Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights Research Articles

Intellectual Property Rights and Creative Economy; Way Forward for Pakistan

This paper examines the relationship between enforcement of intellectual property rights and growth of the creative economy. Intellectual property based creative industries highly contribute towards national economy through trade, value addition, and tax revenues. Size of the global creative economy has almost doubled during 2015 leading it to the figure of $509 billion that was $205 billion during year 2002. It is worth noting that major player in global volume of creative economy are South Asian countries such as China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, India, and Taiwan. Major creative industries include software, pharmaceutical, music, cinema, fashion, design, art, culture, photography, publishing, and other related creative works. Creative industries need support of effective enforcement from intellectual property rights to pay incentive to a creator for its investment of expertise, labour, and finances. In absence of effective intellectual property enforcement and violation of intellectual property rights, innovation may go slow that affects growth of the creative economy. This research highlights potentials of growth of the creative economies in Pakistan in terms of intellectual property rights.

Border Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Look at New Zealand

Since 1994, New Zealand Customs has had a broader ability to detain goods/items appearing to infringe trade marks or copyright. In undertaking this function, Customs must act as an interpreter and enforcer of trade mark and copyright laws. This raises a myriad of issues, as intellectual property is a highly technical area of law, where infringement is heavily fact-dependent. This article surveys the extent to which intellectual property rights owners have used Customs’ mechanism and Customs has applied its authority. This is followed by an analysis of how Customs determines infringement, the relationship between the role of Customs and the role of the courts, and the resultant differing standards of infringement. The article concludes by examining Customs’ expanded authority due to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, what this potentially means for New Zealand as a net intellectual property importing country, and how this affects the power dynamics between the rights-holder and the importer.

Factors contributing to the strength of national patent protection and enforcement after TRIPS

In this paper we study the determinants of the strength of patent enforcement in 43 member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) between 1998 and 2011, a period after the signing of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. We do so by building on and expanding the seminal work of Ginarte and Park (1997) on the pre-TRIPS determinants of patent rights in the years 1960-1990. We find that in the years after TRIPS was signed, the strength of patent enforcement of a country is positively determined by two variables that signify the usage of the patent and intellectual property system, and the number of patent and trademark applications. We also find that the level of research and development expenditure, the quality of human capital, and the level of development of a country have positive effects on the strength of the enforcement of patent law in practice. Intellectual property rights enforcement is one of the key investment-related policies included in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. Identifying the determinants of strong patent systems will help policymakers at the national and supranational levels to design and implement effective policies that strengthen national patent systems, thereby enhancing economic benefits such as greater levels of commercialization of intangible assets and greater levels of international trade and investment.

Judicial enforcement of intellectual property rights in China — from technical improvement to institutional reform

ABSTRACTChina is one of the most controversial fora for intellectual property rights (IPRs) protection. The current IPRs enforcement in China is the result of a combination of external pressure and internal drive, of the paradox of technology reliance and indigenous innovation, and of a mixture of incompatible history and culture with gradually changing social norms. This article aims to provide a critical assessment of the latest development in judicial enforcement of IPRs in China, including improving the professionalism and efficiency of the judicial process, increasing the adequacy of remedies and reducing judicial local protectionism. It concludes that the technical development of the IPRs judicial system is obvious and the remaining problems are relatively easy to correct. However, although China has also adopted measures to increase the power and independence of courts, the structural weakness of courts continues to remain. The Chinese judicial system, institutionally, is not independent, and judgments are influenced by the policy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Although the contemporary policy in China is to improve judicial protection of IPRs, the possible influence of the CCP policy in courts remains a concern for the long-term transformation of the IP system.

Universal intellectual property rights: Too much of a good thing?

Developing countries’ incentives to protect intellectual property rights (IPR) are studied in a model of vertical innovation. Enforcing IPR boosts export opportunities to advanced economies but slows down technological transfers and incentives to invest in R&D. Asymmetric protection of IPR, strict in the North and lax in the South, leads in many cases to a higher world level of innovation than universal enforcement. IPR enforcement is U-shaped in the relative size of the export market compared to the domestic one: rich countries and small/poor countries enforce IPR, the former to protect their innovations, the latter to access foreign markets, while large emerging countries free-ride on rich countries’ technology to serve their internal demand.

