General Object and Special Object Principles of the Legal Regulation of Industrial Property in Cross-Border Relations

International agreements, as well as the national legislation of various States, in addition to the territorial principle of protection of industrial property, the principle of national treatment, the principle of convention or exhibition priority, do not specifically identify other principles of protection of industrial property that would uniform national legislation in the field of protection of industrial property in most aspects of protection, and that would also take into account the specifics of a particular object of protection. The paper distinguishes and formulates general object principles of protection of industrial property, not expressly enshrined in international agreements, as well as special object principles of protection of individual objects of industrial property. It is noted that the operation of general principles applied universally for protection of all objects of industrial property and historically established universal principles of national regime, territoriality, principles of convention and exhibition priority are supplemented by such general object principles as the principle of exclusive protection of industrial property, the principle of production and technical development. These principles can be considered general in view of their extension to other objects not expressly specified in the Paris Convention. At the same time, with regard to separate objects (groups of objects) of industrial property, one can determine special object principles of protection on the ground of their specificity.

The author applies formal legal and comparative legal methods of the study, on the basis of which special international principles of protection were formulated: the principle of exclusive protection, the principle of focus on production and technical development. The paper describes special principles of protection for individual objects: the declarative and evidentiary principle of protection of registered industrial property, the principle of protection of marks “such as they are”, the principle of protection of new creative results in relation to patentable objects, the principle of absolute nature of the rights certified by the patent.

1. Gorodov OA. Osobennosti perekhoda rezultatov intellektualnoy deyatelnosti v rezhim obshchestvennogo dostoyaniya [Peculiarities of transfering intellectual activity results into public domain]. Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Pravovedenie. 2017;3(332). (In Russ.)

2. Gorodov OA. Pravo promyshlennoy sobstvennosti : uchebnik [Law of Industrial Property: A textbook]. Moscow: Statute Publ.; 2011. (In Russ.)

3. Ivanov NV. Ischerpanie isklyuchitelnogo prava na tovarnyy znak i parallelnyy import [Exhaustion of the exclusive right to trademark and parallel import]. Zakon. 2019;2:127—137. (In Russ.)

4. Kalyatin VO, Murzin DV, Novoselova LA. Novoselova NA, editor. nauchno-prakticheskiy Kommentariy sudebnoy praktiki v sfere zashchity intellektualnykh prav [Scientific and practical commentary on judicial practice in the sphere of protection of intellectual rights]. Moscow: Norma Publ.; 2014. (In Russ.)

5. Pirogova VV. Ischerpanie isklyuchitelnykh prav i parallelnyy import [Exhaustion of exclusive rights and parallel import]. Moscow: Statute Publ.; 2008. (In Russ.)

6. Smbatyan AS. Mezhdunarodnye torgovye spory v GATT/VTO: izbrannye resheniya (1952—2005 gg.) [International trade disputes in GATT/WTO: Selected |Decisions (1952—2005)]. Moscow: Volters Kluver; 2006. (In Russ.)

7. Chernichkina GN. Istoricheskie aspekty vozniknoveniya pravovoy okhrany izobreteniy [Historical Aspects of the Emergence of Legal Protection of Inventions]. Sovremennoe pravo. 2010(4):158—162. (In Russ.)

8. Shugurova IV. Mezhdunarodno-pravovaya okhrana izobreteniy kak obekta promyshlennoy sobstvennosti : dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk [International legal protection of inventions as an object of industrial property: Can. Sci. (Law) Thesis]. Saratov; 2003. (In Russ.)

9. Barraclough E. US Supreme Court rewrites the rules on patent exhaustion. Available from: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/04/article_0008.html.

10. Beebe B, Hemphill CS. The Scope of Strong Marks: Should Trademark Law Protect the Strong More than the Weak? (February 2018). New York University Law Abstract. 2017;92; 18-04; NYU Law and Economics Research Paper. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3073130.

11. Gibbons L. J. Non-conventional trademarks under United States law: An unbounded new frontier of branding: Global Governance of Intellectual Property in the 21st Century: Reflecting Policy Through Change 1 January 2016:173—191. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-31177-7_10. Available from: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-31177-7.pdf.

12. Krauspenhaar D. Liability Rules in Patent Law. A Legal and Economic Analysis. 1 January 2015:1—233. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40900-4.

13. Öcalan-Özel S. Invention characteristics and the degree of exclusivity of university licenses: The case of two leading French research universities. 2019;48(6):1445—1457. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.02.007.

14. Okediji RL. Traditional knowledge and the public domain in intellectual property: Intellectual Property and Development: Understanding the Interfaces: Liber amicorum Pedro Roffe. 2019:249—275. DOI: 10.1007/978981-13-2856-5_12. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-13-2856-5_12.

15. Perepechko LN. Trademarks protection and development of industrial production. Proceedings of the 32nd International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2018 — Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic Development and Application of Innovation Management from Regional expansion to Global Growth 2019. 2019:231—239.

16. Seth M. Reiss. Commentary on the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Oxford University Press and the Center of International Legal Studies, 2008—2010. Available from: http://www.lexip.com/Paris.pdf.

17. Son KB, Bae S, Lee TJ. Does the Patent Linkage System Prolong Effective Market Exclusivity? Recent Evidence From the Korea-U. S. Free Trade Agreement in Korea. International Journal of Health Services. 2019:49(2):306—321. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731418822237.

18. Ullrich H. Technologieschutz nach TRIPS: Prinzipen und Probleme. GRUR Int. 1995.