Protection of intellectual property rights against unfair trade practices in the European Union

It is generally viewed that Intellectual property protection and competition law are odds with each other. Is there really any tussle between intellectual property protection and competition law? Intellectual property law creates and protects monopoly power and the other seeks to exclude it. IP exclusion provisions are included in the Indian Competition Act, 2002 in Section 3(5). This is to provide enforcement to intellectual property rights. But protection of intellectual property rights are not per se violates any competition provisions. The objective of competition law is to prohibit anti-competitive practices and the objective of both the stream is wealth maximization in any economy. Intellectual property protection is necessary to foster innovation and choices of products in the market. It infuses efficiency in the market and increases consumer welfare. India is in the nascent state of its administration of competition laws. There are sizable number of cases came before the Indian competition authorities (CCI) and Indian courts. Cases against Microsoft India and abuse of dominant case against Ericsson filed by an Indian company named Micromax is only the beginning of the interface cases on intellectual property and competition law. There is no sufficient case laws and jurisprudence is available in India in guiding the Indian authorities and courts on the interface between intellectual property and competition. It is necessary to make an analysis of the jurisprudence in the US and EU. First part of this paper deals with the US Antitrust Act, 1890 and analysis of a number of cases dealt by the US courts. The EU Regulations and cases are clearer on issues of intellectual property and competition law. Indian jurisprudence is not clear so far and few cases are dealt by the CCI and Indian courts. The study concludes that Indian authorities should learn from other jurisdictions and the jurisprudence will act as guideline for Indian authorities.

The encouragement of creative, scientific, inventive activity and business competition largely depends on the solid protection of intellectual property and related rights on the internet. The problem of such protection lies in the transnational nature of the internet, the absence of a unified centralized management, the difficulty of proving infringements, as well as in the insufficient regulation of this issue. This article analyses the protection of intellectual property rights on the internet in Ukraine, the potential and real threats to them in the cybernetic domain, and the key areas of related activity of state bodies and individuals. The research uses a method of synthesis and analysis, comparative legal analysis, and systemic and formal-logical methods. This article analyses the normative legal documents of Ukraine on intellectual property and rights on the internet, points out their shortcomings, and provides advice on their use. Recommendations are given on how to ensure the protection of intellectual rights through preventive measures and subsequent judicial and extrajudicial proceedings, indicating ways to ensure cybersecurity in relation the intellectual property of individuals.

The article identifies the nature and forms of unfair competition in the form of misuse of business reputation of the entity, its consequences for the original company, outlines areas of comprehensive counteraction to such violations, reveals their content, mechanisms of protection of infringed intellectual property rights from unfair competition by the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine are considered. It is analyzed that a significant part of violations in the form of unfair competition occurs in the field of intellectual property. However, intellectual property is often the subject of illegal actions by third parties and therefore needs legal protection. The results of intellectual activity can be protected through various options for the protection of intellectual property rights. For example, appropriate measures may be taken to prohibit the illegal use of intellectual property through legislation to protect against unfair competition. Unfair competition and intellectual property law are interrelated institutions, as they have one legal nature - the Paris Convention of 1883. This international act established provisions on protection against unfair conferences in terms of protection and protection of unregistered designations. Responding to manifestations of unfair competition is one of the priority tasks for the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine. The study concluded that the illegal use of intellectual property is usually related to the actions of the entity that could cause confusion about a competitor, its products or activities. Such confusion may result from the violation of exclusive rights to intellectual property and the means of individualization, which may qualify as unfair competition. Within the framework of the article, an analysis of cases on the practice of application by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine of the legislation on protection against unfair competition in recent years was carried out.

Intellectual property (IP) rights are embedded as an asset under the definition of investment in most international investment agreements. These agreements ensure protection and promotion of investment. Where IP rights are treated as an investment, they do benefit from the protection standards afforded by the international investment agreements. However, it is highly debated that to what extent an IP right constitutes an investment. Does the inclusion of IP rights under the investment definition of agreement suffice to be qualified as an investment? Or are there any other requirements? Over the last few years, these questions have attracted considerable scholarly interest. This article aims to analyse protection of IP rights as an investment and legal issues deriving from intersection between IP law and international investment law. Accordingly, it will attempt to answer the question as to when IP rights constitute an investment. In this sense, the article will initially discuss the inclusion of IP rights under the definition of investment afforded by several investment agreements. Subsequently, protection of IP rights in ICSID Convention will be discussed critically. Thirdly, the article will try to underscore the roles of international investment law and domestic law in determining whether an IP right is investment.

