The essence of intellectual property rights according to the provisions of the charter of fundamental rights of the European union
Abstract
The article substantiates the relevance of the study of the essence of intellectual property rights in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An analysis of the latest research and publications was carried out. This study is based on the works of European authors, European legal acts and European judicial practice in the field of intellectual property rights. The work theoretically highlights European approaches to understanding the essence of intellectual property rights in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the basis of European judicial precedent in the field of intellectual property rights. The essence of intellectual property rights is considered specifically within the European Union. In accordance with the European regulatory and legal understanding, such a concept is defined as "intellectual property rights". It was determined that the most relevant types of intellectual property rights in the European Union are copyright, patents and trademark rights. It was found that exclusivity and remuneration are the two main defining characteristics of intellectual property rights in the EU. The connection between functions and types of intellectual property rights is established. It was found that the main function of intellectual property rights is economic. In this connection, a thorough analysis of the substance of Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is purely economic in nature, was carried out. The absolute and relative theory of essence is revealed. A number of court cases of the Court of the European Union regarding the interpretation of the essence of intellectual property rights are analyzed. As a result, it was found that the Court of the European Union does not support the absolute theory of the essence of rights in the field of intellectual property. On the example of Germany, as one of the "legal pillars" of the European community, it is considered how the essence is understood in the national legal system and the constitutional traditions of international human rights law. Prospective areas of further theoretical and practical research are identified.
References
2. Christoffersen, J. (2020). Pragmatisme i spændingsfeltet mellem ret og retfærdighed. Kritisk juss, No. 46 (3), pp. 179-192 [in Danish].
3. Constitutional Convention (United States) (1787). Constitution of the United States of America. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf [in English].
4. Contreras, J. & Husovec, M. (Eds.) (2022). Injunctions in Patent Law: Trans-Atlantic Dialogues on Flexibility and Tailoring. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1293&context=scholarship [in English].
5. Court of the European Union (1988). Volvo. Case C-238/87 at paras, pp. 8-9. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62018CC0307&from=NL [in English].
6. Deutscher Bundestag (2022). Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. bundestag.de. Retrieved from https://www.bundestag.de/gg [in German].
7. European Parliamentary Research Service Comparative Law Library Unit (2018). Copyright Law in the EU. europarl.europa.eu. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/625126/EPRS_STU(2018)625126_EN.pdf [in English].
8. Husovec, M. (2016). Intellectual Property Rights and Integration by Conflict: The Past, Present and Future. 18 CAMBRIDGE Y.B. EUR., LEGAL STUD [in English].
9. Husovec, M. (2019). The Essence of Intellectual Property Rights Under Article 17 (2) of the EU Charter. German Law Journal, No. 20 (6), pp. 840-863. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.65 [in English].
10. Official Journal of the European Communities (2000). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01). europarl.europa.eu. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf [in English].
11. Official Journal of the European Communities (2004). Directive 2004/48/ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:157:0045:0086:en:PDF [in English].
12. Schwartmann, R. & Hentsch, C. (2012). Die verfassungsrechtlichen Grenzen der Urheberrechtsdebatte [The Constitutional Limits of the Copyright Debate]. ZUM, pp. 759-771 [in German].
13. Sganga, C., Contardi, M., Turan, P., Signoretta, C., Bucaria, G., Mezei, P. et al. (2023). Copyright flexibilities: mapping and comparative assessment of EU and national sources. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Caterina-Sganga/publication/367177266_Copyright_flexibilities_mapping_and_comparative_assessment_of_EU_and_national_sources/links/63c57329d7e5841e0bd2f84d/Copyright-flexibilities-mapping-and-comparative-assessment-of-EU-and-national-sources.pdf [in English].
14. Shtyrov, O., & Sukhorukova, A. (2022). Pravovi aspekty vidpovidalnosti u sferi porushennia prav intelektualnoi vlasnosti: svitovyi dosvid i Ukraina. [Legal aspects of liability in the field of infringement of intellectual property rights: world experience and Ukraine], Publichne upravlinnia ta rehionalnyi rozvytok – Public administration and regional development, (17), 867-904. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.34132/pard2022.17.10 [in Ukrainian].
Abstract views: 122 PDF Downloads: 80