An Analysis of Ontologies for the Intellectual Property Domain

The investment activity is diverse and can be carried out with the use of intellectual property rights in accordance with the current international and Russian investment law. The article aims to identify the specifics of the application of intellectual property rights as investments and the implementation of intellectual investments, i.e. investments endowed into intellectual property rights. The objectives of the study are to consider the categories of an investment and object of investment activity, intellectual property, exclusive and other intellectual rights, as well as to analyze and determine the features of legal regulation of the activity in question at the international and national levels in the Russian Federation. Based on the results of the systematic analysis with the use of formal legal, comparative and other research methods, it is concluded that investments as a property in a broad sense may include both exclusive and other non-personal intellectual property rights to the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization of goods, works, services and enterprises. At the same time, they exclude intellectual property itself as a set of various types of intangible products, moral and other personal non-proprietary intellectual rights by virtue of their inalienable and non-transferable character. It is argued to be the same with respect to the object of investment activity, i.e. the property which the investment is endowed in and is capable to bring income to the investor in the future. Investments into such intellectual property rights can be called as intellectual investments.The legal regulation of investment activity with the use of intellectual property rights has a dual character (in the sense that it is carried out by different investment legislative acts with the similar subject of their regulation) and depends on the type of a particular object used. If intellectual property rights are invested in fixed capital, then they are to be recognized as capital investments and are governed by the Federal Law of February 25,1999 No. 39-FZ “On Investment Activity in the Russian Federation Carried out in the Form of Capital Investments”. If intellectual property rights are used as the object of investment activity, i.e. where investments are endowed in, such intellectual investments are subject to the regulation by the Law of the RSFSR of June 26, 1991 No. 1488-1 “On Investment Activity in the RSFSR”.

The Colour of Copyright

This paper provides a theoretical overview of and practical guidance on the use of intellectual property (IP) rights as security in Estonia. It begins with an overview of the different IP rights in Estonia and the categories of security rights that can be granted over them. Like in other European countries, there are both non-registered and registered IP rights in Estonia. The different types of IP rights can be categorized as either copyright and related rights or as industrial property rights. In addition to national IP rights, EU-wide IP rights such as EU trademarks and Community also have effect in Estonia. The main ways to create a security right over an IP right are by establishing a pledge over IP rights or by transferring the IP rights as security. An IP right may be encumbered with a pledge through the establishment of a registered security over movables (for registered IP rights) or a pledge of rights (for non-registered IP rights). In addition, non-registered IP rights can also form part of a general commercial pledge, which is established over the entire movable property of an enterprise.

The world community recognizes that intellectual property and intellectual rights are one of the foundations of the modern business world. The issues of choosing ways to protect intellectual property rights are the subject of constant discussions. The authors analyze the problem in two aspects: from the point of view of state and international policy and from the point of view of the possibility of protecting their intellectual rights by participants in civil turnover. The purpose of the study is to study the mechanism of intellectual property rights protection, as well as to study the problems of compensation for moral damage and self-defense in the field of intellectual property. When preparing the article, general scientific logical methods were used, as well as a private formal legal method. The authors note that the conflict between the interests of the copyright holder of exclusive rights, on the one hand, and the general rights of participation and access, on the other, is a characteristic feature of modern society and culture, therefore intellectual property and intellectual rights are of interest not only as a legal institution, but also as a cultural model and socio-economic mechanism. With the development of digital technologies, the very principle of exclusivity of intellectual rights is increasingly being questioned both in theory and in practice, which naturally leads to a revision of existing ideas about the protection of these rights.