The Interface of Competition and Intellectual Property Law – Taking Stock and Identifying New Challenges

In our work, we consider the peculiarities of the protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine, USA and EU countries (Germany, France). Intellectual property is a unique creation of the human mind and one of the important achievements of every developed and democratic country. The field of law in the field of intellectual property is currently in a state of active and unceasing development: legislative norms are constantly regulated, the experience of successful countries in the field of intellectual property is analyzed and borrowed. Taking into account the possibilities of modern technologies, intellectual property rights are increasingly subject to violations, which determines the specifics of their protection in Ukraine and the countries of the European Union (USA, Germany, France). Taking into account the above and on the basis of scientific approaches and legally established provisions, the concepts of «intellectual property», «intellectual property right», «protection of intellectual property rights» have been defined. In the course of the analysis of national and foreign legislation, normative legal acts were established, according to which intellectual property rights were established in the studied countries. Detailed attention is paid to the peculiarities of the protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine, the USA, Germany and France, and to the identification of similar features and opportunities for borrowing better experience in the protection of intellectual property rights. Attention is focused on the peculiarities of judicial protection in Ukraine under the conditions of martial law. The article analyzes the methods of protecting intellectual property rights, taking into account the peculiarities of Ukraine, the USA, Germany and France, namely, the civil-law, criminal and administrative means of protection of Ukraine and the USA, the organizational and economic mechanisms of Germany and Ukraine, proposed for even more effective protection intellectual property rights and the reduction of violations in this area, to implement the successful experience of France regarding the obligation of citizens to patent and obtain a license for inventions and the experience of the French Republic in improving the judicial system and judicial protection of intellectual property rights.

In recent decades, Asian nations have raced against each other in enacting the latest intellectual property (IP) laws borrowed from the West on the assumption that the laws would function in the same manner as those in the West. However, the Asian nations` dismal record of implementation of IP laws has become apparent and turned into a source of dispute with their trading partners, chiefly the US, the European Union (EU) and Japan. The fundamental reason for the impasse in enforcement of IP in Asia, as elsewhere in the non-industrial world, lies in the huge economic and technological gap between them and those of the industrial nations. Historically, the need for international protection of IP grew out of the desire of a few West European states in the early 19 century to stop imitations of creative products of their citizens beyond national borders. The first form of such protection was therefore an attempt to suppress, within national borders, illegitimate products affecting businesses operating beyond those borders. The major concern of countries that became parties to IP treaties (whether bilateral, earlier on, or multilateral, from the 1880s onwards) was not however about providing the same level of protection among treaty-members but extending any available measure or form of protection to non-nationals. The recognition and extent of international protection ultimately hinged on the assimilation of non-national goods to those produced within the national borders. th The forms and scope of international IP protection changed dramatically with the introduction of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). What TRIPs did was to provide a level of cross-border protection that may or may not have been existing previously within the national setting. In other words, TRIPs substituted a structure and mode of protection that never considered the necessity of linking with or extending national IP forms and scopes as a pre-condition. In short, TRIPs became instrumental in planting a veritable disconnect between the IP laws of non-industrial countries (Non-ICs) and their social and economic conditions. It did not proceed from the nation-state`s willingness or determination to have forms of protection adequate for its needs (with the discretion of not introducing any if it did not deem such to be necessary) but regardless of such needs. The pressure on Non-ICs to legislate on a par with the major industrial nations (disguised as compliance with TRIPs requirements), lest they be treated as outlaws and pirates or the like, burdened them with an obligation unheard of in international law-that nations must be willing to take on board legal standards and measures even if the latter might be detrimental to their own domestic interests. The obligation to adopt standards and measures consonant with the requirements of the major industrial states but not necessarily with those of the Non-ICs was not only a major blow to the pursuit of development in Non-ICs but also a deadweight they have to carry forever. The circumstances in which most non-industrial nations were forced to forego their domestic interests and accede to treaty obligations without being given corresponding minimal benefits deserving of sovereign contracting parties lies at the bottom of the disconnect in the protection of IP internationally. The denial of the prerogative of non-industrial nations as purportedly full sovereigns in international law to demand or foster mutually beneficial arrangements in IP protection has generated the disconnect and fuelled the continuity of so-called piracy across the non-industrial world. This paper attempts to examine whether and how Asian nations have succeeded in managing the disconnect. It starts, in section 1, with a survey of the common misperceptions about the role of IP. Section 2 then attempts a brief appraisal of the conflicting interests and forces that condition the level, or lack, of IP lawmaking and enforcement in Asia. Section 3 briefly looks at the external pressure on Asian Non-ICs in both IP lawmaking and enforcement. Section 4 traces the signs of change in IP enforcement in Asia. The paper concludes that, despite some emerging signs of change in attitudes and levels of IP enforcement, the very same issues will remain at the forefront of IP in Asia and as a major source of dispute with the US and, to a lesser extent, the EU and Japan. It stresses that progress will continue to elude all parties, whether Asian or foreign.