Some issues protection of intellectual property rights Directive 2004/48/EC «On the protection of intellectual property rights»

In the article explores the protection of intellectual property rights in the European Union. Attention is paid to the provisions Directive 2004/48/EC On the protection of intellectual property rights. The application of this Directive 2004/48/EC is studied as at the general European level, and the features of the legal application of the directive in the legislation of individual EU member states are studied. In this article says that the main goal of this Directive is to create an effective mechanism for the protection of intellectual property rights in the common European space (EU), for the further de­velopment of an innovative economy. The analysis of the peculiarities of enforcement practice in the implementation of the EU-2004/48/EU Directive in certain EU mem­ber states (Hungary, Austria, etc.), identifies the main issues related to the applica­tion of the provisions of the above-mentioned Directive, in particular, points to the dif­ferent understanding of «additional payments» in some EU member states: Germany, Czech Republic. There is in practice the question of the question of how to obtain the creator of supplementary payments (compensation). So, in Austria, the Czech Repub­lic, Germany, Romania, the basis for determining the amount of additional compensa­tion is double the amount of royalty. In 2016, the European Commission prepared a new report on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in EU member states. In this report, the Commission emphasizes that the IPR procedures contained in EU/2004/48 have greatly contributed to raising the level of protection of intellectual property rights in the EU, contributing to the creation of a unified legal framework. The report also states that the Directive is consistently and effectively integrated into the right of EU member states. Now (o date), the provisions of EU/2004/48 Directive have been implemented in virtually all EU member states. For example, in Latvia — the Law «On Trademarks and Geographical Names» (as of 010.010.2016), the Law «On Patents» (as of 01.01.2016), the Law «On Copyright» (as of 01.01.2014) ; in Lithuania — the Law «On Industrial Designs» IX-1181 (as of July 1, 2008); Romania — Law «On the Protection of Industrial Property Rights» No. 280/2005; Spain — The Law «On Protection of Intellectual Property and the Settlement of Sim­plification of the Application of EU Procedures» No. 19/2006 of 05.06.2006, as well as the corresponding amendments were made to the Law of Spain «On Civil Procedure» No. 1/2000 of January 7, 2000; Greece — Law on Transfer of Technologies, Removals and Innovations No. 1733/1987; Hungary — Law on the Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications.An analysis of the implementation of the Directive leads to the conclusion EU / 2004/48 Directive has become widely implemented in the European space and is an actual document for EU member states in their system of legal protection of intellec­tual property rights.

IPR infringement in the United States: impacts on the input and output of R&D

This paper examines the impact of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement on the input (R&D spending) and output (patents) of the research process. The extant literature proxies IPR enforcement via composite indices or indicators of institutional quality, whereas this paper employs a direct (hard) measure of IPR crimes. Using data across U.S. states, results show that IPR crimes reduce research spending but do not impact patenting. Upon comparison with a broader measure of weak institutional quality (corruption), we find that greater corruption has a robust negative effect on patenting, but not on R&D spending. Quantitatively, the elasticities of R&D spending with respect to IPR crimes are greater than those of patents with respect to corruption, suggesting that studies that proxy IPR crimes via other measures are likely underestimating their impacts on technological change.

