gruyter.
9. Krupko, S. (2018). Deliktnyye obyazatel’stva v sfere intellektual’noy sobstvennosti v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave [Tort Liabilities in the Field of Intellectual Property in Private International Law]. Statut.
10. Krupko, S. (2021). Znachimyye kollizionnyye interesy i ikh vliyaniye na formirovaniye kollizionnogo regulirovaniya otnosheniy intellektual’nykh prav [Significant choice-of-law interests and its impact on the formation of choice-of-law regulation in the field of intellectual property]. Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 10, 186–197. https://www.doi.org/10.31857/S102694520017272-0.
11. Kur, A. & Maunsbach, U. (2019). Choice of law and intellectual property rights. Oslo Law Review, 6(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-07.
12. Lucas, A. (2005). Applicable law in copyright infringement cases in the digital environment. Copyright Bulletin, (14), Article 0000262612. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000262612
13. Savelyev, A. (2020). Elektronnaya kommertsiya v Rossii i za rubezhom: Pravovoye regulirovaniye [Electronic commerce in Russia and abroad: Legal regulation]. Statut.
14. Schaafsma, S. J. (2008). Rome II: Intellectuele eigendom en oneerlijke concurrentie [Rome II: Intellectual property and unfair competition]. Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie, (6780), 998–1003.
15. Schack, H. (2008). Das auf (formlose) Immaterialgüterrechte anwendbare Recht nach Rom II [The law applicable to (informal) intellectual property rights after Rome II]. In D. Baetge, J. von Hein & M. von Hinden (Eds.), Die richtige Ordnung (pp. 641–670). Mohr Siebeck.
16. Schack, H. (2009). The law applicable to unregistered IP rights after Rome II. Ritsumeikan Law Review, (26), 129–144.
17. Strigunova, D. (2014). Dogovor mezhdunarodnogo franchayzinga [International franchising agreement]. Sovremennoye Pravo, (12), 135–141.
18. Vareilles-Sommières, P. (2019). Rationale of the exclusion of choice of law by the parties in articles 6(4) and 8(3) of Rome II Regulation. Oslo Law Review, 6(1), 62–66. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-01-08
19. Xalabarder, R. (2002). Copyright: Choice of law and jurisdiction in the digital age. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law, 8(1), Article 5. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol8/iss1/5
Review
Views:
2744
Email this article 