The constitutional bases of mediation in intellectual property cases related to the complex interdisciplinary legal institution of self-protection of rights are analyzed. The urgency of the topic is due to a combination of public and private law principles in modern legal regulation and the general process of constitutionalization of private law and intellectual property law, in particular. It is noted that the proclamation of the constitutional right to self-defense means the inclusion in the comprehensive system of human rights protection of additional ways that increase the effectiveness of its other components and enrich the constitutional human rights mechanism as a whole. In recent years, mediation has been recognized as one of the effective and promising ways of self-protection of intellectual property rights. Ukraine is just beginning to build the institution of mediation as a way to protect intellectual property rights. The research of Ukrainian scientists analyzes the situations when it is expedient and profitable to use mediation to resolve disputes in the field of intellectual property. At the same time, in some works of Ukrainian researchers, in the author�s opinion, there is an element of a certain underestimation of public law support for the right to self-defense, in particular copyright. We believe that the constitutional provisions on self-protection of rights should be used more widely in the development of doctrinal issues of mediation intellectual property matters, which should strengthen the civil aspects of the right to selfdefense and give the problem a broader human significance. The author is convinced that the methodology of the modern system of protection of intellectual property rights should be based on an anthropological approach, which means that the provision and protection of intellectual property rights should be carried out from the standpoint of guaranteeing individual rights. It is concluded that the practice proves the profitability and effectiveness of the use of mediation in disputes related to the protection of intellectual property rights. The full implementation of this institution in Ukraine will contribute not only to improving the protection of intellectual property, but also to ensuring the constitutional rights of man and citizen.

««Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право» — международный научно-теоретический рецензируемый журнал, публикующий материалы в следующих рубриках: Публичное и частное право: прикладные исследования Криминология Криминалистика Судебная экспертиза Исследования права с позиций социальных и гуманитарных (неюридических) наук Правовая жизнь: научно-практические заключения, комментарии и обзоры Сравнительное право Зарубежное право

Innovation is central to competition policy. Indeed, in some industries, it is the primary means by which firms compete. The metaphors are dramatic: innovation is a ‘life and death matter for the firm’ and ‘a weapon in the arms race of competition’. Even more fundamentally, innovation, economists tell us, is pivotal to the capitalist economy as a whole. Baumol, in his book on innovation, declares that it is innovation that drives economic growth and that, without it, economies stagnate. Despite the well-established role of innovation in competition law and policy, however, the contribution such a perspective brings to the particular innovation issues raised in Gray’s case, the subject of discussion in other chapters, is limited. A contest between an employer and employee for intellectual property rights to an invention has clearer implications for labour, intellectual property and corporate law. The response of competition law to this issue, it seems to me, is far less clear. In broad terms, competition law and policy is concerned with the promotion of competition or, putting it in the more negative terms of competition legislation, prohibiting conduct that lessens competition.5 With this focus, competition law would seem to have little interest, in a general sense, in whether intellectual property rights are granted to an employer or an employee. It is true that there is a well-established interface between competition and intellectual property laws and, in a broad sense, some of this interaction may be relevant. This is because competition law, like intellectual property law, sees innovation as one of its key aims.