Introduction. Current legislation uses, but does not define, the concept of a "theatrical and spectacular performance." Modern theoretical scholarship has developed a number of approaches to identifying its content and determining its place within the system of intellectual property rights. Determining where this phenomenon fits in the intellectual property system is of great practical importance, since recognizing it as an independent object would mean establishing a legal regulatory framework for it and acknowledging its intellectual rights, including the "exclusive right" to it as a whole. The article is devoted to analyzing law enforcement practices, various scholarly approaches to defining the place of the "theatrical and spectacular performance" as a phenomenon and object in the intellectual property rights system, and possible mechanisms of its protection. Materials and methods. The study was based on the norms of the legislation of the Russian Federation regulating relations in copyright and related rights, judicial practice materials, and doctrinal research. During the study, general scientific and special legalmethods were used: analysis, generalization, systemstructural, formal-legal, logical, and others. Research results. The study showed that, under the existing legal framework, it is not possible to define a theatrical and spectacular performance as an independent object of intellectual property to which intellectual property rights could be attached. The definition of a complex object, as provided in Article 1240 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, implies a special regime of joint existence and use of several interconnected results of intellectual activity. Discussion and conclusion. A theatrical and spectacular performance gives heterogeneous results a unity of perception but does not form an independent object of intellectual rights. The form of this phenomenon does not meet the requirements of objectivity, as it is too susceptible to changes from external factors. Protection of the rights of the organizer of a theatrical and spectacular performance can only be achieved by demanding the cessation of violations regarding the included results, including the director's staging of a performance.

Intellectual property (IP) rights governance and related value mechanisms in Common European Data Spaces.

Human rights' limitations in patent law

The rendezvous between intellectual property rights and human rights has awakened slumbering legal spirits. Miscellaneous legal phenomena are now nestled in the intersection between intellectual property rights and human rights. However, the interplay between human rights and intellectual property rights is bizarrely characterized by amity and hostility. Naturally, therefore, situating indigenous intellectual property at the intersection of intellectual property and human rights becomes a daunting task. However, the dilemma is often overstated especially from the point of view of conventional intellectual property rights. At the outset of this Article, I shall be exploring the history and the development of the relationship between human rights and intellectual property rights. In the followng section, I shall be examining the extent to which intellectual property rights are entrenched in the international human rights instruments. The last section shall be devoted to exploring the phenomenon of locating indigenous peoples' rights at the interface between intellectual property rights and human rights and reflecting on the ensuing issues—an aspect which has seldom been considered in the existing literature.

Evolution of internet and technology has led to an increase in electronic commerce (e‐commerce). Consequently, disputes regarding commercial use of the internet are emerging in many developed and developing countries. Many of these disputes concern the infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights. However, IP rights are, perhaps, spurned by many developing countries when it comes to e‐commerce—making it a timely study for many developing countries such as Bangladesh; whose e‐commerce industry is experiencing extraordinary growth in the past few years. Although Bangladesh embarked into e‐commerce years ago, however, judiciary of the country has not yet experienced disputes addressing IP rights in the e‐commerce industry. Mostly, because the significant connection of IP rights with e‐commerce are yet to comprehend. Against this backdrop, focusing on the propinquity between e‐commerce and IP rights, this paper examines the adeptness of the contemporary IP rights enactments of Bangladesh in protecting IP rights in e‐commerce industry of Bangladesh. Arguing that IP rights are the most essential and value‐bearing component of e‐commerce industry, the paper presents how IP rights are violated by various entities of the industry every now and then. The paper delineates the disputes of such nature which already exist but remained unaddressed because of the inadequate understanding of IP rights and loopholes in the Bangladesh IP enactments. The paper concludes by giving a persuasive guideline to protect the legitimate rights and interests of various entities of the e‐commerce industry in Bangladesh.

Intellectual Property Pools and the Disappearing Essentiality Requirement

Does Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Matter? Evidence from Financing and Investment Choices in the High Tech Industry

Debate regarding the contribution of Intellectual Property (IP) rights to lessening climate change is intensifying. On one side, IP optimists emphasize their function in encouraging investment in Research, Development and Commercialization. However, alternative view, principally associated with developing countries, sees the monopoly rights embodied in IP as a barrier to technology adoption and international transfer and this has led to a dilemma in IP rights ethically responding to global climate change.The role of intellectual property rights with regards to climate change has remained a divisive issue. Not only has no agreement been reached in this area, but even the path to a constructive and meaningful discussion seems elusive. Unless the role of intellectual property is addressed in a constructive and balanced manner, the potential for achieving sustainable and realistic outcomes from the climate talks could be compromised.This article explored the complex relationship between IP rights and climate change through technology-based reductions in emissions and with reference to sustainable development laws. It also considers the role IP rights can play in delivering technological change to abate the issues of climate change crisis by arguing that climate change is legally disruptive, with existing legal doctrines and frameworks forced to confront, respond, and perhaps even evolve to respond to climate change, beyond the application and incremental development of existing rules and doctrines written in the context of linkages between private international law and public international law.It concludes by outlining some plausible strategies that are necessary in resolving the dilemma associate with IP rights ethically responding to global climate change.

