Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
The article provides a comparative analysis of how the Romano-Germanic, Anglo-American and CIS legal systems regulate intellectual property relations complicated by a foreign element. It examines the principle of territoriality, the lex loci protectionis rule, the law applicable to initial ownership and infringement, and the role of international treaties and soft-law instruments (the ALI and CLIP Principles). Proposals for improving the legislation of Uzbekistan are put forward.
References
I. Normativ-huquqiy hujjatlar va xalqaro shartnomalar
1. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Marrakesh, 1994.
2. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 9 September 1886 (Paris Act of 1971).
3. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958).
4. Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (HCCH).
5. Federal Act on Private International Law of 18 December 1987 (Switzerland).
6. Legge 31 maggio 1995, n. 218 – Riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato.
7. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Fuqarolik kodeksi.
8. O‘zbekiston Respublikasining 2006-yil 20-iyuldagi O‘RQ-42-son «Mualliflik huquqi va turdosh huquqlar to‘g‘risida»gi Qonuni.
9. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
10. Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).
11. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 (Brussels I Recast).
12. 35 U.S.C. § 294 – Voluntary arbitration.
13. Гражданский кодекс Российской Федерации. Часть четвертая от 18 декабря 2006 г. № 230-ФЗ.
14. Евразийская патентная конвенция (Москва, 9 сентября 1994 г.).
15. Соглашение о сотрудничестве в области охраны авторского права и смежных прав (Москва, 24 сентября 1993 г.).
II. Ilmiy adabiyotlar
16. American Law Institute. Intellectual Property: Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Judgments in Transnational Disputes. – St. Paul: ALI Publishers, 2008.
17. Bently L., Sherman B. Intellectual Property Law. 4th ed. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
18. Dinwoodie G.B. Developing a Private International Intellectual Property Law: The Demise of Territoriality? // William & Mary Law Review. – 2009. – Vol. 51.
19. Drexl J., Kur A. (eds). Intellectual Property and Private International Law: Heading for the Future. – Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2005.
20. European Max-Planck Group on Conflict of Law in Intellectual Property. Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property: The CLIP Principles and Commentary. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
21. Fawcett J., Torremans P. Intellectual Property and Private International Law. 2nd ed. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
22. Ginsburg J.C. Private International Law Aspects of the Protection of Works and Objects of Related Rights Transmitted through Digital Networks. – WIPO Doc. GCPIC/2, 1998.
23. Kono T. (ed.). Intellectual Property and Private International Law: Comparative Perspectives. – Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012.
24. Metzger A. Applicable Law under the CLIP Principles: A Pragmatic Revision of the Lex Protectionis Rule // Basedow J., Kono T., Metzger A. (eds). Intellectual Property in the Global Arena. – Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
25. Ricketson S., Ginsburg J.C. International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond. 2nd ed. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
26. Savigny F.C. von. System des heutigen römischen Rechts. Bd. 8. – Berlin: Veit, 1849.
27. Ulmer E. Intellectual Property Rights and the Conflict of Laws. – Deventer: Kluwer, 1978.
28. Богуславский М.М. Международное частное право: учебник. – М.: Юристъ, 2005.
29. Лунц Л.А. Курс международного частного права. Особенная часть. – М.: Юридическая литература, 1975.
III. Sud amaliyoti
30. Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 (HL).
31. British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602 (HL).
32. Case C-170/12, Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG, 3 October 2013 (CJEU).
33. Case C-324/09, L’Oréal SA and Others v eBay International AG and Others, 12 July 2011 (CJEU).
34. Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998).
35. Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39.
36. Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1.
37. Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc).