Balancing monopolisation and innovation in the esports industry: searching for aurea mediocritas between public and private interests in intellectual property rights

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 author emphasizes the complex nature of legal regulation of information relations with the priority of using the tools of civil law. It is also argued that STI as an object of intellectual property rights includes such a set of features as: creative nature; originality; novelty; objective form of expression. In addition, the article proves, that information (or scientific and technical information) may fall under the legal protection of both copyright law and legislation on the protection of industrial property rights, provided that they have signs of these objects of intellectual property law. The article analyzes the basic concepts of understanding the rights arising from the objects of intellectual property rights: 1) the theory of understanding the objects of intellectual property rights as objects of property rights (the so-called proprietary theory); 2) the theory of exclusive rights to objects of intellectual property rights, including scientific and technical information. Also the author proves the correctness of the transition to the concept of exclusive property rights to information as an object of intellectual property rights, in connection with a set of such arguments: 1) the right to scientific and technical information and ownership of the thing in which it is embodied, do not depend on each other; b) when the right to scientific and technical information is transferred, there is no transfer of ownership to the form in which it is materialized; c) a thing that is a form of materialization of scientific and technical information is a document, information product, information resource, etc. The author argues that the concept of exclusive intellectual property rights is characterized by such a set of features as: a) includes both property and non-property rights to the objects of intellectual property rights; b) the absolute nature of exclusive rights; c) a specific set of powers, including: the right to use and the right to dispose of this use. d) the right to dispose of an exclusive right, exists in two forms: granting the right and transfer of the right; e) the ownership of all rights to the object of intellectual property rights only to the subject of this right.

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.

The article considers the legal analysis of the contract on the transfer of exclusive property rights of intellectual property. The author analyzes the legal nature of this contract and the state of its legal regulation, doctrinal views on understanding the concept and content of the contract on the transfer of exclusive property rights of intellectual property. It is established that contractual structures for the disposal of property rights of intellectual property are different, and one of them is the contract on the transfer of exclusive property rights of intellectual property. It is proved that the legislation in the field of industrial property requires significant additions in terms of determining the features of the conclusion, content, termination of the contract on the transfer of property rights of intellectual property, since as of today the relevant special laws contain only provisions on the possibility of concluding such a contract. It is substantiated that it is possible to alienate part of the rights (a certain percentage of rights) to objects of intellectual property rights under the contract on the transfer of exclusive intellectual property rights, since the law allows the possibility of transferring rights "in part or in full", this rule is universal, applies to all objects of intellectual property rights, but can be carried out taking into account the specifics of a particular object of intellectual property rights and the features established by special legislation. It is emphasized that the relevant legislative acts in the field of industrial property should be supplemented by introducing legislative certainty regarding the possibility or impossibility of alienating part of the intellectual property rights. It is stated that the contract on the transfer of intellectual property rights can be both real and consensual, since the moment of transfer of rights may not coincide with the moment of conclusion of the agreement. It is established that the legislation on copyright and legislation in the field of industrial property does not contain cases that link the state registration of the contract with the moment of transfer of rights under it to the acquirer. It is substantiated that in order to avoid double interpretation of the content of Part 2 of Article 1114 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to make amendments or additions to it, determining the legal consequences of its non-compliance, or clarifying what registration of the fact of transfer of exclusive property rights to intellectual property means, since special legislation does not provide a clear answer to this question. Keywords: intellectual property, property rights to intellectual property, objects of copyright, industrial property, trademark.

Problem setting. The urgency of the problem is caused by the fact that active innovation processes occurring around the world, informatization of society and transformation of knowledge into a source of progress indicate that the profitability of entrepreneurial activity in a market economy to some extent depends on the ability to dispose of the results of human intellectual activity, hence the importance of intellectual property, their value is constantly increasing, which requires the implementation of a special mechanism for determining their value (appraisal). Analysis of recent researches and publications. In the scientific literature the scientists such as V.S. Drobyazko, P.M. Tsybulov, O.O. Horodov, I.M. Bieltiukova, O.M. Vinnyk, A.O. Kodynets, O.R. Kibenko, O.O. Tverezenko, V.S. Shcherbyna, I.YE. Yakubivskyy have made a significant contribution to the development of the issues on valuation of property rights of intellectual property. Target of research. To analyze the mechanism for assessing the value of such group of intangible assets as property rights of intellectual property and identify the features of this mechanism. Article’s main body. Appraisal activity is a complex institution. Appraisal of intellectual property requires the integration of the economic concept of value and the legal concept of property. But the intangible character (ideal nature) of intellectual property objects distinguishes them from other civil rights objects and becomes a certain obstacle when it comes to determining their value. When it comes to appraisal of objects of the intellectual property rights, such actions are subjected not to intangible (ideal) objects, but to exclusive property rights to them. However, the Law “On Appraisal of Property, Property Rights and Professional Appraisal Activity” considered of objects of the intellectual property rights as intangible assets that, in turn, along with things, securities, units form a broader category “property”. If the legislator had given the object of valuation the exclusive property rights and classified them as “property rights that could be valued”, it would be more in keeping with their nature. The Law “On Appraisal of Property, Property Rights and Professional Appraisal Activity” distinguishes between the market value of property and non-market types of property values (ie other types of value that are different from market value). As a general rule, the market value of objects is determined. Thus the value of property rights of intellectual property is determined by the approximate price of market demand for them. Appraisal activity is carried out in cases established by the legislation of Ukraine, international agreements, on the basis of the agreement, as well as at the request of one of the parties to the contract with the consent of the parties. The legislation defines cases when appraisal shall be mandatory. Conclusions and prospects for the development. The commercialization of intellectual property objects requires the implementation of a special mechanism for determining their value (appraisal), and the improvement of current legislation in appraisal activity field. Property rights of intellectual property belong to those, which have a monetary valuation, and must be carried out under the legislation. Valuation of property rights of intellectual property may take place, in particular, in the following cases: 1) defining the valuation of the exclusive rights transferred under the contract in intellectual property field, in particular the license contract, and defining the license fee base; 2) contribution the property rights of intellectual property to the authorized (composite) capital of certain types of companies; 3) using property rights of intellectual property in joint activities without the creation of a legal entity (including in the form of a common partnership); 4) the pledge of the property rights of intellectual property.