Intellectual Property and Agriculture: The Case on Soybeans and Monsanto

Introduction One of the most important factors that encourages consumers to purchase goods or use services, and make them choose one of them among various goods and services, is the design of products and services or their packaging. Due to this importance, intellectual property rights protect the design of goods and services or their packaging. However, this protection is not limited to one branch of intellectual property rights and it is possible that various aspects of intellectual property rights protect the design and packaging under some conditions. In this regard, the question that arises here is what are the differences between the protection in various forms of intellectual property rights and that which protection is more appropriate? And finally, is multiple protection possible? Theoretical Framework The present article attempts to examine the aforementioned issue in two parts. In the first part, protection of design or packaging through various aspects of intellectual property rights will be studied and compared with each other. Then, in the second part, the protection of designs and packaging through multiple legal frameworks is evaluated and scrutinized. Methodology This study attempts to find an answer to questions above by using an analytical-descriptive approach. To this aim, this study seeks to draw a comparison between the various branches of intellectual property rights by using desk research through making use of articles, books, and conducted studies. In some cases, this study benefits from practical examples and judicial decisions in different countries. In addition, in order to investigate more about Iranian legal system, a field research was conducted and then discussed with relevant experts. Results and Discussion The results show that various branches of intellectual property rights for protection of design of goods and services or their packaging differ from each other in many ways, including conditions, term, and registration requisiteness. The following table can show the comparison between the different branches in summary. Drawbacks Benefits Term Type - Must be distinctive. - Must be nonfunctional. - Must be registered (in most legal systems). - No need to originality. - No need to novelty. - The longest period of protection. As long as use is continued (subject to extension) Trade mark Trade dress)) - Must be novel. - Must be original (in some legal systems). - Must be nonfunctional. - Must be registered. - The shortest period of protection. - No need to distinction. - Protection through this branch can help to acquire distinction and cause trade dress protection in future. 10 – 25 years Industrial designs - Must be original. - Possibility of creating similar works by others. - No need to distinction. - No need to novelty. - No need to registration (in most legal systems). Life of author + 50 years after his death Copyright - Not grant of exclusive rights to the owner. - Proof of civil liability's elements in a lawsuit. - No need to the conditions of intellectual property rights (distinction, novelty, originality) - No need to registration. - Protection of consumers and public along with the right holder. Unlimited Unfair competition Conclusion The results of this study show that a decisive response about the most appropriate branch of intellectual property rights in relation to protection of design of goods and services or their packaging cannot be given, because each aspects of intellectual property rights has several advantages and disadvantages and ultimately, the designer can determine which branch is more suitable to protect his design or packaging. On the other hand, it should be noted that different legal systems accept multiple protection of a design or packaging, as each legal framework is independent of other formats regarding purpose, function, and conditions.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts «intellectual property» and «right of intellectual property» and to the issue of the possibility of using them as equivalent concepts. The author considersthe features of a broad understanding of the concept of intellectual property, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. With this approach intellectual relations are only one of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which is subject to legal regulation only in part.Taking into account the above, the difference between the meanings of the concepts «intellectual property» (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and «intellectual property right» is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determinedon the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside of the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept «object of intellectual property rights» is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights.The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in sociophilosophical sense that satisfies the social, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense the object by its nature is a good for man; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statusesand roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept «intellectual property» as identical with the concept «intellectual property right» is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concept of «intellectual property» and «intellectual property right» are used in the legislation in the same sense and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights about such objects.