Sanoat mulkI huquqi tushunchasi va mohiyati
Kalit so‘zlar:
intellektual mulk, sanoat mulki obyektlari, huquqiy rejim, ixtiro, foydali model, sanoat namunasi, mutlaq huquq, sunʼiy intellekt, huquq subyekti.Annotatsiya
Maqolada sanoat mulki huquqi tushunchasi va mohiyati tahlil etilgan. Taklif etilgan tadqiqot sanoat mulki huquqi tushunchasi va mazmun-mohiyati, tatbiq etiladigan huquqiy rejim, sanoat mulki huquqiga oid munosabatlarning rivojlanish tendensiyalari haqida toʻliq maʼlumot olishga imkon beradi. Soʻnggi yillarda Oʻzbekistonda intellektual mulk obyektlarining yaratilishi va huquqiy muhofaza hujjati (patent) berilishi tendensiyasi huquq egalarining huquqlari yetarlicha himoyalanmagani bilan asoslanadi. Shu bilan birga, sanoat mulki obyektining patentga layoqatli shartlari, himoya hujjati berilishi shartlarining murakkabligi huquqiy himoyani amalga oshirishni murakkablashtiradi. Huquq egalari oʻz huquqlarini amalga oshirishda nafaqat milliy qonunchilikdan, balki xalqaro miqyosda ham himoya olish imkoniyatlaridan samarali foydalanmayapti. Sanoat mulki obyektlari rejimini aniqlash tahlili shuni koʻrsatadiki, aniq huquqiy chora-tadbirlar, mexanizmlarni qoʻllash orqali Oʻzbekistonda sanoat mulki obyektlari yetarlicha huquqiy himoya ostiga olinishi mumkin. Mazkur muammolarni huquqiy tartibga solish uchun Oʻzbekistonning intellektual mulk sohasidagi qonunchiligini xalqaro talablarga moslashtirish hamda sanoat mulki obyektiga nisbatan huquqni himoya qilishni taʼminlash kerak. Muallif ushbu masalalarning huquqiy yechimini topishda asosiy yoʻnalish axborot texnologiyalari, sunʼiy intellektdan foydalanish boʻlishi zarur, degan qatʼiy pozitsiyani koʻrsatadi. Biroq hozircha sunʼiy intellekt huquq subyekti sifatida tan olinishidan yiroqda. Shuningdek, maqolada olimlarning ilmiy nuqtayi nazarlari, innovatsion rivojlanish davrida Oʻzbekiston Respublikasi qonunchiligi strategiyasi, sanoat mulkiga doir nizolarni hal qilish masalalari atroflicha oʻrganilgan. Xulosada muallif muayyan xulosalarni ilgari suradi.
Iqtiboslar
1. Battakhov P.P. Ponyatiye i znacheniye prava promyshlennoy sobstvennosti: zakon i doktrina [The concept and meaning of industrial property law: law and doctrine]. Severo-kavkazskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik – North Caucasian Legal Bulletin, 2013, pp. 53–56.
2. Suleymanov B.B. Metodologicheskiye aspekty pravovoy doktriny. Doktrina prava [Methodological aspects of legal doctrine. Doctrine of law]. Tambov, 2009, p. 23.
3. Matveev A.G., Sinelnikova V.N. Ob`ekty intellektual’noy sobstvennosti, poluchayushiye okhranu v xxi veke [Intellectual Property Objects to be Protected in the 21st Century]. Vestnik permskogo universiteta – Bulletin of the Perm University, 2019, pp. 294–295.
4. Otero L.J.M., Fernández-Nóvoa C., Botana Agra J.M. Manual de la Propiedad Industrial. 3nd ed. Madrid, Marcial Pons, 2017, p. 781.
5. Seuba H. The global regime for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. DOI: 10.1017/9781108231510/. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms/.
6. George A. Constructing intellectual property. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139035361/. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms/.
7. Global Innovation Index 2022: Switzerland, the U.S., and Sweden lead the Global Innovation Ranking; China Approaches Top 10; India and Türkiye Ramping Up Fast; Impact-Driven Innovation Needed in Turbulent Times. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html/.