From a legal perspective, analyze the connotation and logical relationship of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, point out the Legal dilemma in protecting Emei martial arts intellectual property rights, and then propose solu-tions to the problems. The study believes that the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts refer to the intellectual property rights based on the intellec-tual achievements and commercial logos of Emei martial arts. The legal dilemma in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts mainly manifests as follows: the identity of the rights subject of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts and the intangible cultural heritage of Emei martial arts is the root cause of the conflict between public and private interests; to some extent, the sports nature of the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts has influenced the legal recognition of this part of Emei martial arts intel-lectual property rights in the academic community; the inadequacy of the legal system is the fundamental reason why the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts are difficult to obtain comprehensive protection. Based on this, the study proposes that technological innovation is a logical prerequisite for the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. It can be achieved by extracting the classic techniques of Emei martial arts, constructing repre-sentative martial arts routines, and creating Emei martial arts competition pro-jects; The improvement of the legal system is the legal foundation for the pro-tection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. In this process, it is necessary to particularly strengthen the important position and role of the Sports Law in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, and improve the basic position and auxiliary function of relevant intellectual property laws in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts; The enrichment of theory is a powerful argument for the protection of in-tellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. Strengthening theory must be combined with the characteristics of sports, in order to build a solid legal foun-dation for the protection of the object of rights. In addition, the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts should focus on benefits, which requires balancing public and private interests and promoting the realization of public welfare through private rights protection

The authors determine that the growing role and importance of intellectual property require an increase in the efficiency of its legal enforcement. The enforcement of the rights and legitimate interests of intellectual property rights holders is carried out through an enforcement mechanism that includes a system of forms, methods, and means used by the relevant jurisdictional authorities and stakeholders to ensure proper enforcement of the rights and interests of intellectual property rights holders. It is noted that international legal regulation plays a vital role in the enforcement of intellectual property rights, given its national character. The article analyses the compliance of the national legislation of Ukraine in the field of intellectual property rights enforcement with the provisions of the Acquis Communautaire and the legislation of the European Community. This is because intellectual property rights are national. Although there are international agreements governing this area, they cannot always resolve all differences. The creation of the EU as a new legal space required a revision of approaches to intellectual property regulation and the development of supranational legal instruments to ensure the effective functioning of the common market. The article is devoted to defining the legal nature of one-time financial assistance and compensation as forms of compensation for property damage for infringement of intellectual property rights. The article emphasises the key role of ensuring fair and effective enforcement of intellectual property rights to stimulate innovation, technology development, and economic growth. The importance of knowledge and a conscious attitude to the enforcement of these rights lies in their impact on the progressive development of society. The enforcement of intellectual property rights facilitates the exchange of technology and knowledge between countries and organisations, which in turn supports scientific and technological progress on a global scale. The main form of compensation for material damage caused to the victim is compensation for damages, which includes actual damages and lost profits. When claiming damages, the right holder must prove the existence and amount of damages, as well as their causal relationship to the infringer’s actions. Usually, when exclusive rights are infringed, damages are expressed in the form of lost profits – the amount that the right holder could have received if the infringer had entered into an agreement with him/her and used the intellectual property for a fee. Lost profits should be considered at least as much as illegally obtained profit. The application of a one- time monetary penalty instead of compensation for damages for the misuse of an intellectual property right implies that the amount of this penalty is determined by the law, taking into account the person’s fault and other essential circumstances. It is the responsibility of the victim to prove the amount of damages suffered, which also requires proving that the exclusive right has been infringed. This method of restoring the infringed right is complex for the subject of the exclusive right, as it requires submission to the court of evidence of the losses, documents confirming their amount, and proof that the actions of a particular infringer caused the losses. The amount of compensation depends on the intent of the infringer. If the infringement was intentional, the amount of compensation may be tripled, and in the absence of intent, doubled. This means that liability for violation of rights arises even without intent.

