Territorial Principle of Intellectual Property Protection and the Effect of State Sovereignty in the Digital Space

The author investigates the theoretical aspects of implementation of the territorial principle of intellectual property protection in the digital space. The active development of digital space by participants of cross-border relations in the field of protection and use of intellectual property rights, the popularization of the Internet and the expansion of the areas of legal relations implemented in the Network are accompanied by the emergence of new problems of protection of intellectual property due to their intangible nature and the possibility of one action to violate the rights to intellectual property in different countries. These problems persist in view of the territorial principle of the protection of exclusive rights, as well as the serious importance of the sovereignty of states in the classical territorial understanding, and its new forms, especially information sovereignty. The author examines the provisions of international treaties in the field of protection of various intellectual property objects, considers the features of the development of the territorial principle of intellectual property protection, digital space as a medium for the implementation of this principle. The question of the boundaries of the territorial sovereignty of states in the digital space is proposed to be solved through the development of clear criteria for determining the "territory for the implementation of relations". As universal criteria, it is proposed to use the "territory of the rights" and "territory of the permitted use of rights", which in cases with international registration specify the territory of the rights. In the absence of an international treaty regulating the actions of states in administering various segments of the Internet, the effective protection of intellectual property in cross-border relations, taking into account the protection (administrative and judicial) systems of other states, it seems appropriate to use the principle of noninterference in the implementation of intellectual property rights outside the national scope of rights.

territorial principle, protection, intellectual property, industrial property, copyrights, exclusive rights, cross-border relations, territorial jurisdiction, digital space, Internet, territorial sovereignty, information sovereignty

1. Friedmann D. The uniqueness of the trade mark: a critical analysis of the specificity and territoriality principles // European Intellectual Property Review. 2016. 38 (11). P. 678

2. Mikalsen R. Offshore patent protection: the geographical scope of coastal state patents in the exclusive economic zone and above the continental shelf // European Intellectual Property Review. 2017. 39 (9). Pp. 543-554

3. United Drug Co v. Theodore Rectanus Co 248 U.S. 90, 101 (1918)

4. Friedmann D. Op. cit. P. 678

5. Leaffer A. The New World of International Trademark Law // Intellectual Property Law Review. 1998. Vol. 2. Iss. 1. 28

6. Graeme Dinwoodie. Trademarks and territory: Detaching trademark law from the nation-state // Houston L. Rev. 2004. № 41(3). P. 885, 969

7. Friedmann D. Op. cit. P. 678-679

8. Friedmann D. Op. cit. P. 678-679

9. Mercurio B., Tyagi M. Treaty Interpretation in WTO Dispute Settlement: The Outstanding Question of the Legality of Local Working Requirements // Minnesota Journal of International Law. 2010. № 19 (2) P. 281

10. Lemley M., Shapiro C. Probabilistic Patents // Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2005. 19 (2). P. 90

11. Manu T Challenging the Validity of Patents: Stepping in Line with EPO and US Jurisprudence // International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 2017. Vol. 48. No. 7. Pp. 813-837

12. Reichman J. Universal minimum standards of intellectual property protection under the TRIPS component of the WTO agreement // International Lawyer. 2005. 29 (2). P. 352

13. Abbott F., Cottier T., Gurry F. International intellectual property integrated world economy. 2nd edn. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2011. P. 602

14. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 1-02, U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Nov. 8, 2010), as amended through February 15, 2016. URL: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp1_02. pdf (дата обращения: 20.06.2018)

15. Schaap A. J. Cyber Warfare Operations: Development and Use under International Law // Air Force Law Review. 2009. № 64 P. 121, 126 («Область, характеризующаяся использованием компьютеров и других электронных устройств для хранения, изменения и обмена данными через сетевые системы и связанные с ними физические инфраструктуры»)

16. Wingfield T. С. The law of information conflict: national security law in cyberspace. Aegis Research Corp., 2000. P. 17

17. Franzese P. W. Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Can It Exist? // Air Force Law Review. 2009 № 64 (1). P. 17-42

18. Heintschel von Heinegg W. Territorial sovereignty and neutrality in cyberspace // International Law Studies. 2013. Vol. 89. P. 126

19. Franzese P W. Op. cit. С. 33

20. Kastenberg J. E. Non-Intervention and Neutrality in Cyberspace: An Emerging Principle in the National Practice of International Law // Air force law review. 2009. 64 (43). P. 64