Kebijakan Pemerintah Dalam Perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HAKI) Di Indonesia

This research aims to obtain a picture of the policy in the field of intellectual property rights as well as legislation and law enforcement of intellectual Property Rights (HAKI). The increasingly high-flow of free trades that demand the higher creativity of the resulting products proved increasingly spur on the technological developments that support these needs. Along with this, it began to realize the importance of the role of intellectual Property Rights (HAKI) in supporting technological developments. This is seen from the increasingly high number of copyright, patent and trademark applications and the sufficient number of industrial design applications addressed to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights, the Office of the jurisdiction and human rights. 
 By using a descriptive analysis obtained the idea that the implementation of good intellectual property rights system not only requires the legislation in the field of intellectual property right but should be supported also by Administration, law enforcement and an optimal socialization program on intellectual property Rights (HAKI).
 The results of the research show that at this time, Indonesia has had a legal device in the field of intellectual property rights which is adequate and does not contradict the provisions as required in Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect Of Intelectual Property Rights. In principle, all rules of intellectual property rights have been prepared about the interests of the Community and by the minimum provisions as required by TRIPS approval (Agreement on Trade-Related) Aspect Of Intelectual Property Rights).

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Iran in the Light of TRIPS Agreement

In recent years, the Iranian government has tried to develop its national intellectual property (IP) law in order to engage with the international IP system, prepare for membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and fulfil its obligations under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. Iranian IP rights (IPR) contain provisions on civil and administrative procedures and remedies, provisional measures, and special requirements related to border measures and criminal procedures, which specify the procedures and remedies that must be available so that rights holders can effectively enforce their rights. This study examines the underlying concepts and reasons for IPR infringement and enforcement, and the criminal and civil remedies regarding IPR. Recommendations are provided in the conclusion of this study.

Complementarity in Public and Private Intellectual Property Enforcement; Implications for International Standards

I examine the relationship between publicly provided enforcement of intellectual property (IP) rights and an authentic producer’s strategies to influence entry of non-deceptive counterfeit products. I consider investment in supplemental private IP enforcement through the legal system, as well as endogenous product quality. I show that when public IP enforcement is low, the authentic firm accommodates counterfeit entry by choosing low private enforcement and relatively high product quality. However, under high public enforcement, the firm deters entry through high private enforcement and a reduction in quality. This mechanism creates a non-monotonic relationship between public enforcement and social welfare, and incentivizes inefficiently low public enforcement. In this context, I show that international efforts to impose stricter legal penalties against counterfeiters can be counterproductive; further reducing public enforcement and increasing counterfeit prevalence. In contrast, minimum quality standards can be implemented to prevent quality reductions, incentivize higher public enforcement, and reduce inefficiency.

Intellectual property law and practice in the blockchain realm

Blockchain technology is claimed to be and perceived as one of the revolutionary technologies that will have an enormous impact on our lives in the forthcoming years and decades. The legal questions surrounding blockchain appear to be among the most controversial issues surrounding this novel technology, which create uncertainties as to the scope and speed of its eventual adoption. Is it legal to use blockchain technology? Does or should any governmental authority or court take a record stored in blockchain into consideration in their decisions? Is blockchain reliable? Can the technology be used for the protection and enforcement of legal and property rights?The technological advancements offered by blockchain promise wide ranges of use in a variety of sectors and legal areas, including intellectual property (IP) law. This paper will focus primarily on the possible opportunities that blockchain may offer with respect to the future of IP law and discuss its potential impact on the registration, management and enforcement of intellectual property rights. We will proceed to offer blockchain-based solutions to foster the operation of IP offices, reinforce customs procedures in detecting counterfeit products, and enhance the efficiency of IP rights management by the right holders. The paper concludes by providing some suggestions to pave the way for the advancement of blockchain technology and to increase the number of people that this technology reaches, as well as its successful integration into the various services and registration/transaction channels that we use today.

EURASIAN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM: REGULATORY AND LEGAL ASPECTS

