Private international law issues of intellectual property: The online dimension in Belarus

Elena Leanovich

doi:10.21638/spbu14.2020.212

Authors

Elena Leanovich Belarusian State University, 4, Nezavisimosti pr., Minsk, 220030, Republic of Belarus https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2693-0145

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2020.212

Abstract

The main peculiarity of intellectual property rights in the domain of private international law rights is rooted in the territorial character of these rights. Territoriality complicates the process of applying conflict of laws rules, recognition of foreign courts’ judgements and arbitral awards and operation of other mechanisms of private international law in respect of intellectual property. Intellectual property relations on the Internet are immanently international in their nature. They usually include the so-called “foreign element,” which launches the mechanisms of private international law. At the same time, the specifics of the online environment and the complexity of solving the conflict of laws of intellectual property due to its territoriality outline a frame of legal research. The main challenges are connected with the possibility, expediency and specificity of the application of mechanisms of private international law to intellectual property relations on the Internet. The principle of territoriality of intellectual property is strictly understood in the legal system of the Republic of Belarus. Application of foreign laws on intellectual property and recognition of intellectual property rights based on them demand profound legal justification, and in the majority of cases are hardly possible. The article illustrates reasons to revise this approach in relation to intellectual property in general and intellectual property on the Internet in particular. The author suggests methods for a gradual transition to the flexible understanding of the territoriality of intellectual property and incorporation into the Belarusian legislation of new material and conflict of laws rules.

Keywords:

intellectual property rights, private international law, conflict of laws, territoriality of intellectual property, territorial character of intellectual property rights, online intellectual property relations, digital rights, ubiquitous infringements, ubiquity, Internet service providers

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

References

Baranovskiy, Petr D. 2005. International legal problems of protection of intellectual property on the Internet). Moscow, Moskovskaia gosudarstvennaia iuridicheskaia akademiia Publ. (In Russian)

Bliznets, Ivan A. ed. 2018. Intellectual Property Law. International legal regulation. Moscow, Iurait Publ. (In Russian)

Christie, Andrew F. 2017. “Private international law principles for ubiquitous intellectual property infringement — a solution in search of a problem?” Journal of Private International Law 13(1): 152–183. doi:10.1080/17441048.2017.1304047.

Christie, Andrew F. 2015. Private International Law Issues in Online Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes with Cross-Border Elements: An Analysis of National Approaches. Geneva, WIPO. Accessed April 12, 2018. www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_rep_rfip_2015_1.pdf.

Dinwoodie, Graeme B. 2009. “Developing a Private International Intellectual Property Law: The Demise of Territoriality?” William & Mary Law Review 51(2): 711–800. Accessed April 12, 2018. http//www.ssrn.com/link/oxford-legal-studies.html.

Dubay, Carolyn. A. 2012. “Private International Law Discourse: The Legacy of Friedrich Carl von Savigny”. International Judicial Monitor. Accessed April 12, 2018. www.judicialmonitor.org/archive_spring2012/privateinternationallawdiscourse.html.

Edwards, Lilian. 2011. “The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy Objectives Forging Partnerships for Advancing Policy Objectives for the Internet Economy, Part II”. SSRN. Accessed April 15, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1875708.

Krupko, Svetlana. 2014. “Conflict of laws aspects of intellectual property regulation”. Khoziaistvo i pravo 11: Prilozhenie. (In Russian)

Kudashkin, Vladimir V. 2004. Actual issues of private international law. Moscow, Volters Kluver Publ. (In Russian)

Lundstedt, Lydia. 2016. Territoriality in intellectual property law: A comparative study of the interpretation and operation of the territoriality principle in the resolution of transborder intellectual property infringement disputes with respect to international civil jurisdiction, applicable law and the territorial scope of application of substantive intellectual property law in the European Union and United States. Stockholm, Stockholm University.

Lutkova, Oksana V. 2016. “Principles of legal regulation of transboundary copyright relations”. Vestnik Universiteta imeni O. E. Kutafina 12 (28): 63–92. (In Russian)

Petz, Thomas. 2012. “Ubiquitous Infringement”. Intellectual property and private international law: Comparative perspectives, 217–346. Oxford, Hart.

Ruse-Khan, Henning G. 2017. The protection of intellectual property in international law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Sergo, Anton G. 2011. The legal regime of domain names and its development in civil law. Moscow, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi institut intellektual’noi sobstvennosti Publ. (In Russian)

Shugurova, Irina V. 2010. “The territorial principle of intellectual property rights: the main trends”. Sovremennoe pravo 10: 76–81. (In Russian)

Sitdikova, Roza I., Ruslan B. Sitdikov. 2018. “Digital rights as a new kind of property rights”. Imushchestvennye otnosheniia v RF 9(204): 75–80. (In Russian)

Suspitsyna, Mariia V. 2013. Conflict of laws regulation of intellectual property relations. Moscow, Moskovskaia gosudarstvennaia iuridicheskaia akademiia Publ. (In Russian)

Terletskiy, Vasilii V. 2003. Protection of copyright and related rights when using protected objects in digital networks and multimedia products. Moscow, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi institut intellektual’noi sobstvennosti Publ. (In Russian)

Wegler, Wilhelm. 1963. “The significance of the principle of equality in the conflict of laws”. Law and Contemporary Problems 28(4): 822–859.