TOVAR BELGILARINING FUQAROLIK-HUQUQIY MAQOMINI ANIQLASH MASALALARI
Kalit so‘zlar:
tovar belgisi, mutlaq huquq, domen nomi, garov, Singapur shartnomasiAnnotatsiya
Tovar belgilarining huquqiy maqomi shaxsiylashtirish vositasi sifatida tovar ishlab chiqarishda namoyon bо‘ladi. Tovar belgisiga nisbatan egalik qiluvchining huquqiy holati ham tovar belgisi maqomini aniqlashtirishda alohida ahamiyatga ega. Aynan tovar belgisiga egalik qiluvchi tovar belgisining taqdirini belgilab beradi. Boshqa holatlarda tovar belgilarining huquqiy maqomi fuqarolik-huquqiy shartnoma munosabatlarida, tovar belgisidan insofsiz raqobat sharoitida foydalanishda о‘ziga xos tartibga solish obyektiga aylanadi. Tovar belgisi shaxsiylashtirish vositasi bо‘lganligi sababli aniq bir tovar turini uning egasiga nisbatan tegishli ekanligini belgilaydi. Lekin amaldagi tovar belgilari qonunchiligida tovar belgilari maqomi masalasi aniq-ravshan belgilab berilmagan. Ayrim qonun hujjatlari esa bir-birini inkor etadi. Tovar belgilaridan shartnomaviy munosabatlarda foydalanish shartlari va tartibini belgilashda ham huquqiy analogiyani qо‘llashning imkoni yо‘q. Maqolada tovar belgilari fuqarolik-huquqiy maqomini aniqlashtirish masalalari tegishli qonun hujjatlari asosida tahlil qilingan. Yuqoridagi masalalardan kelib chiqqan holda, amaldagi qonunchilikni takomillashtirish hamda birxillashtirish bо‘yicha taklif va xulosalar keltirilgan.
Iqtiboslar
1. Wu W. The balances of two trademark rights: generation systems in Japan’s Trademark Laws. J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L., 2017, vol. 17, p. i.
2. Anuchkina A.D., Belokopytova N.Ju., Petrov V.D. Tovarnyj znak kak ob’ekt pravovoj ohrany [Trademark as an object of legal protection]. Innovation and science, 2016, no. 4 (53), p. 130.
3. Nwabueze C. Challenges of transnational trademark law practice: The Case of Nigerian companies’ brands in OAPI States. Revue générale de droit – General Review of Law, 2015, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 321-347.
4. Bagdasaryan A.A. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye aspekty okhrany sredstv individualizatsii [International legal aspects of the protection of means of individualization]. Law and practice, 2011, no. 1. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mezhdunarodno-pravove-aspekty-ohrany-sredstv-individualizatsii/ (accessed 13.04.2022).
5. Gavrilov E.P., Yeremenko V.I. Kommentariy k chasti chetvertoy Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Commentary on Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. 2009, p. 554.
6. Paksimadi Ye.E. Vozmozhnost’ priznaniya oboznacheniya obshcheizvestnym kak osnovaniye dlya dosrochnogo prekrashcheniya okhrany tovarnogo znaka [The possibility of recognizing the designation as well-known as a basis for early termination of trademark protection]. Bulletin of the University named after O.E. Kutafin, 2017, no. 6 (34). Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/vozmozhnost-priznaniya-oboznacheniya-obscheizvestnym-kak-osnovanie-dlya-dosrochnogo-prekrascheniya-ohrany-tovarnogo-znaka/ (accessed 13.04.2022).
7. Buklova A.V. Osobennosti rassmotreniya sudom po intellektual’nym pravam del o dosrochnom prekrashchenii pravovoy okhrany tovarnogo znaka vsledstviye yego neispol’zovaniya [Features of consideration by the intellectual property court of cases on early termination of the legal protection of a trademark due to its non-use]. Issues of Russian Justice, 2022, no. 17. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/osobennosti-rassmotreniya-sudom-po-intellektualnym-pravam-del-o-dosrochnom-prekraschenii-pravovoy-ohrany-tovarnogo-znaka-vsledstvie/ (accessed 13.04.2022).
8. Butenko S.V. Vvedeniye potrebitelya v zabluzhdeniye kak absolyutnoye osnovaniye dlya otkaza v predostavlenii pravovoy okhrany tovarnomu znaku [Misleading the consumer as an absolute ground for refusing to grant legal protection to a trademark]. PhD thesis. 12.00.03. Moscow, 2014.
9. Mazayev D.V. Grazhdansko-pravovaya zashchita prav na tovarnye znaki [Civil law protection of rights to trademarks]. PhD thesis. 12.00.03. Moscow, 2011, p. 93.
10. WIPO administrative treaties. Available at: https://wipolex.wipo.int/ru/treaties/ShowResults?search_what=C&treaty_id=30/.
11. Imomov N.F. Intellektual mulk huquqining yangi obyektlari [New objects of intellectual property law].Tashkent, TSIL Publ., 2011, p.141.
12. Gazarova V.S. Osobennosti dosrochnogo prekrashcheniya okhrany tovarnogo znaka [Peculiarities of early termination of trademark protection]. Bulletin of the Magistracy, 2014, no. 9 (36). Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/osobennosti-dosrochnogo-prekrascheniya-ohrany-tovarnogo-znaka/ (accessed 13.04.2022).
13. Kononenko R.O. Kollektivnyy tovarnyy znak: osobennosti pravovogo rezhima i rasporyazheniya pravom na nego [Collective trademark: features of the legal regime and disposal of the right to it]. Society and Law, 2011, no. 1 (33). Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kollektivnyy-tovarnyy-znak-osobennosti-pravovogo-rezhima-i-rasporyazheniya-pravom-na-nego/ (accessed 13.04.2022).
14. Epstein E.J. The evolution of China’s general principles of civil law. Am. J. Comp. L., 1986, vol. 34, p .705.
15. Babakulov Z.K. Tovar belgisidan foydalanishda fuqarolik-huquqiy javobgarlik masalalari [Issues of civil-legal responsibility in the use of the trademark]. Lawer herald, 2021, vol. 2, iss. 1,
pp. 32-39. DOI: 10.26739/2181-9416-2021-2-3/.
16. Babakulov Z. Teoreticheskiye i prakticheskiye aspekty zaloga isklyuchitel’nykh prav (na primere tovarnogo znaka) [Theoretical and practical aspects of the pledge of exclusive rights (by the example of a trademark)]. Review of law sciences, vol. 5, no. spec. iss., 2020, pp. 68-80.
DOI: 10.24412/2181-919X-2020-68-80/.