the Eurasian economic Union (hereinafter the EAEU, the Union) is an international organization of regional economic integration with international legal personality. Therefore, an important task of the Eurasian economic Commission (hereinafter, the EEC) is to ensure the har-monization of the legislation of the member States of the Union in the field of scientific and innova-tive activities; protection, protection and use of objects of intellectual property on the territory of the EAEU and the customs regulation for cross-border movement of goods, including intellectual prop-erty. The creation of Eurasian technology platforms aimed at ensuring the system works on the ac-cumulation of advanced national and world achievements of scientific and technological develop-ment, the mobilization of the scientific potential of the member States of the EAEU for the joint so-lution of applied problems to develop innovative products and technologies, their implementation in industrial production. The purpose of this work was to analyze the existing legal framework for the creation and op-eration of the Eurasian agricultural technology platform, as well as regulatory acts regulating the main directions of its activities-the implementation of joint research and development (hereinafter, projects), interstate programs and cooperation projects with integration potential for financing by the Eurasian development Bank. According to the results of the study: the basic legal documents ensuring the creation and functioning of the EАТР; international treaties regulating the protection and enforcement of intel-lectual property rights; the legislation of the EAEU member States in the field of legal protection of intellectual property; regulatory legal acts regulating the implementation of joint research and de-velopment work (hereinafter, projects), interstate programs and cooperation projects with integra-tion potential for financing by the Eurasian development Bank.

The role of intellectual property rights in seed technology transfer through trade: evidence from U.S. field crop seed exports

AbstractA panel of 134 countries over the period 1985–2010 is used to evaluate the effect of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on field crop seed imports from the United States. Based on estimating a gravity equation using the Heckman selection and Poisson fixed‐effects panel econometric methods, the results indicate that membership of countries in both the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and the Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement of the World Trade Organization have a positive and statistically significant effect on their imports of U.S. field crop seeds. These results, however, are also sensitive to both income level of importing countries and better enforcement of IPRs by those countries.

Roszczenie o zapłatę wielokrotności stosownego wynagrodzenia w prawie autorskim – głos w obronie status quo na dzień przed wyrokiem Trybunału Konstytucyjnego

The article contains the response to the criticism of the solution regulated under article 79 section 1 point 3 letter b of the Copyright and Related Rights Act made before the Constitutional Tribunal rendered its judgment of 23 June 2015 repealing he above-mentioned legal provision. The genesis of article 79 section 1 point 3 letter b leads to the conclusion that it constituted an autonomous institution of the Polish copyright law. In particular, the claim for payment of a triple amount of the respective remuneration, where the copyright infringement is culpable, was not of a penal nature, neither was it contradictory to the Polish model of liability for damages, moreover at the same time, it was in accordance with the provisions of the Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Harmonisation and globalisation of intellectual property culture

AbstractThis paper explores the relationship between the two sides of intellectual property culture in an international context, namely the harmonisation of its protection and the globalisation of its creation. To this end, we explore the role of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection in the recent surge in the internationalisation of patents that originates from the newly emerging economies. The aim is to capture the outreach of the Northern intellectual property culture to the South and the South–North globalisation of the resulting intellectual property that emerges in the South. Global bilateral patent data are used to investigate the location specificity of IPR enforcement for the emergence of this phenomenon. We find that the harmonisation of IPR protection encourages foreign‐patenting activities of Southern innovators. Our findings suggest that a global convergence of IPR protection can stimulate the production and the internationalisation of intellectual property in the South. As the North and the South grow closer in terms of levels of development, a harmonised institutional structure becomes more adequate as they increasingly share similar markets.

Review of Trademark and Its Enforcement Provisions under TRIPS

<p><em>T</em><em>rademark and its enforcement provisions are imbedded in Agreement on Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for promotion and protection of Intellectual Property (IP) rights in member countries of World Trade Organization (WTO). Compliance with trademark and its enforcement provisions (15-21, 41-61) of TRIPS and implementation are two different things</em><em>,</em><em> e.g.</em><em>,</em><em> enactment of law and its implementation hence more efforts are required for smooth implementation of IP rights in member counties. TRIPS is the only International Treaty containing exhaustive enforcement provisions for enforcement of IP rights in member countries. This article is a qualitative method of research reviewing provisions of TRIPS dealing with trademark (15-21) and its enforcement procedures (41-61) in member countries. Trademark enforcement procedures of member countries must be adequate, expedient and must not be complicated, costly and time consuming. Trademark enforcement procedures must be based upon due process of law and fair trial so that aggrieved party may (i) attain damages and compensation for loss due to trademark infringement, (ii) obtain injunctions to prevent trademark infringement in future, and (iii) punish counterfeiter/infringer with imprisonment and fine. Trademark and its enforcement provisions of TRIPS are required to be complied by member countries as there are hurdles in implementation of enforcement provisions</em><em>,</em><em> e.g.</em><em>,</em><em> lack of IP knowledge, IP experts, long borders, deficiency in man power etc. which are required to be sorted out to promote and protect legitimate trade activities in member countries which is a long process needs to be achieved by positive steps under the light of trademark and its enforcement provisions of TRIPS.</em><em></em></p>