Learning outcomes The objectives of the case study are to provide an overview of intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights in Indian context; understand the intellectual property rights implementation and challenges for implementing it in emerging economies; understand what would be the best approach that companies can adopt when the companies face backlash in such circumstances; and explore the scope for redefining the intellectual property rights in the changing global environment. Case overview/synopsis In December 2021, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FRA) in India revoked the plant variety protection (PVP) certificate granted to PepsiCo India Holding (PHI) for its Lays variety potato (FL-2027, known as FC-5). The FC-5 variety possessed low moisture content which made it suitable for making potato chips. The controversy started with Pepsi suing the small and marginal farmers of Gujarat for alleged patent infringement and cultivating the patented variety. Pepsi’s legal suit against nine marginal potato farmers in Gujarat initiated the dispute over how intellectual property (IP) rights are used to intimidate small, marginal farmers and its infringement of farmers’ rights. But, on the other side, the interesting aspect was how IP infringement could be a setback for the companies that made the capital investment to develop the variety. The case study discusses the backlash Pepsi faced due to this IP rights legal suit and the punitive aspects of IP rights (IPR) law. Moreover, in the context of the global pandemic, the case study helped discuss the need to redefine the intellectual property rights regime keeping in mind global welfare. Complexity academic level The case is intended for use in postgraduate-level management courses in agricultural marketing, agribusiness, international business and economics. This study can help management students understand how IPR is defined, the apparent complexities associated with it and the adverse effect of it on small and marginal farmers in emerging economies. Supplementary materials Teaching notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 5: International business.

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.

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.

The article is devoted to new provisions of the Russian civil legislation in the intellectual rights protection sphere. The legal analysis of the specified short stories gains relevance and the importance in connection with entering of essential changes into the fourth part of the civil code of the Russian Federation regulating the legal protection of intellectual property. The research objective was definition effective civil – legal rights mechanism protection for objects of the intellectual property taking into account changes in the legislation. The specified purpose defined need of the solution of the following tasks: to investigate relation, and also protection and responsibility measures specifics in the considered sphere; to reveal features of application of new legislative designs in the field of protection of the intellectual rights; to consider features of collecting monetary compensation for violation of an exclusive right. The specified tasks were solved with the use of general scientific and private scientific methods. In the research are formulated the offers and recommendations promoting uniform application of norms of civil law in the case of violation of the intellectual rights. In particular, the conclusions of the distribution of the provisions of the civil legislation of the Russian Federation about the increased responsibility of entrepreneurs in the field of non-contractual breach of intellectual property rights. In general is supported the aspiration of the Russian legislator to the improvement of legal categories in the intellectual rights protection field. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3s6p257

Keywords: results of creative activity, intellectual property law, creative freedom,subjective and objective aspects of intellectual property law, subjective and objectiveaspects of creative freedom At the present stage of intellectual property science developmentresearchers continue discussions on the nature of intellectual property law and itscomponents. In the intellectual property law history, the legal doctrine and legislationadmit a certain connection between creators and their results of intellectualcreative activity as well as the relations that arise as a result of their creation. Consideringthe basic approaches to intellectual property rights we cannot ignore its obviouscomponent attribute of ideal nature, so the system of intellectual propertyrights protection includes not only property or exclusive intellectual property rights, but also personal non-property rights. Intellectual property law in the objectiveacceptation is a system of rights. In the subjective acceptation it always combinestwo components: non-material and material. Legislative rights to the object ofintellectual property rights are a legal confirmation of the existing and inviolableconnection between the creator and their object of intellectual property rights. Intellectualproperty law combines personal, intangible and property interests of thecreator. It is aimed to combine all these interests with the interests of other people.The law determines the procedure for using and receiving remuneration as a resultof intellectual property rights realization by the creator or their legal successors.The subject of intellectual property rights is a person who owns personal non-propertyand (or) exclusive property rights of intellectual property. The subjective aspectof intellectual property rights reflects the interests that the creator seeks tosatisfy by creating an object of intellectual property rights. There are three main interestsof the creator which they can satisfy by exercising intellectual propertyrights: recognition interest, financial reward interest and interest in their intellectualproperty rights protection. The object of intellectual property rights is a resultof intellectual and creative work of the subject who always owns personal intangibleintellectual property rights on the basis of natural law and legislation and this isproceeding from the very beginning of the process and as a result of creation of intellectualproperty rights object. It is worth mentioning that according to the lawthe personal intangible intellectual property rights remain in force without limit oftime and cannot be alienated (transferred) except it is expressed by law.

Intellectual Property: The Promise and Risk of Human Rights

The Colour of Copyright

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts "intellectual property" and "right of intellectual property", as well as to the possibility to use them as equivalent concepts. The author considers the features of a broad understanding of the intellectual property concept, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. According to this approach intellectual relations are only one type of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which only occasionally acts as the subject of legal regulation. Taking into account the above facts, the difference between the meaning 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 determined on 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 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 socio-philosophical sense that satisfies the social, economic, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense, an object by its nature is a blessing for a person; 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 statuses and 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 concepts of “intellectual property” and “intellectual property right” have the same sense in the legislation and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights to such objects.