The article is devoted to the issues of coverage of intellectual property protection. Ukrainian and partially European legislation is analyzed. The main theoretical and practical problems related to the protection of intellectual property are highlighted. The main legal aspects and their role in solving the problems are highlighted, as well as a comparison of intellectual property law and property rights. This article describes the trends in the legal development of the institution of intellectual property, as well as the possibility of its improvement and acceleration through an updated mechanism for its protection. Prospects for the development of legal techniques in the field of intellectual property protection are covered, some innovations are proposed, in particular, insurance of intellectual property, as well as their role and main directions of work on them. The article considers the problem of judicial protection of intellectual property rights through national and international judicial bodies, comparison of their powers and capabilities in terms of recommendations of international organizations, including WIPO. A comparison was made on the main aspects of the basic concepts and concepts of protection of property rights and intellectual property rights, on the basis of which differences and legal aspects of their use are considered. Possible negative and positive aspects of protection of intellectual property rights under the legislation of Ukraine and the possibility of bringing it into line with European legislation, which is potentially important due to the likely accession of Ukraine to the European Union.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into electronic government (e-government) systems is revolutionizing public administration by enhancing efficiency and improving service delivery. However, the adoption of AI technologies in this context also raises complex legal challenges, particularly concerning intellectual property (IP) rights. Traditional IP laws, which were developed with human authorship in mind, struggle to accommodate the unique characteristics of AI-generated content. This article examines how AI is reshaping the legal framework for IP protection within e-government systems, highlighting the implications and challenges that arise from this technological shift. The primary aim of this study is to explore the role of AI in the formation of IP law frameworks within e-government, focusing on how current laws address—or fail to address—the challenges of AI-generated content. The methodology includes a comprehensive literature review, analysis of legislative documents, case studies, and a benchmarking analysis to compare approaches across jurisdictions. Additionally, expert interviews provide insights into practical considerations and emerging trends in the field. The results indicate that while some jurisdictions, such as the European Union, are actively adapting their IP laws to address AI's impact, most existing frameworks remain inadequate for protecting AI-generated works. Divergent approaches across countries reveal a lack of international harmonization, which complicates cross-border collaboration and legal enforcement. The analysis also highlights the importance of public-private partnerships and sector-specific IP protections, which can address the unique needs of different e-government applications. From a forward-looking perspective, the study underscores the need for flexible, AI-specific IP protections that promote innovation while safeguarding IP rights. International cooperation will be essential for establishing consistent standards, facilitating global e-government initiatives, and supporting the responsible use of AI in public services. By fostering a balanced and adaptive IP framework, policymakers and stakeholders can help build a resilient digital ecosystem that accommodates future advancements in AI technology.

This chapter provides an overview of the tension between the application of European Union (EU) competition law and the exercise of intellectual property (IP) rights. Key issues are the circumstances in which competition law may be applied to moderate the exercise of IP rights in the relevant market; clauses in intellectual property licensing agreements between undertakings that might be permissible in terms of EU competition law and those which are not; the conditions under which a refusal to supply products protected by an IP right might constitute an abuse of a dominant position by the right holder; and when competition law can provide a defence to an infringement action. The chapter also considers the implications of Brexit.

Increasingly, the economy of industrialised countries moves away from being based on a multiplicity of independent innovators to one characterised by cross-licensing and the pooling of intellectual property (IP) rights. Competition law is accorded a more limited role. Refusals to license or restrictive licence terms are tolerated. This paradigm emphasises the innovation at the expense of the dissemination rationale of IP and competition law. The pressure on developing countries is to follow suit. However, this approach jeopardises overcoming the technology dependence of these states. Yet, the political consensus underlying the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was that, in exchange for IP rights protection, a transfer and dissemination of technology benefiting the global South would occur. This has not taken place so far. Taking this promise seriously requires according an enhanced, more social role to competition law. Articles 8(2), 31 and 40 of TRIPS – the TRIPS competition rules – could be interpreted in a way to accomplish this. This article argues in favour of a “prodevelopment” approach to IP-related competition law. This could be viewed as a demand of the rule of law at the international level. On the one hand, treaties such as TRIPS are to be interpreted in good faith. On the other, public interest and human rights considerations justify, as it were, require, such an approach. Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS can play a crucial role in this regard. They reflect such public interest considerations as “object and purpose” of TRIPS. They also provide a link to international human rights law (IHRL). IHRL protects a (group) right to development, confirming “policy space” for World Trade Organization (WTO) members and the freedom to opt for a competition law model that facilitates dissemination. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) further protects various economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (REBSPA). These rights may be said to give rise to “transfer and dissemination of technology” as a human right. Duties under the right to development and “territorial” and “extraterritorial” human rights obligations (ETOs) under the ICESCR support an understanding of competition law which is pro development, which takes account of local access and welfare needs. The article concludes with a set of 10 consolidated considerations for a “prodevelopment” IP-related competition law.

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