21. Svantesson J. D. B. Borders on, or Border Around - The Future of the Internet // 16 ALB.L.J. Sci. & Tech. 2006. P. 433-435

22. Heintschel von Heinegg W. Op. cit. С. 126

23. U.S. Department of Defense, Cyberspace Policy Report: A Report to Congress Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Section 934, at 7-8 (2011). URL: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/ NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-059.pdf (дата обращения: 20.06.2018)

24. Heintschel von Heinegg W. Op. cit. С. 132

25. Heintschel von Heinegg W. Op. cit

26. Heintschel von Heinegg W. Op. cit. С. 133

27. Oxman B. H. Jurisdiction of States // Max Planck Encyclopedia. URL: http://opil.ouplaw.com/ abstract/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1436?rskey=B4TLsA&result=6&prd=EPIL (дата обращения: 20.06.2018)

28. Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 27 September 1988. A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v. Commission of the European Communities. Concerted practices between undertakings established in nonmember countries affecting selling prices to purchasers established in the Community. Joined cases 89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85 // URL: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=61985CJ0089&lang1=en &type=TXT&ancre= (дата обращения: 20.06.2018)

29. Heintschel von Heinegg W. Op. cit. С. 134

30. International strategy for cyberspace: prosperity, security, and openness in a Networked World. White House International Strategy for Cyberspace, 2011. P. 10. URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/ default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf (дата обращения: 20.06.2018)

31. Judgment Cartier International AG and others (Respondents) v. British Telecommunications Plc and another (Appellants) UKSC 2016/0159 // URL: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0159.html (дата обращения: 29.06.2018)

32. Abbott F., Cottier T., Gurry F. International intellectual property integrated world economy. - 2nd ed. - New York: Aspen Publishers, 2011.

33. Franzese P. W. Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Can It Exist? // Air Force Law Abstract. - 2009. - № 64 (1). - P. 17-42.

34. Friedmann D. The uniqueness of the trade mark: a critical analysis of the specificity and territoriality principles // European Intellectual Property Abstract. - 2016. - № 38(11). - P. 678-679.

35. Graeme Dinwoodie. Trademarks and territory: Detaching trademark law from the nation-state // Houston L. Rev. - 2004. - № 41(3). - P. 885, 969.

36. Gutterman A. S. Going Global: A Guide to Building an International Business. Part A. Setting up and Managing a Business Abroad. § 13:22. Intellectual property rights-Special forms of intellectual property rights- Intellectual property rights and the Internet. Westlaw. Thomson Reuters. 2017.

37. Heintschel von Heinegg W. Territorial sovereignty and neutrality in cyberspace // International Law Studies. - 2013. - Vol. 89.

38. Kastenberg J. E. Non-Intervention and Neutrality in Cyberspace: An Emerging Principle in the National Practice of International Law // Air force law review. - 2009. - № 64 (43).

39. Leaffer A. The New World of International Trademark Law // Intellectual Property Law Abstract. - 1998. - Vol. 2. - Iss. 1.

40. Lemley M., Shapiro C. Probabilistic Patents // Journal of Economic Perspectives. - 2005. - № 19 (2).

41. Manu T. Challenging the Validity of Patents: Stepping in Line with EPO and US Jurisprudence // International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. - 2017. - Vol. 48. - № 7. - Pp. 813-837.

42. Mercurio B., Tyagi M. Treaty Interpretation in WTO Dispute Settlement: The Outstanding Question of the Legality of Local Working Requirements // Minnesota Journal of International Law. - 2010. - № 19 (2).

43. Mikalsen R. Offshore patent protection: the geographical scope of coastal state patents in the exclusive economic zone and above the continental shelf // European Intellectual Property Abstract. - 2017. - 39(9). - Pp. 543-554.

44. Oxman B. H. Jurisdiction of States // Max Planck Encyclopedia. URL: http://opil.ouplaw.com/abstract/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1436?rskey=B4TLsA&result=6&prd=EPIL (дата обращения: 20.06.2018).

45. Reichman J. Universal minimum standards of intellectual property protection under the TRIPS component of the WTO agreement // International Lawyer. - 2005. - № 29 (2).

46. Svantesson J. D. B. Borders on, or Border Around - The Future of the Internet // 16 ALB.L.J. Sci. & Tech. - 2006. - P. 433-435.

47. Wingfield T. С. The law of information conflict: national security law in cyberspace. - Aegis Research Corp., 2000.