Patent licensing in the shadow of the Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

... Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRED)2 clarifies that permanent injunctions should not to be granted automatically3 and that remedies should be proportionate to infringements.4 On 29 November 2017, the European Commission issued further Guidelines on the IPRED, which reconfirmed such principles (this article was written before the publication of the Guidelines).5 This article examines the effects that the granting of quasi-automatic permanent injunctions (which are ex post tools, as they are generally awarded after the firms concerned have started discussing patent licences) may have on ongoing patent licensing negotiations (ex ante tools, because the negotiations precede the granting of injunctions).6 Hence, the purpose of this article is to conduct an economic analysis of whether and how the expectations of patentees and licensors on potential patent litigation affect their bargaining positions when negotiating a patent licence.

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Bangladesh: To What Extent Is It TRIPS-Responsive?

In recent times with the adoption of TRIPS we observe that enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) has emerged as a pressing issue on the global economy, and in the national and international intellectual property agenda. Particularly, whilst the WTO definitely promotes big IP exporters, scholars are tremendously worried about TRIPS “one size fit all” attitude that ultimately disregards the heterogeneity of the world’s populace and the exertions that threatens developing and least developed countries. The big and vital challenge facing by the developing country like Bangladesh today is how to cope with the mounting number of demands from intellectual property rights-holder, national and foreign, to upgrade their system for the enforcement of IPRs. And the effort of Bangladesh, in this respect, is not totally insignificant, for as a WTO family member Bangladesh imperatively needs to make it its IP regime TRIPS-responsive by 2021 starting from 1 July 2013. In this environment, this paper seeks to address briefly how the intellectual property rights are enforced in Bangladesh and to what extent the IPRs implementation and enforcement mechanism in Bangladesh is TRIPS-compliant. Finally this paper tries to put some recommendations to meet the WTO obligations using the TRIPS flexibilities.

Intellectual Property Enforcement, Exports and Productivity: Evidence from China

We study how provincial-level enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) affects Chinese firms’ decisions regarding exit, export, and the channels through which to receive technology transfer. Our findings provide insights into how variations in IPRs enforcement alter productivity. Our model combines the standard theory of heterogeneous firms with the endogenous choices of those firms concerning how they absorb international technologies through imitation or licensing. We show that, in this setting, the exit and export cutoff productivities differ from those in the standard environment, leading to a different sorting mechanism. We also predict that stronger IPRs change the decisions firms make concerning their mode of technology transfer, further altering their productivity and export possibilities. Empirical tests based on a comprehensive dataset of Chinese firms from 2000 to 2006 support the model predictions.

Private Antitrust Enforcement Without Punitive Damages: A Half-Baked Reform?

Directive 2014/104/EU on private antitrust enforcement opted for the exclusion of punitive damages from the category of recoverable damages following a violation of antitrust law. This article will outline the concept of punitive damages and analyse the relevant case-law of the courts of the Member States, of the ECtHR and of the ECJ. Then, it will examine the regime laid down in the Directive and consider the possible reasons why the European legislator opted for this exclusion. Thus, the opportunity to introduce such a provision into the European legal system will be evaluated, taking into consideration the problem of overdeterrence, the problem of the division of functions between public and private enforcement, and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Finally, a possible modification of Article 3(3) of the Directive will be suggested, in the framework of the review that the Commission is required to undertake by December 27, 2020