8. Frensis Garri o budushhem intellektualnoy sobstvennosti: vozmozhnosti i problemy [Francis Gurry on the Future of Intellectual Property: Opportunities and Challenges]. Technology Trends WIPO Report 2019 Abstract Artificial Intelligence. 2019, September. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/ru/wipo_pub_1055_exec_summary.pdf/.
9. Ting-Wei Ch., Xiaoping W. Innovation and patenting activities of Covid-19 vaccines in wto members: analytical review of medicines patent pool (mpp) Covid-19 vaccines patent landscape (vaxpal). Staff Working Paper, ERSD-2022-01, 2022, February 10, p. 41.
10. Patentability of inventions created by AI – the DABUS claims from an Indian perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2020. DOI: 10.1093/jiplp/jpaa146/.
11. Russell L. Parr. Intellectual property valuation, exploitation, and infringement damages. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2018, p. 651.
12. Oqyulov O. Intellektual mulkning huquqiy maqomi [Legal status of intellectual property]. Tashkent, TSUL, 2000.
13. Konseptual’no-teoreticheskiye osnovy sovremennogo grazhdanskogo kodeksa Respubliki Uzbekistan [Conceptual and theoretical foundations of the modern civil code of the Republic of Uzbekistan]. Civil legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other post-Soviet countries: past, present, future. Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference. Almaty, Research Institute of Private Law of the Caspian University, 2017, pp. 66–76.
14. Xodjayev B. Et al. Intellektual faoliyat natijalarini tijoratlashtirish va baholash [Commercialization and evaluation of the results of intellectual activity]. Tashkent, 2021,
pp. 20–21.
15. Mekhmonov K. Issues of legal regulation of relations related to information and communication technologies. Review of law sciences, 2020, p. 17.
16. Madrid (Marks) Notification, no. 169. Available at: https://wipolex.wipo.int/ru/treaties/parties/remarks/UZ/2/.
17. INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY PROTECTION Ministry of Justice. Intellectual property e-state services portal. Available at: http://my.ima.uz/.
18. U.S. Copyright Office. Available at: https://www.copyright.gov/ title17/title17.pdf/.
19. Kravchenko A.A. Pravovoy rezhim internet-sayta kak kompleksnogo ob`yekta prava intellektual’noy sobstvennosti [Legal regime of the Internet site as a complex object of intellectual property rights]. PhD thesis. Moscow, 2015, p. 214.
20. Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber 1, 2006, June 13, 02-44.718. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte= JURITEXT00000705 6062&fastReqId=257361910&fastPos=1/.
21. Kecofa/Lancôme. HR, 2006, June 16, LJN AU8940. Available at: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL :HR:2006:AU8940/.
22. Court of Cassation, civil, Commercial Chamber, December 10, 2013, 11-19.872. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&id TexteJURITEXT000028329512&fastReqId= 1235557305&fastPos=1/.
23. Biryukova I.V. Problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya biopatenta i yego sovershenstvovaniye [Problems of legal regulation of biopatent and its improvement]. PhD thesis. Tashkent, 2006, p. 175.
24. Matuzov N.I., Malko A.V. Teoriya gosudarstva i prava [Theory of Government and Rights]. Moskow, 2005, 541 p.
25. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Available at: http://www.unesco.ru/ru/?module=news&action=theme&id=116/.
26. International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. Available at: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/genome_dec.shtml/.
27. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Available at: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/bioethics_and_hr.shtml/.
28. Global IP Performance: Patent, Trademark and Design Applications Hit Record Levels in 2018. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/ru/articles/2019/article_0012.html/.
29. Report on the state of intellectual property in the world. Revolutionary innovation and economic growth. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/ru/wipo_pub_944_2015.pdf/.
30. Gorbatyuk A., Kovacs A. Patent notice (failure) in the era of patent monetization. 2022, pp. 506-542. DOI: 10.1007/s40319-022-01172-z/.
